Standardized State Assessment
A Methodological Framework to Assess Person-Situation Processes in Hypothetical Situations
Abstract
Abstract: Contemporary theories of personality require psychological assessments that take person-situation processes into account. This is most commonly achieved via ambulatory assessments that sample individuals within their real-life environments. An alternative approach aims at measuring person-situation processes by incorporating hypothetical situation descriptions. However, thus far, no detailed guidelines exist on how to develop such measures so that they validly assess person-situation processes. In this article, we propose Standardized State Assessment as a methodological framework for the assessment of situation-specific states in hypothetical situations. We build on theoretical advances in personality research and previous assessment approaches to derive guidelines for a theory-driven development of hypothetical situation descriptions. We further describe how states should be measured in these situations. Finally, we propose that appropriate latent measurement models and validation strategies may help to develop assessments that are similar to real-life person-situation processes. In the first empirical example (N = 238), we demonstrate the suitability of the framework. Standardized State Assessment may offer economically advantageous alternatives for research or applied settings in which ambulatory assessments are unfeasible. Moreover, we discuss how this framework may help to answer theoretical questions on person-situation processes.
References
(2021). Person-situation dynamics in educational contexts: A self-and other-rated experience sampling study of teachers’ states, traits, and situations. European Journal of Personality, 35(4), 598–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070211005621
(2014). Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114547952
(2006). On the nature of intraindividual personality variability: Reliability, validity, and associations with well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3), 512–527. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.512
(2011). “… And how about now?”: Effects of item redundancy on contextualized self‐reports of personality. Journal of Personality, 79(5), 1081–1112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00716.x
(2009). Linking personality states, current social roles and major life goals. European Journal of Personality, 23(6), 509–530. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.731
(2018). The nonlinear interaction of person and situation (NIPS) model: Theory and empirical evidence. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 286–305. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2138
(1991). Personality and the problems of everyday life: The role of neuroticism in exposure and reactivity to daily stressors. Journal of Personality, 59(3), 355–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1991.tb00253.x
(1989). Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley.
(2022). The incremental validity of average states: A replication and extension of Finnigan and Vazire (2018). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(3), e23–e37. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000408
(2015). Measuring the evolutionarily important goals of situations: Situational affordances for adaptive problems. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(3).
(2013).
Assessing personality with situational judgment measures . In N. D. ChristiansenR. P. TettEds., Handbook of personality at work (pp. 439–456). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203526910.ch19(2014). The state of research on situational judgment tests: A content analysis and directions for future research. Human Performance, 27(4), 283–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2014.929693
(2012). Assessing the reliability of situational judgment tests used in high-stakes situations. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(3), 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2012.00604.x
(2010). Situational judgment tests: Constructs assessed and a meta‐analysis of their criterion‐related validities. Personnel Psychology, 63(1), 83–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01163.x
(2017).
Situational judgment tests for selection . In H. W. GoldsteinE. D. PulakosJ. PassmoreC. SemedoEds., The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology of recruitment, selection and employee retention (pp. 228–248). Wiley.(2018). Revealed traits: A novel method for estimating cross-cultural similarities and differences in personality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(4), 554–586. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022118757914
(2019). Complex affect dynamics add limited information to the prediction of psychological well-being. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(5), 478–491. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0555-0
(2020). Multi-faceted constructs in abnormal psychology: Implications of the bifactor s-1 model for individual clinical assessment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 48(7), 895–900. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-020-00624-9
(2017). Anomalous results in g-factor models: Explanations and alternatives. Psychological Methods, 22(3), 541–562. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000083
(1999). Do you feel better or worse? The validity of perceived deviations of mood states from mood traits. European Journal of Personality, 13(4), 283–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-0984(199907/08)13:4<283::aid-per341>3.0.co;2-0
(1979). The stability of behavior: I. On predicting most of the people much of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(7), 1097–1126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.7.1097
(2018). The incremental validity of average state self-reports over global self-reports of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(2), 321–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000136
(2012). Using experience sampling methodology in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(7), 865–877. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1803
(2001). Toward a structure-and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 1011–1027. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.1011
(2007). Situation-based contingencies underlying trait-content manifestation in behavior. Journal of Personality, 75(4), 825–862. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00458.x
(2009). The implications of big-five standing for the distribution of trait manifestation in behavior: Fifteen experience-sampling studies and a meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1097–1114. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016786
(2015). Whole trait theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.10.009
(2015). Trait enactments as density distributions: The role of actors, situations, and observers in explaining stability and variability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1090–1104. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039517
(2008). The end of the person-situation debate: An emerging synthesis in the answer to the consistency question. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(4), 1667–1684. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00122.x
(2021). On the construct-related validity of implicit trait policies. European Journal of Personality, 37(1), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070211056901
(2020). Is it all in the eye of the beholder? The importance of situation construal for situational judgment test performance. Personnel Psychology, 73(4), 669–700. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12385
(2023). Standardized state assessment: A methodological framework to assess person-situation processes in hypothetical situations [Data, Materials]. https://osf.io/g73ar/
(2016). Taking situations seriously: The situation construal model and the Riverside Situational Q-Sort. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(3), 203–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416635552
(2004). Situational similarity and behavioral consistency: Subjective, objective, variable-centered, and person-centered approaches. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(5), 421–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2003.10.001
(2020).
