Synergistic Person × Situation Interaction in Distributive Justice Behavior
Identifieur interne : 001444 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001443; suivant : 001445Synergistic Person × Situation Interaction in Distributive Justice Behavior
Auteurs : Manfred Schmitt ; Michael Eid ; Jürgen MaesSource :
- Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin [ 0146-1672 ] ; 2003-01.
Abstract
A person × situation interaction is synergistic when a personality trait amplifies the effect of a situational factor. The present study tested how individuals’ justice attitudes and situational factors jointly affect the allocation of financial burdens. Six insurance cases were described to 80 participants. Economic status of client (high, low) and responsibility of client for damage of the insured (high, low) were manipulated between subjects. Participants suggested a percentage of the total costs that they considered a fair contribution by the client. In accordance with the synergistic model, justice attitude (person factor) and responsibility for damage (situation factor) interacted and explained 5% of the variance of the dependent variable. With increasing negativity of attitude toward equality, the effect of responsibility was larger. Several cognitive mechanisms, such as motivated perception, selective attention, and the availability of attitude congruent situation schemas, that may account for synergistic interactions in justice behavior and in other domains were discussed.
Url:
DOI: 10.1177/0146167202238379
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:17E5A13C468C7A4F539DC66BF2B463BDD3DB84A0Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Synergistic Person × Situation Interaction in Distributive Justice Behavior</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Schmitt, Manfred" sort="Schmitt, Manfred" uniqKey="Schmitt M" first="Manfred" last="Schmitt">Manfred Schmitt</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Trier</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Eid, Michael" sort="Eid, Michael" uniqKey="Eid M" first="Michael" last="Eid">Michael Eid</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Koblenz-Landau</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Maes, Jurgen" sort="Maes, Jurgen" uniqKey="Maes J" first="Jürgen" last="Maes">Jürgen Maes</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Trier</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:17E5A13C468C7A4F539DC66BF2B463BDD3DB84A0</idno><date when="2003" year="2003">2003</date><idno type="doi">10.1177/0146167202238379</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/17E5A13C468C7A4F539DC66BF2B463BDD3DB84A0/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001444</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001444</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Synergistic Person × Situation Interaction in Distributive Justice Behavior</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Schmitt, Manfred" sort="Schmitt, Manfred" uniqKey="Schmitt M" first="Manfred" last="Schmitt">Manfred Schmitt</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Trier</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Eid, Michael" sort="Eid, Michael" uniqKey="Eid M" first="Michael" last="Eid">Michael Eid</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Koblenz-Landau</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Maes, Jurgen" sort="Maes, Jurgen" uniqKey="Maes J" first="Jürgen" last="Maes">Jürgen Maes</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Trier</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin</title><idno type="ISSN">0146-1672</idno><idno type="eISSN">1552-7433</idno><imprint><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Thousand Oaks, CA</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2003-01">2003-01</date><biblScope unit="volume">29</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="141">141</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="147">147</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0146-1672</idno></series><idno type="istex">17E5A13C468C7A4F539DC66BF2B463BDD3DB84A0</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1177/0146167202238379</idno><idno type="ArticleID">10.1177_0146167202238379</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0146-1672</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">A person × situation interaction is synergistic when a personality trait amplifies the effect of a situational factor. The present study tested how individuals’ justice attitudes and situational factors jointly affect the allocation of financial burdens. Six insurance cases were described to 80 participants. Economic status of client (high, low) and responsibility of client for damage of the insured (high, low) were manipulated between subjects. Participants suggested a percentage of the total costs that they considered a fair contribution by the client. In accordance with the synergistic model, justice attitude (person factor) and responsibility for damage (situation factor) interacted and explained 5% of the variance of the dependent variable. With increasing negativity of attitude toward equality, the effect of responsibility was larger. Several cognitive mechanisms, such as motivated perception, selective attention, and the availability of attitude congruent situation schemas, that may account for synergistic interactions in justice behavior and in other domains were discussed.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>sage</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Manfred Schmitt</name><affiliations><json:string>University of Trier</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Michael Eid</name><affiliations><json:string>University of Koblenz-Landau</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Jürgen Maes</name><affiliations><json:string>University of Trier</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>10.1177_0146167202238379</json:string></articleId><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>research-article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>A person × situation interaction is synergistic when a personality trait amplifies the effect of a situational factor. The present study tested how individuals’ justice attitudes and situational factors jointly affect the allocation of financial burdens. Six insurance cases were described to 80 participants. Economic status of client (high, low) and responsibility of client for damage of the insured (high, low) were manipulated between subjects. Participants suggested a percentage of the total costs that they considered a fair contribution by the client. In accordance with the synergistic model, justice attitude (person factor) and responsibility for damage (situation factor) interacted and explained 5% of the variance of the dependent variable. With increasing negativity of attitude toward equality, the effect of responsibility was larger. Several cognitive mechanisms, such as motivated perception, selective attention, and the availability of attitude congruent situation schemas, that may account for synergistic interactions in justice behavior and in other domains were discussed.