See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340278579

The Situation of Situation Research: Knowns and Unknowns

Article in Current Directions in Psychological Science · March 2020

DOI: 10.1177/0963721420925546

CITATIONS READS
47 1,394

2 authors:

John F. Rauthmann Ryne A Sherman

Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich Hogan Assessment Systems
168 PUBLICATIONS 6,027 CITATIONS 92 PUBLICATIONS 4,328 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by John F. Rauthmann on 30 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Knowns and Unknowns in Situation Research 1

Running Head: KNOWNS AND UNKNOWNS IN SITUATION RESEARCH

The Situation of Situation Research:

Knowns and Unknowns

John F. Rauthmann1 & Ryne A. Sherman2

1
Bielefeld University (Germany)
2
Hogan Assessment Systems

Accepted version (before copy-editing) in

Current Directions in Psychological Science

(Version Date: March 30, 2020)

Author Notes

Address correspondence to: John F. Rauthmann, Universität Bielefeld, Abteilung Psychologie,

Universitätsstraße 25, Gebäude X, Raum X-B2-225, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany.

Email: jfrauthmann@gmail.com.
 Knowns and Unknowns in Situation Research 2

Abstract

Over the past 15 years, research on the assessment of psychological situations has flourished. As

a result, many basic questions about psychological situations have been answered. We discuss

the theoretical and empirical studies that answered these questions, including what situations are;

how they can be characterized, taxonomized, and measured; how they relate to person variables;

and how persons navigate situations. Thus, this article first summarizes the “Knowns” of

psychological situation research, and then proceeds to chart the “Unknowns” that have yet to be

examined. We conclude with an agenda for future situation research.

Keywords: situations, environments, person-situation relations

 Knowns and Unknowns in Situation Research 3

Every thought, feeling, desire, and behavior is embedded in a situation. Although

situations have been a core concept of psychological theories for decades, little empirical

research had been conducted prior to 2005. Over the past 15 years, research on the assessment of

situations has flourished making it possible to understand and study situations better than before

(Funder, 2016; Rauthmann et al., 2015a). Consequently, many basic questions about situations

have now been effectively answered (Rauthmann et al., 2020a). However, few researchers

outside of this research area seem to be aware of these recent advances. This paper compiles

conceptual and empirical studies that have brought (largely) conclusive evidence to basic

questions about situations, which are: (a) what constitutes a situation, (b) in what ways can

situational information be taxonomized, (c) what are the major psychological characteristics of

situations, (d) in what ways can situations be measured, (e) how do situation variables relate to

person variables, and (f) how do persons transition from one situation to another. After reviewing

the “Knowns,” we raise attention to “Unknowns” by highlighting what questions remain

unresolved and thereby carve out a future agenda for psychological situation research.

The Knowns

What is a situation?

Defining what exactly a situation is has been a thorny issue in social psychology and

beyond (Reis, 2008). Complicating the matter further, different terminology (e.g., occurrence,

situation, episode, life event, environment, context) is used haphazardly and interchangeably,

creating jingle and jangle fallacies surrounding terms that obfuscate the literature. To provide

some clarity, we compile different key concepts in Table 1 (based on Rauthmann et al., 2015b).

This paper is more narrowly concerned with situations, but of course they need to be viewed in

concert with other associated concepts.

 Knowns and Unknowns in Situation Research 4

Table 1
Overview of Different Concepts
Term Duration, Stability, and Abstraction Example
Occurrence –– Being welcomed by a friend at a party
Situation – Birthday party
Episode + Being welcomed, introduced, handed a drink
Environment + + College dorms; friend network
Context +++ USA; 21st century
Note. Inspired from Rauthmann et al. (2015b), Table 2.
“–” means less, and “+” means more.
The term “environment” may also be referred to as “niche” (e.g., in evolutionary literature).
The term “event,” especially used as “life event” in developmental literature, is a particularly important,
impactful, or consequential occurrence, situation, or episode.