Latent variable modeling of person-situation data . In J. F. RauthmannR. A. ShermanD. C. FunderEds., The Oxford handbook of psychological situations (pp. 230–252). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190263348.013.15(2015). Analyzing person, situation and person × situation interaction effects: Latent state-trait models for the combination of random and fixed situations. Psychological Methods, 20(2), 165–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000026
(2012). A comparison of four approaches to account for method effects in latent state–trait analyses. Psychological Methods, 17(2), 255–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026977
(2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007
(2020). A general response process theory for situational judgment tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(8), 819–862. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000468
(2017). On designing construct driven situational judgment tests: Some preliminary recommendations. International Journal of Testing, 17(3), 234–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2017.1297817
(2016). In defense of the situation: An interactionist explanation for performance on situational judgment tests. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 9(1), 23–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.110
(2007). The dynamics of personality states, goals, and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(6), 898–910. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207301010
(2018). A latent state-trait model for analyzing states, traits, situations, method effects, and their interactions. Journal of Personality, 87(3), 434–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12400
(2019). Testing the structure and process of personality using ambulatory assessment data: An overview of within-person and person-specific techniques. Psychological Assessment, 31(4), 432–443. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000562
(2021).
Experience sampling and daily diary studies: Basic concepts, designs, and challenges . In J. F. RauthmannEd., The handbook of personality dynamics and processes (pp. 791–814). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813995-0.00030-3(2021a). Distinguishing simple and residual consistency in functionally equivalent and non-equivalent situations: Evidence from experimental and observational longitudinal data. European Journal of Personality, 35(6), 833–860. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070211014029
(2021b). Unveiling an exclusive link: Predicting behavior with personality, situation perception, and affect in a preregistered experience sampling study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(5), 1317–1343. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000357
(2020). Assessing personality states: What to consider when constructing personality state measures. European Journal of Personality, 34(6), 1037–1059. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2266
(2016). The internal structure of situational judgement tests reflects candidate main effects: Not dimensions or situations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 90(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12151
(2019). Whole trait theory: An integrative approach to examining personality structure and process. Personality and Individual Differences, 136, 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.06.045
(2017). Personality and density distributions of behavior, emotions, and situations. Journal of Research in Personality, 69, 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.10.006
(2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: The day reconstruction method. Science, 306(5702), 1776–1780. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1103572
(2005). Incorporating if… Then… Personality signatures in person perception: Beyond the person-situation dichotomy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4), 605–618. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.605
(2006). From the subjects’ point of view. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22(3), 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.22.3.168
(2018). Explaining general and specific factors in longitudinal, multimethod, and bifactor models: Some caveats and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 505–523. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000146
(2019). Experimental test validation: Examining the path from test elements to test performance. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 35(2), 225–232. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000393
(2015). How “situational” is judgment in situational judgment tests? Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037674
(1999). A meta-analysis of the situational interview: An enumerative review of reasons for its validity. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 40(1), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0086826
(2017a). Assessing personality-situation interplay in personnel selection: Toward more integration into personality research. European Journal of Personality, 31(5), 424–440. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2111
(2017b). Construct-driven SJTs: Toward an agenda for future research. International Journal of Testing, 17(3), 269–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2017.1309857
(2006). Large-scale investigation of the role of trait activation theory for understanding assessment center convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.247
(2008). A closer look at the frame-of-reference effect in personality scale scores and validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(8), 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.268
(2018). The predictive power of people’s intraindividual variability across situations: Implementing whole trait theory in assessment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(7), 753–771. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000280
(2016). Situational judgment tests: From measures of situational judgment to measures of general domain knowledge. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 9(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.71
(2008). Situational judgment tests: A review of recent research. Personnel Review, 37(4), 426–441. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480810877598
(2006). Video-based versus written situational judgment tests: A comparison in terms of predictive validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1181–1188. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1181
(2021).