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>6.686</score><pdfVersion>1.4</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>612 x 792 pts (letter)</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractCharCount>1098</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>4338</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>28392</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>7</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>154</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Synergistic Person × Situation Interaction in Distributive Justice Behavior</title><refBibs><json:item><author><json:item><name>B. Bossong</name></json:item></author><host><volume>30</volume><pages><last>44</last><first>32</first></pages><author></author><title>Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie</title></host><title>Gerechtigkeitsnormen und angemessenes Einkommen</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>K.S. Bowers</name></json:item></author><host><volume>80</volume><pages><last>336</last><first>307</first></pages><author></author><title>Psychological Review</title></host><title>Situationism in psychology: An analysis and a critique</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>B.J. Bushman</name></json:item></author><host><volume>69</volume><pages><last>960</last><first>950</first></pages><author></author><title>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</title></host><title>Moderating role of trait aggressiveness in the effects of violent media on aggression</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>L.J. Cronbach</name></json:item></author><host><volume>12</volume><pages><last>684</last><first>671</first></pages><author></author><title>American Psychologist</title></host><title>The two disciplines of scientific psychology</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>L.J. Cronbach</name></json:item></author><host><volume>30</volume><pages><last>127</last><first>116</first></pages><author></author><title>American Psychologist</title></host><title>Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology</title></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Distributive justice: A social psychological perspective</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>N.S. Endler</name></json:item><json:item><name> </name></json:item><json:item><name> </name></json:item></author><host><pages><last>164</last><first>145</first></pages><author></author><title>Stress and anxiety</title></host><title>A person-situation interaction model for anxiety</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>N.S. Endler</name></json:item></author><host><volume>38</volume><pages><last>153</last><first>136</first></pages><author></author><title>Canadian Psychology</title></host><title>Stress, anxiety, and coping: The multidimensional interaction model</title></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Interactional psychology and personality</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>S. Epstein</name></json:item><json:item><name>E. O’Brien</name></json:item></author><host><volume>98</volume><pages><last>537</last><first>513</first></pages><author></author><title>Psychological Bulletin</title></host><title>The person-situation debate in historical and current perspective</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>R.H. Fazio</name></json:item><json:item><name> </name></json:item></author><host><pages><last>109</last><first>75</first></pages><author></author><title>Advances in experimental social psychology</title></host><title>Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an integrative framework</title></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Values, achievement, and justice</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Motivation und Handeln</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>H. Lamm</name></json:item><json:item><name>T. Schwinger</name></json:item></author><host><volume>43</volume><pages><last>429</last><first>425</first></pages><author></author><title>Social Psychology Quarterly</title></host><title>Norms concerning distributive justice: Are needs taken into consideration in allocation decisions?</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>A. Marusic</name></json:item><json:item><name>H.J. Eysenck</name></json:item></author><host><volume>30</volume><pages><last>57</last><first>47</first></pages><author></author><title>Personality and Individual Differences</title></host><title>Synergistic interaction of smoking and neuroticism as a risk factor in schaemic heart disease: A case-control study</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>G. Mikula</name></json:item><json:item><name> </name></json:item></author><host><pages><last>166</last><first>127</first></pages><author></author><title>Justice and social interaction</title></host><title>On the role of justice in allocation decisions</title></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Personality and assessment</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>T.C. Monson</name></json:item><json:item><name>J.W. Hesley</name></json:item><json:item><name>L. Chernick</name></json:item></author><host><volume>43</volume><pages><last>399</last><first>385</first></pages><author></author><title>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</title></host><title>Specifying when personality traits can and cannot predict behavior: An alternative to abandoning the attempt to predict single act criteria</title></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Emergency intervention</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>B.C. Riemann</name></json:item><json:item><name>R.J. McNally</name></json:item></author><host><volume>9</volume><pages><last>340</last><first>325</first></pages><author></author><title>Cognition and Emotion</title></host><title>Cognitive processing of personally relevant information</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>W. Ruch</name></json:item><json:item><name> </name></json:item><json:item><name> </name></json:item></author><host><pages><last>616</last><first>605</first></pages><author></author><title>The handbook of emotions</title></host><title>Exhilaration and humor</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>C. Sabbagh</name></json:item><json:item><name>Y. Dar</name></json:item><json:item><name>N. Resh</name></json:item></author><host><volume>57</volume><pages><last>261</last><first>244</first></pages><author></author><title>Social Psychology Quarterly</title></host><title>The structure of social justice judgments: A facet approach</title></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Konsistenz als Persönlichkeitseigenschaft</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>M. Schmitt</name></json:item><json:item><name>M. Dörfel</name></json:item></author><host><volume>29</volume><pages><last>453</last><first>443</first></pages><author></author><title>European Journal of Social Psychology</title></host><title>Procedural injustice at work, justice sensitivity, job satisfaction, and psychosomatic well-being</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>M. Schmitt</name></json:item><json:item><name>L. Montada</name></json:item></author><host><volume>13</volume><pages><last>44</last><first>32</first></pages><author></author><title>Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie</title></host><title>Determinanten erlebter Gerechtigkeit</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>T. Schwinger</name></json:item><json:item><name>P. Winterhoff-Spurk</name></json:item></author><host><volume>30</volume><pages><last>143</last><first>125</first></pages><author></author><title>Diagnostica</title></host><title>Gleichheits- vs. Leistungsprinzip: Rasch-Skalen zur Messung dispositioneller Einstellungen zu zwei Prinzipien distributiver Gerechtigkeit</title></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>The attribution of blame: Causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>C.D. Spielberger</name></json:item><json:item><name> </name></json:item></author><host><pages><last>49</last><first>23</first></pages><author></author><title>Anxiety: Current trends in theory and research</title></host><title>Anxiety as an emotional state</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>G. Stemmler</name></json:item></author><host><volume>22</volume><pages><last>233</last><first>213</first></pages><author></author><title>Personality and Individual Differences</title></host><title>Selective activation of traits: Boundary conditions for the activation of anger</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>K.Y. Törnblom</name></json:item><json:item><name> </name></json:item></author><host><pages><last>236</last><first>175</first></pages><author></author><title>Justice: Interdisciplinary perspectives</title></host><title>The social psychology of distributive justice</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>K.Y. Törnblom</name></json:item><json:item><name>U.G. Foa</name></json:item></author><host><volume>26</volume><pages><last>173</last><first>161</first></pages><author></author><title>Acta Sociologica</title></host><title>Choice of a distribution principle: Cross-cultural evidence on the effects of resources</title></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Judgments of responsibility</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Cognitive psychology and emotional disorder</title></host></json:item></refBibs><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><volume>29</volume><publisherId><json:string>PSP</json:string></publisherId><pages><last>147</last><first>141</first></pages><issn><json:string>0146-1672</json:string></issn><issue>1</issue><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1552-7433</json:string></eissn><title>Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin</title></host><categories><wos><json:string>social science</json:string><json:string>psychology, social</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>health sciences</json:string><json:string>psychology & cognitive sciences</json:string><json:string>social psychology</json:string></scienceMetrix></categories><publicationDate>2003</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2003</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1177/0146167202238379</json:string></doi><id>17E5A13C468C7A4F539DC66BF2B463BDD3DB84A0</id><score>2.0605655</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/17E5A13C468C7A4F539DC66BF2B463BDD3DB84A0/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/17E5A13C468C7A4F539DC66BF2B463BDD3DB84A0/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/17E5A13C468C7A4F539DC66BF2B463BDD3DB84A0/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Synergistic Person × Situation Interaction in Distributive Justice Behavior</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Thousand Oaks, CA</pubPlace><availability><p>SAGE</p></availability><date>2003</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Synergistic Person × Situation Interaction in Distributive Justice Behavior</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">Manfred</forename><surname>Schmitt</surname></persName><affiliation>University of Trier</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-2"><persName><forename type="first">Michael</forename><surname>Eid</surname></persName><affiliation>University of Koblenz-Landau</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-3"><persName><forename type="first">Jürgen</forename><surname>Maes</surname></persName><affiliation>University of Trier</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin</title><idno type="pISSN">0146-1672</idno><idno type="eISSN">1552-7433</idno><imprint><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Thousand Oaks, CA</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2003-01"></date><biblScope unit="volume">29</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="141">141</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="147">147</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">17E5A13C468C7A4F539DC66BF2B463BDD3DB84A0</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1177/0146167202238379</idno><idno type="ArticleID">10.1177_0146167202238379</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2003</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>A person × situation interaction is synergistic when a personality trait amplifies the effect of a situational factor. The present study tested how individuals’ justice attitudes and situational factors jointly affect the allocation of financial burdens. Six insurance cases were described to 80 participants. Economic status of client (high, low) and responsibility of client for damage of the insured (high, low) were manipulated between subjects. Participants suggested a percentage of the total costs that they considered a fair contribution by the client. In accordance with the synergistic model, justice attitude (person factor) and responsibility for damage (situation factor) interacted and explained 5% of the variance of the dependent variable. With increasing negativity of attitude toward equality, the effect of responsibility was larger. Several cognitive mechanisms, such as motivated perception, selective attention, and the availability of attitude congruent situation schemas, that may account for synergistic interactions in justice behavior and in other domains were discussed.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head><item><term></term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2003-01">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/17E5A13C468C7A4F539DC66BF2B463BDD3DB84A0/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus sage not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.3 20070202//EN" URI="journalpublishing.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType><istex:document><article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="2.3" xml:lang="EN"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="hwp">sppsp</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">PSP</journal-id><journal-title>Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin</journal-title><issn pub-type="ppub">0146-1672</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Sage Publications</publisher-name><publisher-loc>Thousand Oaks, CA</publisher-loc></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/0146167202238379</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">10.1177_0146167202238379</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Synergistic Person × Situation Interaction in Distributive Justice Behavior</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Schmitt</surname><given-names>Manfred</given-names></name><aff>University of Trier</aff></contrib></contrib-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Eid</surname><given-names>Michael</given-names></name><aff>University of Koblenz-Landau</aff></contrib></contrib-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Maes</surname><given-names>Jürgen</given-names></name><aff>University of