One coherent way to conceptualize situations is in terms of different kinds of information

they offer (Rauthmann, 2015; Rauthmann et al., 2015a). In this perspective, a situation is a set of

fleeting, dynamic, and momentary circumstances that do not lie within a person (i.e., they are

neither own mental processes nor own behavior), but in their surroundings. The situation consists

of objectively quantifiable stimuli, so-called cues (e.g., illumination, temperature, noise, persons

in a room, trees, animals, books, etc.), that may be perceived and interpreted by a person,

yielding psychological situation characteristics (e.g., whether work needs to be done, how

intellectually stimulating a situation is, etc.). Different situations may be grouped together into

classes (e.g., medical situations, travel situations, happy situations, etc.) based on their

similarities regarding cues and/or characteristics. Thus, different kinds of situational information

– cues, characteristics, and classes – provide a lens to define situations.

In which ways can situational information be taxonomized?

The literature has repeatedly called for a “taxonomy of situations,” but as the previous

section should have made clear, there can be, in fact, different taxonomies depending on which

situational information is being taxonomized. Indeed, there already is taxonomic research on

cues, characteristics, and classes (for an overview, see Table 1 in Rauthmann et al., 2020b).
 Knowns and Unknowns in Situation Research 5

While the taxonomization of characteristics has seen a surge of publications in the last decade

(see later), research on cues and classes has not yet established any replicable, or agreed upon,

structures or lists. However, two approaches seem particularly promising and most inclusive.

First, Noftle and Gust (2015) summarized cue-related “w-questions” (Who? What?

Where? When? Saucier et al., 2007) in the acronym of PEARLS: persons (other persons), events

(anything happening), activities (what others are doing), roles (social and formal roles of

people), location (space and time), and states (mental states of the self and others), though the

latter should not be considered proper situation cues (Rauthmann et al., 2015a). Second, van

Heck (1984) identified 10 classes of situations: interpersonal conflict, joint working and

information exchange, intimacy and interpersonal relations, recreation, traveling, rituals, sport,

excesses, serving, and trading. While valuable, little has been done to follow up on these ideas

and insights.

What are the major psychological characteristics of situations?

When researchers are interested in psychological situations (Funder, 2016), then they less

likely focus on cues or classes but on characteristics that, containing psychologically important

interpretations and meanings, are the perceived qualities or attributes of situations.

Characteristics allow for a differential psychology of situations where each situation can be

described and compared on continuous dimensions. Naturally, researchers want to know which

dimensions these would be. An early assessment method, the Riverside Situational Q-Sort (RSQ;

Sauerberger & Funder, 2020), features between 81 to 90 items (in its different versions) to assess

situation characteristics. However, it was neither clear to what extent these items were

comprehensive or exhaustive nor which higher-order factors they may contain. Later work

sought to address these issues partly, as we now review.

 Knowns and Unknowns in Situation Research 6

As summarized in Figure 1, seven taxonomies of situation characteristics emerged in the

last decade (Brown et al., 2015; Gerpott et al., 2018; Griffo & Colvin, 2019; Oreg et al., in press;

Parrigon et al., 2018; Rauthmann et al., 2014; Ziegler et al., 2019), all developed independently

from each other with different approaches, levels of theory involvement, item pools, samples,

and data-analytical strategies (though most of them subscribed to factor-analytical techniques).

They have in common, though, that they produced psychometrically validated assessment tools

to measure the proposed dimensions. Although they differ in the number and labels of

dimensions, it is striking that a six-factor solution – tentatively referred to here as the “Replicable

Six” – seems to materialize from empirical and conceptual overlaps between the different

dimensions (see Rauthmann et al., 2020b). These may be:

● I (Threat: Does the situation pose a threat, problem, obstacle, risk, or danger to me or others?)

● II (Stress: Does the situation yield distress or frustration?)

