ABSTRACT
The recent spurt of interest in what is coming to be termed interactional psychology (Endler & Magnusson, 1976a; Magnusson & Endler, 1977b) has stemmed from dissatisfaction with two theoretical positions. One is the attempt by clinicians and personologists to explain personality in terms of trait theory. The other may be characterized as the overemphasis by social psychologists and sociologists on the rules (folkways and mores) for behaving in specified situations. Part of this dissatisfaction is theoretical in nature and derives from those emphasizing social learning and cognition as a source of the characteristic behavior of persons (Mischel, 1973) and therapeutic behavioral change (Mahoney, 1974; Meichenbaum, 1977). Part of it has an empirical basis and derives from evidence that neither persons nor situations, objectively defined, account for much of the variance in reported behavioral and subjective indicators of such traits as anxiousness and hostility, whereas person-by-situation interactions account for a very substantial portion of the variance (Endler & Hunt, 1966, 1968, 1969; and Bowers, 1973). The person-by-situation interaction appears to represent idiosyncratic construing of situations by persons. Investigations by others have corroborated these findings (Bowers, 1973) and have extended them to other traits and to objective measures of behavioral indicators (Heffler, 1977, 1978; Heffler & Magnusson, 1978). Moreover, Magnusson and Stattin (1978a) have added evidence that the idiosyncratic cross-situational profiles have considerable stability over time.