Trier</aff></contrib></contrib-group><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><month>01</month><year>2003</year></pub-date><volume>29</volume><issue>1</issue><fpage>141</fpage><lpage>147</lpage><abstract><p>A person × situation interaction is synergistic when a personality trait amplifies the effect of a situational factor. The present study tested how individuals’ justice attitudes and situational factors jointly affect the allocation of financial burdens. Six insurance cases were described to 80 participants. Economic status of client (high, low) and responsibility of client for damage of the insured (high, low) were manipulated between subjects. Participants suggested a percentage of the total costs that they considered a fair contribution by the client. In accordance with the synergistic model, justice attitude (person factor) and responsibility for damage (situation factor) interacted and explained 5% of the variance of the dependent variable. With increasing negativity of attitude toward equality, the effect of responsibility was larger. Several cognitive mechanisms, such as motivated perception, selective attention, and the availability of attitude congruent situation schemas, that may account for synergistic interactions in justice behavior and in other domains were discussed.</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd></kwd></kwd-group><custom-meta-wrap><custom-meta xlink:type="simple"><meta-name>sagemeta-type</meta-name><meta-value>Article</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta xlink:type="simple"><meta-name>search-text</meta-name><meta-value> 10.1177/0146167202238379 ARTICLE PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN Schmitt et al. / SYNERGISTIC PERSON ??SITUATION Synergistic Person ??Situation Interaction in Distributive Justice Behavior Manfred Schmitt University of Trier Michael Eid University of Koblenz-Landau Jürgen Maes University of Trier A person ??situation interaction is synergistic when a personality trait amplifies the effect of a situational factor. The present study tested how individuals' justice attitudes and situational factors jointly affect the allocation of financial burdens. Six insurance cases were described to 80 participants. Economic status of client (high, low) and responsibility of client for damage of the insured (high, low) were manipulated between subjects. Participants suggested a percentage of the total costs that they considered a fair contribution by the client. In accordance with the synergistic model, justice attitude (person factor) and responsibility for damage (situation factor) interacted and explained 5% of the variance of the dependent variable. With increasing negativity of attitude toward equality, the effect of responsibility was larger. Several cognitive mechanisms, such as motivated perception, selective attention, and the availability of attitudecongruent situation schemas, that may account for synergistic interactions in justice behavior and in other domains were discussed. Behavior is often conceived as a function of the individual's personality and the situation in which the person acts. The principles by which traits and situations jointly shape behavior are, however, less clear. Historically, little consensus on the relative importance of both factors has been achieved. Whereas some scholars argued that personality traits and attitudes are fairly unimportant for the prediction of behavior (Mischel, 1968), others came to the opposite conclusion (Epstein & O'Brien, 1985). In an attempt to resolve the debate between these positions, proponents of a third paradigm presented evidence that the interaction between personality and situation may be equally or more important than the main effects associated with these factors (Bowers, 1973). Based on findings from this research, interactionism was proposed as a new framework that would integrate the two disciplines of psychology (Cronbach, 1957) and advance the development of more comprehensive theories (Endler & Magnusson, 1976). Researchers were encouraged to employ mixed designs instead of looking only at situations and personality. The enthusiasm with which interactionism appeared on the stage of scientific psychology cooled off quickly. In his review of Aptitude ??Treatment interactionresearch, Cronbach (1975) concluded that most interactions reported in the literature could not be replicated even if the same treatments and the same trait measures were used. Schmitt (1990) came to a similar conclusion in his review of moderator research (Trait ??Trait interaction effects). Moreover, his analysis suggested that the likelihood of replicating a moderator effect depended on how well it was grounded in theory. Many inter- 141 Authors' Note: We thank Katie Gibbs and Keith Widaman for helpful comments on an earlier version of the article. The following students participated in conducting the experiment in partial fulfillment of course requirements: Raphael Barbacsy, Simone Binz, Clea Buttgereit, Jacqueline Heinz, Jessica Hesse, Simone Kraft, Natascha Kuhlmann, Tanja Lischetzke, Kestin Nisslmüller, and Udo Wunsch. This research was completed while the first author was a Fulbright Scholar and visiting professor at the University of California, Davis. Financial support was provided by the Stiftung Volkswagenwerk (VW-Foundation; Az II/ 78 240). Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Manfred Schmitt, Department of Psychology, University ofTrier, 54286 Trier, Germany; e-mail: schmittm@uni-trier.de. PSPB, Vol. 29 No. 1, January 2003 141-147 DOI: 10.1177/0146167202238379 (c) 2003 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. actionist and moderator studies were exploratory and concerned primarily with how much variance could be explained by interactions. Less effort was invested in tracing systematic patterns of interactions and in identifying general psychological principles that may account for these patterns (Monson, Hesley, & Chernick, 1982). SYNERGISTIC INTERACTION AND FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCE We submit that at least one such general principle is implied by a systematic pattern of interactions, a pattern predicted by various substantive theories and confirmed in a large number of empirical studies. The common assumption of these theories is that functionally equivalent person and situation factors amplify their effects on behavior (or other outcome variables such as emotion and well-being). The widely accepted additive model does not sufficiently account for such a pattern-unless a multiplicative component is added. We call this multiplicative component a synergistic interaction. The term synergy derived from systems theory, denotes a conceptual or mathematical product of causes, and is used in many sciences as a general model to account for nonlinear change. In biology, for example, synergy means that an overall effect (e.g., on growth) of a set of agents or factors (e.g., hormones or nutrition) is larger than the sum of their unique effects. Factors are functionally equivalent if they affect similarly a given outcome variable and are thus substitutable, even though their underlying mechanisms may differ. For example, motivation and ability may both affect achievement in the same way, but for different psychological reasons. SUBSTANTIVE EXAMPLES OF SYNERGISTIC PERSON ??SITUATIONS INTERACTIONS Various psychological theories predict synergistic interactions between functionally equivalent person and situation factors. The general diathesis-stress model may serve as a