● III (Tasks: Does the situation involve tasks, work, or jobs that need to be done?)

● IV (Processing: Does the situation call for intellectual engagement?)

● V (Fun: Does the situation allow for a good time?)

● VI (Mundaneness: Does the situation involve routine, automaticity, or repetition?)

Notably, the first five dimensions correspond in content quite well to “Big Five”

personality traits (i.e., disagreeableness, neuroticism, conscientiousness, intellect, extraversion).

There may be different reasons for this content convergence between person and situation

perception dimensions, such as that (a) people form perceptions of situations as if they were

coherent entities, leading to similar judgment patterns (Rauthmann & Sherman, 2019); (b)

human perception modules for judging persons and situations have evolved similarly, and the

same cognitive and effective mechanisms apply for both person and situation perception
 Knowns and Unknowns in Situation Research 7

(Nystedt, 1981); and/or (c) people understand situations in terms of the persons present, their

personalities, and their social effects (Asendorpf, 2020). That somewhat similar six domains

seem to repeatedly emerge could mean that we are progressing towards a consensual and

reasonably comprehensive taxonomy of situation characteristics dimensions. Nonetheless, the

exact structure of situation characteristics remains to be explored, and the relations in Figure 1

still need to be seen as heuristically positioning dimensions into a common structure (see

Unknowns).
 Knowns and Unknowns in Situation Research 8

Figure 1. Overview of Major Dimensions in Situation Characteristics Taxonomies and Possible Common Structure

Empirical Lexical Theoretical

DIAMONDS B5 Framework CAPTION Situation 5 Situation Six SAAP SIS

Adversity Negative Valence Psych. & Phys. Load Oddness Disease Avoidance Conflict
Dominance
I Aggression
Deception Information Certainty

Power

Negativity Negative Affect Adversity Negativity Self-Protection

II
Cognitive Load Demandingness

III Duty Achievement Importance Outcome-Expectancy Straightforwardness Future Interdependence

IV Intellect Situation Strength Complexity Cognitive Load

Mate Seeking

Mating Mate Retention

V pOsitivity Positive Valence Briskness Positivity Affiliation

Positive Affect
Affiliation
Sociality Humor Kin Care Interdependence

Status

VI Typicality Lack of Stimuli Familarity

 Knowns and Unknowns in Situation Research 9

Note. Adapted from https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/M3R6M (2019, licensed under CC-BY 4.0).

Empirical = taxonomy was created bottom-up (data-driven, e.g., via factor analyses). Lexical = taxonomy was created with adjectives as
descriptors of situations’ characteristics. Theory = taxonomy was created based on a theory.
DIAMONDS: Rauthmann et al. (2014). B5 (Big Five) Framework: Griffo & Colvin (2019). CAPTION (with English adjectives): Parrigon et al.
(2018). Situation 5 (with German adjectives): Ziegler et al. (2019). Situation Six (with Hebrew adjectives): Oreg et al. (in press). SAAP
(Situational Affordances for Adaptive Problems; use of evolutionary theory): Brown et al. (2015). SIS (Situational Interdependence Scale; use of
interdependence theory): Gerpott et al. (2018).
Some dimensions have been aligned based on their empirical correlations with each other as each taxonomy has been associated with the
DIAMONDS taxonomy. Others have been inferred based on conceptual overlaps as well as implied empirical correlations (e.g., if A is correlated
with B, and B is correlated with C, then A and C should also be correlated to some extent). However, many overlaps and the overall six-factor
structure are still speculative and await empirical investigation. Future research will have to examine the exact position of each dimensions (and
taxonomy) within the proposed super-structure.
Domains I to VI denote the tentative “Replicable Six”: I = Threat, II = Stress, III = Tasks, IV = Processing, V = Fun, VI = Mundaneness. The
labels chosen here are preliminary.
 Knowns and Unknowns in Situation Research 10

In what ways can situations be measured?

