Describe the Role of Situational and Dispositional Factors in Explaining Behaviour By Mr Daniel Hansson

Question for Discussion 1. Consider the quotes below. What do they mean?: “All the world’s a stage. And all the men and women merely players. They have their exits and their entrances. And one man in his time plays many parts.” ”What would you have done if you were in my shoes?” 2. Think of a person that you consider to be friendly. Do you think that this person would be friendly under all circumstances? If not, when would the person not be friendly? 3. Can an untidy room affect your well being? Or a run down neighborhood, a bad childhood and economical problems? How?

Dispositional and Situational Factors of Behavior  Dispositional factors of behavior: The cause of behavior are factors occuring inside the individual (e.g. personality, childhood experience, cognitive schemas, biological factors)  Situational factors of behavior: The cause of behavior are factors occuring outside the individual (e.g. situation and context)

An official clarification from IB regarding this learning objective "Situational" will be interpreted as environment - particularly the social environment in this context. For example, in attribution theory, people will make an external attribution if there are clear, compelling situational (environmental) reasons for the behavior (this is the "discounting principle"). In bystander studies, whether there is no one else present, a few people present, or many people present - which are all situational factors, these variables all have a significant impact on behavior (e.g. will someone go to the aid of a person in need). "Dispositional" may mean personality - a person's stable characteristics. For example, in attribution theory, most people most of the time make an internal (personality) attribution for a stranger's behavior (this is the "fundamental attribution error"). In conformity studies, Asch highlighted the importance of situational variables, e.g. how many stooges were used, were the stooges unanimous in their judgment, the position in which the genuine subject responded etc., whereas Crutchfield focused on personality (dispositional) factors such as a person's competence, ego strength, narrow mindedness (etc) in explaining conformity. I think framing the issue as personality (which involves both nature and nurture) factors versus situational (environmental) factors - which are easier to quantify and manipulate - is a valid way of interpreting this outcome. Of course, it doesn't eliminate the possibility of interaction between these two factors. We will accept a very broad interpretation. Since there is no strict bifurcation between dispositional and situational factors, we have to be flexible and rely on the quality of the response. For example, tying aggression to testosterone levels, thereby arguing that males have a disposition to be more aggressive than females is an acceptable line of argument to me. However, testosterone levels can also be tied to situational factors, for example, a rise in testosterone that follows victory in a fight. A similar approach can be taken to mood. If a student makes an argument that someone who is clinically depressed behaves in a certain way due to his/her disposition, that seems a fair argument to me. If a student makes an argument that someone behaves in a certain way because they are depressed due to a recent tragic loss, that is a fair argument for a situational explanation. Teachers should interpret "dispositional factors" as relatively stable traits and behaviors, consistent across situations. It is not necessary to address personality development/theories, but it would be appropriate."