first example. This model assumes that individuals differ in their vulnerability to strain and that situations differ in their straining impact on individuals. According to the model, the effects of both factors on well-being are not additive. Rather, the impact of situational strain is expected to be larger for vulnerable individuals than for hardy individuals, a pattern that has been confirmed empirically (Marusic & Eysenck, 2001). State-trait emotion theories also predict synergistic Person ??Situation interactions. Endler (1975) and Spielberger (1972) assumed that state anxiety is a joint function of trait anxiety and situational threat. Both factors determine state anxiety synergistically, not additively, so that the difference in a person's anxiety state between two situations that vary in threat is larger for individuals high in trait anxiety than for individuals low in trait anxiety. Endler and his students confirmed this prediction in several studies (Endler, 1997). Based on the same reasoning, Ruch (1993) and Stemmler (1997) found Synergistic Person ??Situation effects for humor and anger. Aggression is a third theoretical domain in which synergistic interactions have been observed. For example, several studies have found that the effect of viewing an aggressive versus neutral film on subsequent aggressive behavior is amplified by trait aggression (Bushman, 1995). Synergistic interactions also are predicted by motivation theories. One's motivational state is a joint function of trait motivation and the motivational power of the situation. In achievement contexts, both factors have been found to amplify one another (Heckhausen, 1989). Similar findings have been reported from studies of the justice motive and justice sensitivity. For example, in a field study by Schmitt and Dörfel (1999), dispositional justice sensitivity amplified the effect of unfair treatment at the workplace on well-being and absenteeism. SYNERGISTIC INTERACTIONS IN THE DOMAIN OF JUSTICE ATTITUDES The present research was conducted to explore synergistic interactions in the domain of attitudes. Attitudes toward justice principles were chosen because situation factors of allocation behavior are well-known (Deutsch, 1985; Törnblom, 1992) and valid attitude measures are available. Historical, experimental, and survey studies have identified three major allocation principles: the equality principle, the achievement principle, and the need principle (Mikula, 1980). Which principle an individual prefers to use depends strongly on the type of resource to be distributed (Törnblom & Foa, 1983) and the social context (Deutsch, 1985). In addition, attitudes determine which principle is preferred by allocators and how recipients react to a given distribution (e.g., Bossong, 1983). Virtually nothing is known, however, regarding the ways in which situation factors and attitudes interact. We propose that situation factors and attitudes interact synergistically. Consider achievement and attitude toward the achievement principle as functionally equivalent factors of allocation behavior. It follows from equity theory that individuals who contribute more to a common good deserve a larger share of rewards than do individuals who contribute less. What then happens if attitudes are taken into account? According to the additive model, the situation factor (achievement) will have the same effect at all levels of attitude. The synergistic model predicts that achievement will make a larger difference for individuals with a positive attitude toward the 142 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN achievement principle than for individuals with a negative attitude. Similarly, individuals with a favorable attitude toward the need principle should be more responsive to differences in the needs of recipients than individuals with an unfavorable attitude. Furthermore, attitude toward equality should have the opposite effects: Situational achievement or need differences should have smaller impacts on allocation behavior for individuals with a positive attitude than for individuals with a negative attitude. Given the bipolar nature of attitudes, the preceding effect can be reframed into a synergistic principle: The effect of any situational information that justifies unequal distribution will increase with increasing negativity of a person's attitude toward equality of allocation. Therefore, attitude toward equality of allocation should be a more general moderator than attitudes toward equity and need. For this reason, we chose attitude toward equality in our research. OVERVIEW OF STUDY AND HYPOTHESES We designed a vignette study on the fairness of insurance clients' own monetary contributions to pay part of their damage. The system of risk insurance provides an ideal field for distributive justice research. Large groups of individuals contribute money into a common fund to protect individual members against financial risks with low expectancy but high value. To prevent misuse and keep the system efficient, the need principle is often combined with special versions of the equity principle. Insured individuals who do not claim money for a certain amount of time are sometimes rewarded with bonuses. Furthermore, insurance rates are often risk dependent. Clients with higher risks pay more than those with lower risks. Finally, some insurance companies pay only a certain percentage of the damage, leaving the rest of the burden to the client. For some insurance, such as property insurance, the partial payment principle is employed to prevent fraud. For other kinds of insurance, such as health and liability insurance, the idea is that this partial payment principle works as a safeguard against frivolous claims. The underlying assumption is that the insurants have some control regarding the state of the insured, for example, their own health, and that their contributions to the payments prevent carelessness. Obviously, this assumption is more correct in some cases than in others. Not surprisingly, in Germany, where this type of insurance is common, the principle of partial payment itself, the types of damages to which it may be applied, and the actual percentage of the costs for which clients are responsible are matters of public debate. Various insurance cases were described to participants with the responsibility of the clients for their damage and the clients' economic status varied as situation factors. Participants were asked to propose a percentage of the total costs that they would consider a fair contribution by the client. This percentage was the dependent variable. What are the possible effects of the situation factors? Deutsch (1985) predicted that the need principle is accepted as most fair in social settings that are directed toward the welfare of group members. If basic needs and the well-being of individuals are at stake, people usually feel that resources should be distributed so that important needs are met. Furthermore, people are most likely to take needs into account when they are salient attributes of the recipients (Lamm & Schwinger, 1980). Therefore, we expected participants to consider the clients' economic status to be important in deciding what percentage of the total costs would be a fair contribution by the client. We expected participants to consider a larger contribution to be more appropriate for wealthy than for poor clients. Previous research has shown that needs are not always taken into account. Needs are not usually