Cues can be measured objectively (e.g., via cameras, microphones, life-logging systems,

sensors; e.g., Brown et al., 2017) or subjectively (e.g., inquiring about perceived or remembered

cues from participants). Characteristics, as the perceived attributes of situations, can only be

measured by asking participants – for example, those directly in the situation and affected by it

(in situ raters), those merely observing the situation unfold without being directly implicated

(juxta situm raters), and those observing recordings or coding verbal descriptions of others’

situations (ex situ raters ) – about how they would describe situations (Rauthmann et al., 2015a).

Classes can be measured directly by asking participants in what kind or type of situation they

were in or indirectly by classifying cues or characteristics data (e.g., with cluster analyses).

Regardless of which situational information is studied, participants are often asked to

judge the situation. Rauthmann et al. (2015a) have raised concerns about a common practice

here: having each participant rate “their” situation and using only that rating as a situation

variable. In such a scenario, the situation rating is merely a person variable, namely a perception.

Thus, if one wanted to study how states (e.g., momentary mental processes and behavior) related

to situation characteristics, then this practice would entail studying state-state relations (because

situation perceptions are essentially just perceptual states of a person) instead of state-

characteristic relations. This is a common problem in situation research (e.g., in Sherman et al.,

2015) that has only been addressed in a handful of recent studies (e.g., Rauthmann et al., 2015c;

Rauthmann & Sherman, 2019). It has been argued that a “true” situational variable would be best

approximated from multiple sources by aggregating ratings by different raters (in situ, juxta

situm, ex situ). Thus, one best practice recommendation is to employ multiple raters for the same

situation. This does not only allow the creation of aggregated composite scores but also the
 Knowns and Unknowns in Situation Research 11

disentangling of different concepts, such as the raw in situ rating reflecting situation experience,

aggregated ex situ ratings reflecting situation contact, and raw in situ ratings controlled for ex

situ ratings reflecting unique situation construals (Rauthmann et al., 2015c). If experimental data

are gathered where each participant observes or reacts to the same set of multiple situations (e.g.,

in vignettes, different rooms, or virtual reality), then variations in participants’ ratings of the

characteristics of those situations (e.g., how intellectually stimulating they are) can be

decomposed into variance stemming from different perceivers, situations, and perceiver ×

situation interactions (plus error) (for details, see Rauthmann & Sherman, 2019). In such a full-

block design, the situation effects could be deemed “pure” measures of the situations’

characteristics because they are ridded from any other variance sources.

How do situation variables relate to person variables?

That an outcome variable (e.g., behavior) is a function of both person and situation

variables (encapsulated in Kurt Lewin’s now iconic formula) has become a truism. However,

person and situation variables can show quite different relations, and it is important to make the

function(s) relating them to each other and to other variables (outcomes) explicit. Figure 2

attempts to bring clarity into distinct concepts that have unfortunately all been lumped together

under the term “person-situation interactions.” As can be seen, three basic person-situation

relation phenomena can be distinguished: correlations (person and situation variables are

concurrently associated with each other), interactions (a situation variable moderates the strength

of relation between a person variable and an outcome variable, and vice versa), and transactions

(person variables predict situation variables, and situation variables predict person variables,

across time). A fourth concept not specifically depicted in Figure 2 is the fit between person and

situation variables which can be seen as a special case of either correlation or interaction (see
 Knowns and Unknowns in Situation Research 12

Rauthmann, forthcoming). How single or entire profiles of variables of persons and situations

“match” together (functionally or contentwise) may have consequences for intrapersonal (e.g.,

mental health, well-being, life-satisfaction, self-esteem) and interpersonal adjustment (e.g.,

status, popularity), and thus person-situation fit can be seen as a linchpin concept in psychology

(Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2011; Rauthmann, forthcoming). The four person-situation relations

concepts may be related, but they need to be kept conceptually separate. Certainly, they each

require different methodologies to be studied properly.

