Talk:Person–situation debate

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 15 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SarahAlbertson4500, Zach Springer. Peer reviewers: Abbigail Ely.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Review
Hey Lin11!

Really great article, I enjoyed it. It's clear that you've put a lot of time and effort into this one (I literally made one edit, adding a space between two words). Well cited, informative, and with NPOV.

If I were to make a suggestion on improving it, I would say maybe expanding the synthesis section a little bit to really drive home its importance in combining the theories.

I also might get rid of the "deadend" links (dunno if that's what they're called, the red ones that lead to no where).

But great work! Moonpe11 (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Moonpe11, thank you for your review and suggestions! I was thinking of adding to the last section too, and I've found many great sources for that. Will do! Linp11 (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Review 2
Great article!! My only suggestion would be to add a little more to the lead- maybe include some info about the current directions in the debate.

It might be a good idea to add in some more Wiki links as well.

Great job! Whitmb11 (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review! Good call on adding a little bit of the current directions to the lead, I'll work on that. Were there any specific Wiki links you would recommend I add? Linp11 (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Correction of errors in this article
Reference 23, which reads 23. ^ Buss, A.R. (1979). The trait-situation controversy and the concept of interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 191-195 should in fact read as 23. ^ Buss, A.R. (1977). The trait-situation controversy and the concept of interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 196-201.

An additional referance related to 23 would be: Howard, J.A. (1979). Person-Situation Interaction Models. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5(2), 191-195.

Reference 26 is dated 2009 when in fact the correct date is 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.42.83 (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed move
I propose to move this page to Person-situation debate. Compare Mind–body problem. Lova Falk    talk   12:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please comment!  Lova Falk     talk   17:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No protests - I'll move.  Lova Falk     talk   11:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for new sub-section
HI! I think this is a great article with a good amount of importance, as there is a lot of discussion on this debate. Especially considering the overarching "nature versus nurture" concept that is much debated in the psychology community.

I especially enjoyed that the article includes a sub-section on the "situationist argument" to this debate. I think a similar sub-section on the personality trait psychologist's views of the debate would be a great addition to the article. This way, there's a bit more detail about both sides of the debate.

SarahAlbertson4500 (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Situationism (psychology) into Person–situation debate
Although I don't have concerns about content, Situationism (psychology) is a WP:POVFORK and both articles will be improved by merging. Daask (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey Daask,


 * Thank you for the suggestion!


 * At the moment given the content on the person-situation debate article, I do think it might be best to leave the two articles as separate. The person-situation debate article has a lot of information towards situationist viewpoint already, and might benefit from more content on the personality trait psychologist view before adding more on the situationist side of the debate. With that said, I defiantly think looking into the merger would be very beneficial once the person-situation debate article is a bit more balanced.


 * SarahAlbertson4500 (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think a merge would be helpful. My opinion is as a reader uninformed on this topic, who came here via the dispositionism article: the person-situation debate seems to be also argued outside of psychology, in economics, law, politics, using the terms situationism/situationist and dispositionism/dispositionist. It seems to make sense to have articles on these terms to more clearly address their broad context? Also, isn't the person-situation debate a conflict between two views, that each exist apart from the debate itself? Tsavage (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Review
Hi! Excellent article! I have some suggestions for the Responses section. The last paragraph of the Responses section seems out of place, since the rest of the section discusses probability and correlation. Is there a reason to include lexical hypothesis and not any other trait topics? As well, the first sentence ("Personality traits are important because personality traits exist.") is a value statement, which makes it persuasive not informative. There is no citation given. Is there a source? Jassytron (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Wake Forest University supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)