considered in achievement-oriented contexts such as sports (Deutsch, 1985). More relevant here, needs are discounted when the person is believed to be personally responsible for their needs (Lamm & Schwinger, 1980). According to Shaver's (1985) model, responsibility is attributed to a person if the need is perceived to be self-inflicted or if it was avoidable yet not prevented. Similar predictions result fromWeiner's (1996) theory of responsibility attribution and from Feather's (1999) theory of deservingness. In line with this reasoning, studies on bystander intervention found that people are less likely to help when an emergency is perceived as self-inflicted (Piliavin, Dovidio, Gaertner, & Clark, 1981). In a similar vein, requests for support are rejected when needs result from risky behavior (Weiner, 1996). Accordingly, we expect a positive effect of responsibility in our study so that participants would consider a larger contribution to be more appropriate for responsible than for nonresponsible clients. Most important for our general proposal, we expected the situation effects to be moderated by attitude toward equality. More specifically, we predict that the effects of economic status and responsibility will increase with increasing negativity of attitude toward equality. METHOD Sample Eighty students with various majors (no advanced psychology students) from the University of Trier (Germany) were recruited individually or in small groups on campus and assigned randomly to one of four experimental conditions. The proportion of men and women was 7:13 in all experimental conditions. Schmitt et al. / SYNERGISTIC PERSON ??SITUATION 143 Experimental Design and Stimulus Material Economic status (high, low) and responsibility (high, low) of client were varied in a 2 ??2 between-subjects design. Each participant received a booklet with the description of six insurance cases: two health insurance cases, two homeowner insurance cases, and two car insurance cases. Economic status and responsibility were varied so that all six insurance cases that a participant read belonged to the same experimental condition. In the high-responsibility conditions, clients were described who had self-inflicted their damage by careless behavior. In the low-responsibility conditions, the damage seemed unavoidable because it occurred to the client despite conscientious and careful behavior. In the high-economic status conditions, the client was described as a rather wealthy person. In the low- economic status conditions, the insurant was displayed as poor. Two examples illustrate how the experimental conditions were operationalized. The responsibility factor of the first insurance case (dental health insurance) was varied by describing a student who had either always brushed his teeth very carefully (low responsibility) or who had not cared about his teeth, brushing them only occasionally (high responsibility). To vary the economic status for this insurance case, the student either had to work to make a living or came from a rich family who paid for all his expenses. Regarding the second insurance case (general health insurance), a woman was described who either was a heavy smoker (high responsibility) or had to work in a high-pollution area (low responsibility) and who was either a blue-collar worker (low economic status) or a manager (high economic status). Dependent Variable Participants were asked to indicate, on a scale ranging from 0% to 100%, the percentage of the total costs that they would consider a fair contribution by the client. Based on internal consistency analyses, the suggested percentages for all six scenarios were averaged to obtain a reliable index (??= .87), which served as the dependent variable. Attitude Measure All available scales for measuring attitude toward equality as an allocation principle were combined to obtain a broad and reliable measure (Sabbagh, Dar, & Resh, 1994; Schmitt & Montada, 1982; Schwinger & Winterhoff-Spurk, 1984). Response formats were made uniform. A bipolar 6-point rating scale was used (1 = totally disagree to 6 = totally agree). The wording of a typical item is as follows: "In an ideal society, everybody would have the same income" (Schwinger & Winterhoff-Spurk, 1984). The questionnaire contains 24 items (??= .85). Procedure Participants were recruited individually or in small groups on campus and invited to take part in a study on attitudes toward insurance issues of current public interest. Participants were led to a room, seated at a desk, and asked to work through a booklet. This booklet contained short instructions on the first page. The six scenarios were presented consecutively, each on a single page. The attitude scale was attached to the scenarios. Participants were instructed to answer the scenarios first and the attitude scale second. The simultaneous administration of both instruments seemed justifiable because the content of the vignettes and the attitude scale did not overlap and did not seem similar enough to facilitate response biases between instruments. After the participants had finished, they were interviewed to check whether they had perceived a link between both parts of the booklet (insurance scenarios, attitude questionnaires). Five participants who suspected that the two parts were related and that a consistent response profile might be of interest to the experimenter were replaced. After this interview, participants were fully debriefed, asked not to talk to other students about the study, and dismissed. RESULTS A 2 ??2 ??2 (Responsibility ??Economic Status ??Gender) ANOVA revealed a significant main effect for responsibility, F(1, 72) = 31.27, p < .01, ?2 = .33; a significant main effect for economic situation, F(1, 72) = 7.97, p < .01, ?2 = .06; and a significant three-way interaction including both experimental factors and gender, F(1, 72) = 7.30, p < .01, ?2 = .06. The main effects were in line with our hypotheses. Poor clients were burdened with a lower percentage of costs (M = 14%) than were wealthy clients (M = 23%) and nonresponsible clients with a smaller percentage of costs (M = 10%) than responsible clients (M = 27%). The three-way interaction including gender was not anticipated and is of no substantive interest in the present context. The critical test of the hypothesis is whether the impact of responsibility and economic situation changes with attitudes toward equality-is there a synergistic interaction? As displayed in Figure 1, we find that there is for responsibility, F(1, 74) = 12.21, p < .01, ?2 = .05. To those who value equality a great deal, high levels of personal responsibility has a fairly modest impact. However, to those who value equality very little, personal responsibility has a dramatic impact. These differences are very large-high responsibility leads to about 65% of individual contributions when equality attitudes are very nega- 144 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN tive but virtually no individual contribution at all when equality attitudes are positive. Attitude did not change the effect of economic status, however. DISCUSSION Based on previous evidence, we argued that synergistic interactions between functionally equivalent person and situation factors are a general phenomenon predicted by diverse theories and confirmed in a substantial number of empirical studies.We replicated this effect for attitude toward equality of allocations as a person factor and responsibility for damage as a