Figure 2. Overview of Person-Environment Relations:

Correlations, Interactions, and Transactions
a

Person T1 d d Situation T1 a = Person-Situation Correlation

b = Main effect of Person on Outcome
b c c = Main effect of Situation on Outcome

e Outcome T1 f d = Person Situation Interaction

e = Stability of Person
g h f = Stability of Situation
g = Person → Situation Transaction

Situation T2 h = Person → Situation Transaction

Person T2

Note. Person = any person variable (e.g., an enduring/stable trait or momentary/variable state); Situation =
any situation variable (e.g., an enduring/stable or momentary/variable cue or characteristic); Outcome =
any person or situation variable. T1 = Time-point 1, T2 = Time-point 2. Thick arrows represent the
concepts of correlation, interaction, and transaction, respectively.
● Correlation = path a.
● Interaction = path d, keeping in mind the main effects of Person (path b) and Situation (path c) on the
Outcome. Note that the Person may moderate the Situation effect on an outcome and vice versa;
hence, there are two d paths.
● Transactions = path g (Person-to-Situation) and path h (Situation-to-Person), keeping in mind the
stabilities of Persons (path e) and Situations (path f).
 Knowns and Unknowns in Situation Research 13

How do people transition from one situation to another over time?

The demarcation of situations (when does one end and the other start?) has been a tricky

issue. Some have argued that situations change when the physical cues change, and others that

they do when people change their perceptions of the situation (Magnusson, 1981). Again, it helps

to think of situations in terms of cues, characteristics, and classes as any of these information

sources may change (Rauthmann & Sherman, 2016). Additionally, situation change may be

studied within individuals (e.g., idiographically examining dynamic networks of situation

characteristics across time within single persons) or between individuals (e.g., nomothetically

examining situation change across several persons where inter-individual differences in change

are possible). Lastly, situation change may be examined at the level of single variables or

profiles of variables. Despite these complexities, people show remarkable consensus in

demarcating situations when given a video stream out of a person’s life (Rauthmann & Sherman,

2016). This means they agree on when one situation ends and the other begins, suggesting that

even the subjective perception of change may be somewhat normative.

A particularly interesting question is why situations change in the first place. While

situations can of course change on their own and outside of the agency of persons, persons can

also navigate, influence, and shape them to certain degrees (Rauthmann & Sherman, 2016).

Table 2 summarizes such person → situation navigation mechanisms which can be enacted

willingly or unwillingly, more passively or actively, and with intended or unintended effects:

maintaining versus terminating and changing situations (via construal, evocation, selection,

modification, creation). Although these mechanisms have already been detailed in various

literatures (e.g., Buss, 1987; Scarr & McCartney, 1983), they have rarely been studied on their

own empirically so far (cf. Brown et al., 2017).

 Knowns and Unknowns in Situation Research 14

Table 2
Overview of Person → Situation Navigation Mechanisms
Mechanism Description
Maintenance Remaining in or preserving a situation
Termination/Change
Construal Uniquely re-construing a situation in a different way than before
Evocation Eliciting certain reactions from others in the situation
Selection Avoiding one situation and approaching or entering another one
Modulation Modulating a previous situation in a certain way so that it changes
Creation Actively creating an entirely new situation
Note. Each mechanism could be enacted willingly or unwillingly with more passive and active forms (e.g.,
passively remaining in a situation vs. actively preserving it; pro-actively modulating and creating
situations), and then also with intended or unintended effects.
 Knowns and Unknowns in Situation Research 15

The Unknowns and Future of Situation Research

We have previously outlined the “Knowns” of situation research, that is, pieces of theory

or evidence that are either largely agreed upon or replicable enough. Here, we turn to issues that

are either not resolved yet, have been neglected, or still await independent replications. Thereby,

we also chart an agenda of issues for future researchers to tackle.

