Situational Strength

by

JeongJin Kim, Mina Son, Reeshad S. Dalal

• LAST MODIFIED: 24 October 2024
• DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199828340-0327

Introduction

Situational strength—defined as signals or cues from sources external to a person regarding the desirability versus undesirability of various forms of behavior by that person in a particular situation—has been studied primarily in social psychology, personality psychology, industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology, and management (i.e., organizational behavior and human resources, or OBHR). Traditional situational strength theory posits that situational cues that characterize strong (vs. weak) situations restrict (vs. permit) variability in the behavior of people in those situations. As a result, the effect of personality traits on behavior is weakened in strong situations. For example, a formal office dress code (a strong situation) leads everyone to dress similarly, regardless of personality; conversely, on “casual Fridays,” there is greater variability in dress code and people’s personality will influence what they wear. The research literature documents evidence for this restriction of behavioral variability in the form of moderation of situational strength in trait–behavior relationships. In the following sections, this article introduces historical accounts of situational strength research, foundational works that contributed to situational strength theory, statistical approaches to studying situational strength, relevant empirical findings in and out of the workplace, and what might be regarded as the “opposite” of situational strength, namely, personality strength.

History

This section provides an overview of the 20th-century history of situational strength theorizing. Initially conceptualized in Weber 1978 (originally published in 1922) and Forehand and Von Haller 1964, situational strength was identified as a factor in which social and business organizations systematically constrained members’ behavioral variations through their procedures or climates. However, it was Walter Mischel in Mischel 1968, Mischel 1973, and Mischel 1977 who is typically associated with the concept of situational strength due to his theoretical work that eventually resulted in the cognitive-affective processing (or personality) system. Mischel contended that behavior exhibits greater predictability in weak situations than in strong situations. The impact of strong situations on behaviors was exemplified in Stanley Milgram’s obedience studies in Milgram 1963 and Milgram 1965. Subsequently, Snyder and Ickes 1985 recognized situational strength as a crucial moderating variable in the expression of personality from the person-situation interactional perspective on human behaviors. The role of situational strength was further discussed in organizational research. For instance, Weiss and Adler 1984 argues for the moderating role of situational strength in personality–work outcome relationships at the individual level, whereas Mullins and Cummings 1999 focuses on the organization-level effect.

• Forehand, G. A., and G. Von Haller. 1964. Environmental variation in studies of organizational behavior. Psychological Bulletin 62.6: 361–382.

  DOI: 10.1037/h0045960

  A conceptual article that examines measurements, dimensions, and effects of organizational climate and highlights the importance of defining stimuli, constraining freedom, and providing rewards and punishments in determining the impact of organizational climate on behaviors. This article served as one of the earliest conceptualizations of situational strength. Available online by purchase or subscription.

• Milgram, S. 1963. Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67.4: 371–378.

  DOI: 10.1037/h0040525

  An experimental study utilizing the classic “electric shock” paradigm that demonstrates that the majority of individuals, despite their experience of intense and nervous tension, exhibit obedient uniform behaviors (i.e., administering high [fake] electric shocks on a confederate victim) under a strong situation (i.e., being instructed by an authority). Available online by purchase or subscription.

• Milgram, S. 1965. Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations 18:57–76.

  DOI: 10.1177/001872676501800105

  An experimental study that investigates obedience in various conditions using the “electric shock” paradigm and demonstrates the emergence of uniform behavior, that is, obedience, under strong experimental situations even when subjects experience internal conflict and disapproval. Available online by purchase or subscription.

• Mischel, W. 1968. Personality and assessment. New York: John Wiley.

  A seminal book contending that behavior is predicted well not by personality traits but rather by the situation and, in particular, by what behavior is reinforced in the situation (i.e., situational strength). When no behavior is reinforced in the situation (i.e., weak situation), behavior is predicted by past behavior in similar situations (not precisely analogous to personality traits), which itself is determined by one’s reinforcement history.

• Mischel, W. 1973. Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review 80.4: 252–283.

  DOI: 10.1037/h0035002

  A conceptual forerunner to the cognitive-affective processing system (CAPS) theory (Mischel and Shoda 1995) that views the person as a meaning-maker, personality as situation-behavior contingencies, and weak situations as occasions when personality predicts behavior. Available online by purchase or subscription.

• Mischel, W. 1977. The interaction of person and situation. In Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology. Edited by D. Magnusson and N. S. Endler, 333–352. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  An influential book chapter that provides an early conceptualization of situational strength, laying a foundational framework for subsequent research in the field (also cited under Situational Strength Theory).

• Mischel, W. 2009. From Personality and Assessment (1968) to personality science, 2009. Journal of Research in Personality 43.2: 282–290.

  DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.037

  Walter Mischel’s reflective article that reviewed the personality framework development from Mischel 1968 to the CAPS theory (Mischel and Shoda 1995) to the current personality science. It provides the broader context in which situational strength was introduced, including the situation-person debate, its potential resolution, and subsequent framework advancement. Available online by purchase or subscription.

• Mischel, W., and Y. Shoda. 1995. A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualising situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review 102.2: 246–268.

  DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.246

  A seminal article that proposes the CAPS theory, which explains cross-situational variability in individual differences by assuming that situational features activate interactions among available cognitive-affective units (e.g., encodings, expectancies and beliefs, affect, goals and values, and competencies) and that, over time, the relationships among the cognitive-affective units generate one’s personality system or situation–behavior profiles (i.e., if… then…). Available online by purchase or subscription.

• Mullins, J. W., and L. L. Cummings. 1999. Situational strength–a framework for understanding the role of individuals in initiating proactive strategic change. Journal of Organizational Change Management 12.6: 462–479.

  DOI: 10.1108/09534819910300846

  A conceptual article that builds a situational strength framework based on attributes of decision makers and situational characteristics that would influence firm-level strategic changes. It proposes a greater role for individual differences in organizational strategic changes under weak situations, while identifying antecedents of situational strength at the organization level. Available online by purchase or subscription.

• Snyder, M., and W. Ickes. 1985. Personality and social behavior. In Handbook of social psychology. 3d ed. Edited by G. Lindzey and E. Aronson, 883–948. New York: Random House.

  A book chapter that critically examines dispositional, interactional, and situational strategies for studying personality and social behaviors, while highlighting situational strength as the most important situational moderating variable for the personality–behavior relationship and providing implications of situational strength for experimental methods.

• Weber, M. 1978. Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.

  Originally published in 1922. An influential book in the social sciences that discusses social structures, normative orders, and economic actions. Describing bureaucracies as “iron cages,” it delineates these structures as rational, rule-based procedures that clarify expectations and reduce individual discretion to enhance efficiency. This notion served as early theorizing involving situational strength.

• Weiss, H. M., and S. Adler. 1984. Personality and organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior 6: 1–50.

  A book chapter that reviews the role of personality in explaining organizational behavior and associated conceptual and methodological challenges at that time, emphasizing situational strength as a critical factor when studying personality-work outcome linkages in laboratory and real-world settings.