Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Under the controversy of person–situation debate, situationism is the theory that changes in human behavior are factors of the situation rather than the traits a person possesses. [1] Behavior is believed to be influenced by external, situational factors rather than internal traits or motivations .
The tendency for some people, especially those with depression, to overestimate the likelihood of negative things happening to them. (compare optimism bias) Present bias: The tendency of people to give stronger weight to payoffs that are closer to the present time when considering trade-offs between two future moments. [111] Plant blindness
People's pattern of variability is the behavioral signature of their personality, or their stable pattern of behaving differently in various situations. According to this model, personality depends on situation variables, and consists of cognitive-affective units (all those psychological, social, and physiological aspects of people that allow ...
The person–situation debate in personality psychology refers to the controversy concerning whether the person or the situation is more influential in determining a person's behavior. Personality trait psychologists believe that a person's personality is relatively consistent across situations. [ 1 ]
The psychological literature has distinguished between several different forms of ambivalence. [4] One, often called subjective ambivalence or felt ambivalence, represents the psychological experience of conflict (affective manifestation), mixed feelings, mixed reactions (cognitive manifestation), and indecision (behavioral manifestation) in the evaluation of some object.
Circumstantial ad hominem – stating that the arguer's personal situation or perceived benefit from advancing a conclusion means that their conclusion is wrong. [73] Poisoning the well – a subtype of ad hominem presenting adverse information about a target person with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says. [74]
In the case of upward counterfactual thinking, people tend to feel more negative feelings (e.g., regret, disappointment) about the situation. When thinking in this manner, people focus on ways that the situation could have turned out more positively: for example, "If only I had studied more, then I wouldn't have failed my test". [16]
Soon after the publication of the actor–observer hypothesis, numerous research studies tested its validity, most notably the first such test in 1973 by Nisbett et al. [14] The authors found initial evidence for the hypothesis, [14] and so did Storms, [15] who also examined one possible explanation of the hypothesis: actors explain their behaviors because they attend to the situation (not to ...