First, there has been burgeoning work on cross-cultural aspects of situation experience

and how to properly measure them (Gardiner et al., 2020; Guillaume et al., 2015). These lines of

work, while impressive in their scope, have focused mainly on college students which limits their

generalizability. Additionally, so far there has been little effort to construct trans- or pan-cultural

taxonomies of situation characteristics, save for few exceptions (e.g., Yang et al., 2006: Chinese

idioms in Chinese and US-American samples). Most taxonomies in Figure 1 were derived from

within only one country and did not assess cross-country replicability. Indeed, the entire heuristic

super-structure of Figure 1 with the “Replicable Six” needs to be comprehensively studied as no

empirical data exist so far on the relations of all of the taxonomies jointly assessed.

Second, all situation characteristics taxonomies have so far identified relatively broad

domains. However, as with personality traits, situation perceptions could be multi-faceted and

organized in a hierarchy, though this remains a hypothesis that has yet to be empirically tested

(against other ways of understanding situational structures, such as networks, lists, and lattice-

based or composable components). Still, hierarchical analyses of higher- and lower-order factors

may cast a more comprehensive picture and could also yield faceted measures that would be

quite valuable if researchers wanted to zoom into participants’ situation perceptions.

Third, research already exists on how situation perceptions, traits, and states are linked

(e.g., Morse et al., 2015; Sherman et al., 2015), but replications with other samples and countries
 Knowns and Unknowns in Situation Research 16

are still needed. A major shortcoming of almost all of these studies is that they model all

relations statically instead of also considering ongoing dynamics (cf. Rauthmann & Sherman,

2016). Future research should thus try to focus more on situations as unfolding processes rather

than viewing them as static entities. Such process-focused research may also seek to tie together

currently distant literatures that could enrich each other. For example, research on event and

experience models deals with how unified impressions of what is going on (events) are formed

and how these relate to memory, action control, and problem-solving (e.g., Radvansky & Zacks,

2014). Unfortunately, though, this event-focused research has so far not been integrated with

situation-focused literature reviewed here. Integrating different literatures, perspectives, and

theories would make situation research more synthetic, appealing, and useful across disciplinary

boarders.

Fourth, in line with a more process-focused conceptualization of situations, the person →

situation navigation mechanisms in Table 2 deserve further theoretical and empirical work.

While such mechanisms should be important for how people navigate and conduct their lives,

surprisingly little research exists on the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of the different

mechanisms. Additionally, there may be individual differences in how often, when, and how

strongly each mechanism is used in daily life. This area seems ripe for future research.

Fifth, developmental aspects of situations have barely been tackled. So far, there is only

one study examining mean levels of situation characteristics across the lifespan in population-

representative samples of the US and Germany (Brown & Rauthmann, 2016). However, there is

no longitudinal research tracking cues, characteristics, or classes of participants’ situations across

their lifespan. It is thus unknown how different situational information remains stable or changes
 Knowns and Unknowns in Situation Research 17

within persons across years, and how such changes are associated with (or even drive)

personality development, well-being, and health.

Lastly, besides requiring more replication and generalization efforts, current situation

research seems to be operating mostly without theories (for exceptions, see Brown et al., 2015;

Gerpott et al., 2018; see also distant but topically related research areas such as event cognition

with theories: Radvansky & Zacks, 2014) or not building towards theories. This may be forgiven

for a nascent field that needs to build on a strong empirical fundament. However, at some point

cumulative empirical evidence will have to be integrated into theories that will generate new

hypotheses and help the field be productive in the long turn. Moreover, such theory-building

would hopefully not impede, but actually encourage, making connections between different

topics and areas of research (e.g., situations and culture, health, work, etc.; see Rauthmann et al.,

2020) and clarifying how insights on situations can be applied practically (e.g., to understand

team climates, toxic work atmospheres, etc.).