Situational judgment tests: From low-fidelity simulations to alternative measures of personality and the person-situation interplay . In D. WoodP. HarmsS. ReadA. SlaughterEds., Measuring and modeling persons and situations (pp. 285–311). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819200-9.00017-X(2021). A direct comparison of the day reconstruction method (DRM) and the experience sampling method (ESM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(3), 816–835. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000289
(2021). A process model of situational judgment test responding. Human Resource Management Review, 31(2), Article
100731 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100731(2007). Situational judgment tests, response instructions, and validity: A meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60(1), 63–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00065.x
(2001). Use of situational judgment tests to predict job performance: A clarification of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 730–740. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.730
(2001). Situational judgment tests: A review of practice and constructs assessed. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1–2), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00167
(2016). Why situational judgment is a missing component in the theory of SJTs. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 9(1), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.111
(2010). A review and synthesis of situational strength in the organizational sciences. Journal of Management, 36(1), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309349309
(1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80, 252–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035002
(1977).
The interaction of person and situation . In D. MagnussonN. S. EndlerEds., Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–352). Erlbaum.(2002). Situation-behavior profiles as a locus of consistency in personality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 50–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00166
(1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102(2), 246–268. https://doi.org/1995-25136-001
(1998). Reconciling processing dynamics and personality dispositions. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 229–258. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.229
(1990). An alternative selection procedure: The low-fidelity simulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 640–647. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.6.640
(1996). Toward an interactionist taxonomy of personality and situations: An integrative situational – Dispositional representation of personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.193
(2018). Situational judgment tests as an alternative measure for personality assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 34(5), 328–335. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000346
(2017). Assessing personality traits in specific situations: What situational judgment tests can and cannot do. European Journal of Personality, 31(5), 475–476. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2119
(2018). Modeling intraindividual variability in three-level multilevel models. Methodology, 14(3), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000150
(2019). Situational judgment tests as a method for measuring personality: Development and validity evidence for a test of dependability. PLoS One, 14(2), Article
e0211884 . https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211884(2015). Methods matter: Testing competing models for designing short-scale big-five assessments. Journal of Research in Personality, 59, 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.09.001
(2018). Development and validation of a HEXACO situational judgment test. Human Performance, 32(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2018.1539856
(2016). CAPTION-ing the situation: A lexically-derived taxonomy of psychological situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(4), 642–681. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000111
(2006). Personality and team performance: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality, 20(5), 377–396. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.588
(2012). You say the party is dull, I say it is lively: A componential approach to how situations are perceived to disentangle perceiver, situation, and perceiver× situation variance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(5), 519–528. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611427609
(2015). Structuring situational information. A road map of the multiple pathways to different situational taxonomies. European Psychologist, 20(3), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000225
(2014). The situational eight DIAMONDS: A taxonomy of major dimensions of situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(4), 677–718. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037250
(2019). Do self-reported traits and aggregated states capture the same thing? A nomological perspective on trait-state homomorphy. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(5), 596–611. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618774772
(2016). Directionality of person-situation transactions: Are there spillovers among and between situation experiences and personality states? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(7), 893–909. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216647360
(2015). Principles of situation research: Towards a better understanding of psychological situations. European Journal of Personality, 29(3), 363–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1994
(2015). Personality-driven situation experience, contact, and construal: How people’s personality traits predict characteristics of their situations in daily life. Journal of Research in Personality, 55, 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.02.003
(2008). Reinvigorating the concept of situation in social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(4), 311–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308321721
(2019). Model-based manifest and latent composite scores in structural equation models. Collabra: Psychology, 5(1), Article
9 . https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.143(2019). Can people recognize their implicit thoughts? The motive self-categorization test. Psychological Assessment, 31(7), 939–951. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000720
(2007). What modifies the expression of personality tendencies? Defining basic domains of situation variables. Journal of Personality, 75(3), 479–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00446.x
(2020). Effects of situation descriptions on the construct-related validity of construct-driven situational judgment tests. Journal of Research in Personality, 87, Article
103963 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2020.103963(2020). Removing situation descriptions from situational judgment test items: Does the impact differ for video-based versus text-based formats? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 93(2), 472–494. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12297
(2019, May). Which kind of situational information is needed to make situational judgment tests situational? 19th European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology (EAWOP) Congress, Turin, Italy.