Conclusion

Research on psychological situations has been gaining traction and thriving, especially in

the last decade. It has comprehensively addressed the conceptualization, measurement,

taxonomization, and usefulness of different kinds of situational information, most notably

situation characteristics. This paper provided an entry point to the many advances that have been

made, but also alerted that still many more exciting questions await exploring and answering.
 Knowns and Unknowns in Situation Research 18

Recommended Readings

Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R. A., & Funder, D. C. (2015). Principles of Situation Research:

Towards a Better Understanding of Psychological Situations. European Journal of

Personality, 29(3), 363-381. Provides several principles for how psychological

situations may be conceptualized and measured.

Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R. A., & Funder, D. C. (2020). The Oxford Handbook of

Psychological Situations. New York: Oxford University Press. First handbook on

psychological situations, culling together cutting-edge theory and research in the

field.

Reis, H.T. (2008). Reinvigorating the concept of situation in social psychology. Personality and

Social Psychology Review, 12, 311-329. Analysis of the concept of situations, mainly

from a social psychological view, and how it can be feasibly approached.

Yang, Y., Read, S. J., & Miller, L. (2009). The concept of situations. Social and Personality

Psychology Compass, 3, 1018-1037. Accessible overview on the concept of situations

and how different situational information has been taxonomized.

 Knowns and Unknowns in Situation Research 19

References

Asendorpf, J. B. (2020). Personality as a situation: A target-centered perspective on social

situations. In J. F. Rauthmann, R. A. Sherman, & D. C. Funder (Eds.), The Oxford

Handbook of Psychological Situations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Brown, N. A., Blake, A. B., & Sherman, R. A. (2017). A snapshot of the life as lived: Wearable

cameras in social and personality psychological science. Social Psychological and

Personality Science, 8, 592-600.

Brown, N. A., Neel, R., & Sherman, R. A. (2015). Measuring the Evolutionarily Important Goals

of Situations: Situational Affordances for Adaptive Problems. Evolutionary Psychology,

13, 1-15.

Brown, N., & Rauthmann, J. F. (2016). Situation characteristics are age-graded: Mean-level

patterns of the Situational Eight DIAMONDS across the lifespan. Social Psychological

and Personality Science, 7, 667-679.

Buss, D. M. (1987). Selection, evocation, and manipulation. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 53, 1214-1221.

Funder, D.C. (2016). Taking situations seriously: The Situation Construal Model and the

Riverside Situational Q-sort. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 203-208.

Gardiner, G., Baranski, E. N., Buehler, J. N. (2020). Cross-cultural assessment of situations. In J.

F. Rauthmann, R. A. Sherman, & D. C. Funder (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of

Psychological Situations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gerpott, F. H., Balliet, D., Columbus, S., Molho, C., & de Vries, R. E. (2018). How do people

think about interdependence? A multidimensional model of subjective outcome

interdependence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115, 716-742.

Griffo, R., & Colvin, C. R. (2019). An exploration of subjective situation dimensions associated
 Knowns and Unknowns in Situation Research 20

with situation-specific behavior. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10, 504-

513.

Guillaume, E., …, & Funder, D.C. (2016). The world at 7: Comparing the experience of

situations across 20 countries. Journal of Personality, 84, 493-509.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Guay, R. P. (2011). Person-environment fit. In S. Zedeck (Ed.),

American Psychological Association handbook of industrial and organizational

psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 3-50). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Magnusson, D. (1981). Wanted: A psychology of situations. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a

psychology of situations: An interactional perspective (pp. 9-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Morse, P., Sauerberger, K. S., Todd, E., & Funder, D. (2015). Relationships among personality,

situational construal and social outcomes. European Journal of Personality, 29, 97-106.

Noftle, E. E., & Gust, C. J. (2015). Powerful situations: Some real progress but some future

considerations. Comment on EJP target article by Rauthmann et al. (2015). European

Journal of Personality, 29, 404-405.

Nystedt, L. (1981). A model for studying the interaction between the objective situation and a

person's construction of the situation. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a psychology of

situations: An interactional perspective (pp. 375-391). New York: Academic Press.

Oreg, S., Edwards, J., & Rauthmann, J. F. (in press). The Situation Six: Uncovering basic

dimensions of psychological situations from the Hebrew language. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology.

Parrigon, S., Woo, S. E., Tay, L., & Wang, T. (2017). CAPTION-ing the situation: A lexically-

derived taxonomy of psychological situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 112(4), 642-681.

Radvansky, G. A., & Zacks, J. M. (2014). Event cognition. Oxford University Press.
 Knowns and Unknowns in Situation Research 21

Rauthmann, J. F. (forthcoming). Capturing interactions, correlations, and transactions: A Person-

Environment Relations Model. In J. F. Rauthmann, R. A. Sherman, & D. C. Funder

(Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Psychological Situations. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Rauthmann, J. F. (2015). Structuring situational information. European Psychologist, 20, 176-

189.

Rauthmann, J. F., Gallardo-Pujol, D., Guillaume, E. M., Todd, E., Nave, C. S., Sherman, R. A.,

… Funder, D. C. (2014). The Situational Eight DIAMONDS: A taxonomy of major

dimensions of situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

107, 677-718.

Rauthmann, J. F., Horstmann, K. T., & Sherman, R. A. (2020). The Psychological characteristics

of situations: Towards an integrated taxonomy. In J. F. Rauthmann, R. A. Sherman, & D.

C. Funder (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Psychological Situations. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Rauthmann, J. F., & Sherman, R. A. (2019). Towards a research agenda for situation perception

research: A variance componential framework. Personality and Social Psychology

Review, 23, 238-266.

Rauthmann, J. F., & Sherman, R. A. (2016). Situation change: Stability and variation in situation

variables between and within persons. Frontiers in Psychology (Section: Personality and

Social Psychology), 6:1938.

Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R. A., & Funder, D. C. (2015a). Principles of Situation Research:

Towards a Better Understanding of Psychological Situations. European Journal of

Personality, 29(3), 363-381.

 Knowns and Unknowns in Situation Research 22

Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R. A., & Funder, D. C. (2015b). New horizons in research on

psychological situations and environments. Rejoinder to Target Article. European Journal

of Personality, 29, 382-432.

Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R. A., Nave, C. S., & Funder, D. C. (2015c). 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.

Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R. A., & Funder, D. C. (2020a). The Oxford Handbook of

Psychological Situations. New York: Oxford University Press.

Reis, H.T. (2008). Reinvigorating the concept of situation in social psychology. Personality and

Social Psychology Review, 12, 311-329.

Saucier, G., Bel-Bahar, T., & Fernandez, C. (2007). What modifies the expression of personality

tendencies? Defining basic domains of situation variables. Journal of Personality, 75,

479-503.

Sauerberger, K., & Funder, D. C. (2020). The Riverside Situational Q-sort. In J. F. Rauthmann,

R. A. Sherman, & D. C. Funder (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Psychological

Situations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of

genotype → environment effects. Child Development, 54, 424-435.

Sherman, R. A., Rauthmann, J. F., Brown, N., Serfass, D., & Jones, B. (2015). The independent

effects of personality and situations on real-time expressions of behavior and emotion.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 872-888.

 Knowns and Unknowns in Situation Research 23

van Heck, G. L. (1984). The construction of a general taxonomy of situations. In H. Bonarius, G.

L.Van Heck, & N. Smid (Eds.), Personlity psychology in Europe: Theoretical and

empirical developments (pp. 149-164). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Yang, Y., Read, S. J., & Miller, L. (2006). A taxonomy of situations from Chinese idioms: Goal

processes as a central organizing principle. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 750-

778.

Ziegler, M., Horstmann, K. T., & Ziegler, J. (2019). Personality in situations: Going beyond the

OCEAN and introducing the Situation Five. Psychological Assessment, 31, 567-580.

View publication stats