(2020). The role of situations in situational judgment tests: Effects on construct saturation, predictive validity, and applicant reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(8), 800–818. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000457
(2017). Constructing subtests using ant colony optimization (Doctoral dissertation). Freie Universität Berlin. https://doi.org/10.17169/refubium-622
(2021). Hidden framings and hidden asymmetries in the measurement of personality–A combined lens-model and frame-of-reference perspective. Journal of Personality, 89(2), 357–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12586
(2015). The independent effects of personality and situations on real-time expressions of behavior and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(5), 872–888. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000036
(2008). Ecological momentary assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415
(2021).
Assessing personality dynamics in personnel selection . In J. F. RauthmannEd., The handbook of personality dynamics and processes (pp. 1139–1157). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813995-0.00044-3(1992). States and traits in psychological assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 8(2), 79–98.
(1990). The effects of aggregation across and within occasions on consistency, specificity and reliability. Methodika, 4, 58–94.
(1999). Latent state–trait theory and research in personality and individual differences. European Journal of Personality, 13(5), 389–408. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-0984(199909/10)13:5<389::aid-per361>3.0.co;2-a
(2019). Do people know what they’re like in the moment? Psychological Science, 30(3), 405–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/095679761881847
(1999). Taxonomies of situations from a trait psychological perspective. A review. European Journal of Personality, 13(5), 337–360. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-0984(199909/10)13:5<337::aid-per363>3.0.co;2-f
(2001). The construction of a joint taxonomy of traits and situations. European Journal of Personality, 15(4), 253–276. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.410
(2002). The structure of situations from a personality perspective. European Journal of Personality, 16(2), 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.435
(2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(4), 397–423. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2000.2292
(2021). Trait activation theory: A review of the literature and applications to five lines of personality dynamics research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 8(1), 199–233. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-062228
(2013). Ambulatory assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 151–176. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185510
(2020). Ambulatory assessment in psychopathology research: A review of recommended reporting guidelines and current practices. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 129(1), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000473
(1994). The big five as tendencies in situations. Personality and Individual Differences, 16(5), 715–731. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)90213-5
(2019). A review of current ambulatory assessment studies in adolescent samples and practical recommendations. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 29(3), 560–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12471
(2015). Low-fidelity simulations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 295–322. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111304
(2006).
An introduction to situational judgment testing . In J. A. WeekleyR. E. PloyhartEds., Situational judgment tests. Theory, measurement and application (pp. 1–11). Erlbaum.(2006).
On the development of situational judgment tests: Issues in item development, scaling, and scoring . In J. A. WeekleyR. E. PloyhartEds., Situational judgment tests: Theory, measurement, and application (pp. 157–182). Erlbaum.(2009). Estimating trait and situational variance in a situational judgment test. Human Performance, 22(1), 44–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959280802540999
(2020). What’s in an adjective? Journal of Individual Differences, 41(3), 152–159. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000316
(2017). Are fluctuations in personality states more than fluctuations in affect? Journal of Research in Personality, 69, 110–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.06.006
(1988).
Multivariate reliability theory . In J. R. NesselroadeR. B. CattellEds., Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (pp. 505–560). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-0893-5_16(2019). Applied ambulatory assessment: Integrating idiographic and nomothetic principles of measurement. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1467–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000685
(2021).
Modeling the mind: Assessment of if…then…profiles as a window to shared psychological processes and individual differences . In D. WoodS. J. ReadP. D. HarmsA. SlaughterEds., Measuring and modeling persons and situations (pp. 145–192). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2018-0-04446-1(2014). Stop and state your intentions!. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30(4), 239–242. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000228
(2019). Personality in situations: Going beyond the OCEAN and introducing the Situation Five. Psychological Assessment, 31(4), 567–580. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000654
(2019). Integrating structure and dynamics in personality assessment: First steps toward the development and validation of a personality dynamics diary. Psychological Assessment, 31(4), 516–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000625