situation factor of allocation behavior.We were unable to replicate a synergistic effect for economic status as a second situation factor. Future studies should address this lack of replication. Possibly, it was due to the weak main effect of economic status, which was 5 times smaller than the main effect of the responsibility for damage factor. Our study adds to the substantial number of synergistic interactions reported in the literature. The evidence supports the idea that synergistic interactions adhere to a general principle and deserve to be explored in more depth in the future. A more thorough investigation of these ideas seems appropriate for at least two reasons. First, the repeated identification of synergistic interactions challenges the additive model that is commonly presumed in theories (general and differential alike), research designs, and statistical models. Disregarding synergistic interactions leads to imprecise conclusions about the causal origins of interindividual and intersituational differences in cognition, emotion, and behavior. On the whole, generalizations of situation effects across individuals and of personality effects across situations are considerably less precise when interactions between person and situation factors are ignored. Second, the systematic inquiry of synergistic interactions will guide the search for underlying psychological mechanisms of Person ??Situation interactions. These underlying mechanisms are of particular interest here and could come from a variety of theoretical orientations. First among these orientations is the cognitive theory of anxiety that attributes synergistic interactions to attention bias (Williams, Watts, MacLeod, & Mathews, 1997). According to this premise, highly trait anxious individuals have a lower perceptual threshold for threat cues and devote more attentional resources to evaluating threatening information than do low-trait anxious individuals. Available data appear to justify the assumption that selective attention and differential perceptual thresholds are two of several mechanisms that underlie synergistic interactions not only in the domain of emotion but also in other behavioral domains. To give an example from the domain of justice behavior, individuals with a positive attitude toward equity may be more sensitive to information on the achievement differences between recipients than are individuals with a negative attitude toward equity. Similarly, individuals with a positive attitude toward the need principle may perceive more easily and attend more closely to need differences between recipients than do individuals with a more negative attitude. Consequently, individuals who attend to achievement or need differences between recipients are more likely to use this information when making an allocation decision or when making a justice judgment on a given allocation than do individuals who do not attend to achievement or need differences. Motivated perception is another concept that may help to explain Synergistic Person ??Situation interactions (Riemann & McNally, 1995). Attitudes imply values and values function as motives. Accordingly, attitudes motivate a person to construe situations in a way that facilitates attitude-congruent behavior. In distributive justice, for example, individuals with a positive attitude toward equality may tend to ignore information that highlights dissimilarities between recipients. As a consequence of ignoring such information, an equal allocation of desired goods gains legitimacy and is more likely to be recommended. Memory bias is a third mechanism that could explain synergistic interactions in various behavioral domains. For example, depressed individuals have better memory for depressing information than do nondepressed individuals (Williams et al., 1997), and depth of processing may explain this difference. According to this hypothesis, depressed individuals decode depressing information more carefully and elaborate it more deeply than do Schmitt et al. / SYNERGISTIC PERSON ??SITUATION 145 -5 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 Negative Equality Attitude Positive Own Contribution (%) High Responsibility Low Responsibility Figure 1 Synergistic interaction of responsibility and attitude toward equality. nondepressed individuals. As a consequence, the depressed recall depressing information better than the nondepressed. Similar memory biases have been reported for individuals high in trait anxiety and high in trait anger. Depth of elaboration may have an effect not only on memory but also on the conceptual repertoire for decoding situational information and the accessibility of such information in memory (Fazio, 1990). Consider again an example from the domain of justice. Individuals with high justice sensitivity, as defined by Schmitt and Dörfel (1999), reflect more often and more deeply about justice issues. For this reason, they appear to grasp justice-related information more easily and have more finely tuned justice concepts available than do individuals who are less sensitive to justice issues. This, in turn, enables them to discriminate better among situations that differ along justice-related dimensions, such as need or achievement between recipients. Another mechanism that may account for Synergistic Person ??Situation interactions in the domain of attitudes draws on the general Expectancy ??Value model in action theories. According to this general model, attitudes are a joint function of the value of the attributes of an attitude object and the expected probability that the attributes are indeed attached to the attitude object. Thus, attitudes imply values. Individuals with a positive attitude toward an object value this object more positively than individuals with a negative attitude. Applying this implication to the distributive justice domain, individuals with a positive attitude toward a particular justice principle will attach greater value to the realization of this principle in situations in which it can be applied practically (Feather, 1999). Whereas each of the preceding mechanisms has been identified empirically, virtually no previous research has contrasted these mechanisms in a single study. Also, which of these mechanisms accounts for which synergistic interactions reported in the literature is unclear. Future research on synergistic interactions should be guided by three goals: First, the synergistic principle should be tested in additional behavioral domains to investigate its generalizability. Second, as evidence on synergistic interactions accumulates, meta-analyses will have to be conducted to identify conditions that facilitate or hinder synergistic effects. Research on flooding suggests, for instance, that synergistic effects are not open-ended but have upper limits both on the trait dimension (e.g., anxiety) and on the functionally equivalent situation characteristic (e.g., threat). Third, future research should be designed so that mechanisms that may account for synergistic interactions can be tested against each other in the same study. REFERENCES Bossong, B. (1983). Gerechtigkeitsnormen und angemessenes Einkommen [Justice norms and fair income]. Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 30, 32-44. Bowers, K. S. (1973). Situationism in psychology: An analysis and a critique. Psychological Review, 80, 307-336. Bushman, B. J. (1995). Moderating role of trait aggressiveness in the effects of violent media on aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 950-960. Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671-684. Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30, 116-127. Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social psychological perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Endler, N. S. (1975). A person-situation interaction model for anxiety. In C. D. Spielberger & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Stress and anxiety (Vol. 1, pp. 145-164). Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing. Endler, N. S. (1997). Stress, anxiety, and coping: The multidimensional interaction model. Canadian Psychology, 38, 136-153. Endler, N. S., & Magnusson, D. (Eds.). (1976). Interactional psychology and personality. New York: John Wiley. Epstein, S., & O'Brien, E. (1985). The person-situation debate in historical and current perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 513-537. Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an integrative framework. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 75-109). New York: Academic Press. Feather,N. T. (1999). Values, achievement, and justice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Heckhausen, H. (1989). Motivation und Handeln [Motivation and action]. Berlin: Springer. Lamm, H., & Schwinger, T. (1980). Norms concerning distributive justice: Are needs taken into consideration in allocation decisions? Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 425-429. Marusic, A., & Eysenck, H. J. (2001). Synergistic interaction of smoking and neuroticism as a risk factor in schaemic heart disease: A case-control study. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 47-57. Mikula, G. (1980). On the role of justice in allocation decisions. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 127-166). Bern, Germany: Huber. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: John Wiley. Monson, T. C., Hesley, J. W., & Chernick, L. (1982). Specifying when personality traits can and cannot predict behavior: An alternative to abandoning the attempt to predict single act criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 385-399. Piliavin, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Clark, R. D. (1981). Emergency intervention. New York: Academic Press. Riemann, B. C., & McNally, R. J. (1995). Cognitive processing of personally relevant information. Cognition and Emotion, 9, 325-340. Ruch, W. (1993). Exhilaration and humor. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), The handbook of emotions (pp. 605-616). New York: Guilford. Sabbagh, C., Dar, Y., & Resh, N. (1994). The structure of social justice judgments:Afacet approach. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 244-261. Schmitt, M. (1990). Konsistenz als Persönlichkeitseigenschaft [Consistency as a trait]. Berlin: Springer. Schmitt, M., & Dörfel, M. (1999). Procedural injustice at work, justice sensitivity, job satisfaction, and psychosomatic well-being. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 443-453. Schmitt, M., & Montada, L. (1982). Determinanten erlebter Gerechtigkeit [Determinants of experienced justice]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 13, 32-44. Schwinger, T., & Winterhoff-Spurk, P. (1984). Gleichheits- vs. Leistungsprinzip: Rasch-Skalen zur Messung dispositioneller Einstellungen zu zwei Prinzipien distributiver Gerechtigkeit [Parity vs. equity: Rasch scales for measuring dispositional attitudes toward two principles of distributive justice]. Diagnostica, 30, 125-143. Shaver, K. G. (1985). The attribution of blame: Causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness. New York: Springer. 146 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN Spielberger, C. D. (1972). Anxiety as an emotional state. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety: Current trends in theory and research (Vol. 1, pp. 23-49). New York: Academic Press. Stemmler, G. (1997). Selective activation of traits: Boundary conditions for the activation of anger. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 213-233. Törnblom, K. Y. (1992). The social psychology of distributive justice. In K. Scherer (Ed.), Justice: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 175- 236). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Törnblom, K. Y., & Foa, U. G. (1983). Choice of a distribution principle: Cross-cultural evidence on the effects of resources. Acta Sociologica, 26, 161-173. Weiner, B. (1996). Judgments of responsibility. New York: Guilford. Williams, J. M. G., Watts, F. N., MacLeod, C., & Matthews, A. (1997). Cognitive psychology and emotional disorder. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Received July 26, 2001 Revision accepted June 1, 2002 Schmitt et al. / SYNERGISTIC PERSON ??SITUATION 147 </meta-value></custom-meta></custom-meta-wrap></article-meta></front><back><ref-list><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bossong, B.</surname></name> (<year>1983</year>). <article-title>Gerechtigkeitsnormen und angemessenes Einkommen</article-title> [Justice norms and fair income]. <source>Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie</source>, <volume>30</volume>, <fpage>32</fpage>-<lpage>44</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bowers, K.S.</surname></name> (<year>1973</year>). <article-title>Situationism in psychology: An analysis and a critique</article-title>. <source>Psychological Review</source>, <volume>80</volume>, <fpage>307</fpage>-<lpage>336</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bushman, B.J.</surname></name> (<year>1995</year>). <article-title>Moderating role of trait aggressiveness in the effects of violent media on aggression</article-title>. <source>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</source>, <volume>69</volume>, <fpage>950</fpage>-<lpage>960</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Cronbach, L.J.</surname></name> (<year>1957</year>). <article-title>The two disciplines of scientific psychology</article-title>. <source>American Psychologist</source>, <volume>12</volume>, <fpage>671</fpage>-<lpage>684</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Cronbach, L.J.</surname></name> (<year>1975</year>). <article-title>Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology</article-title>. <source>American Psychologist</source>, <volume>30</volume>, <fpage>116</fpage>-<lpage>127</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Deutsch, M.</surname></name> (<year>1985</year>). <source>Distributive justice: A social psychological perspective</source>. <publisher-loc>New Haven, CT</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Yale University Press</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Endler, N.S.</surname></name> (<year>1975</year>). <article-title>A person-situation interaction model for anxiety</article-title>. In <name name-style="western"><surname>C.D. Spielberger</surname></name> & <name name-style="western"><surname>I.G. Sarason</surname></name> (Eds.), <source>Stress and anxiety</source> (Vol. 1, pp. <fpage>145</fpage>-<lpage>164</lpage>). <publisher-loc>Washington, DC</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Hemisphere Publishing</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Endler, N.S.</surname></name> (<year>1997</year>). <article-title>Stress, anxiety, and coping: The multidimensional interaction model</article-title>. <source>Canadian Psychology</source>, <volume>38</volume>, <fpage>136</fpage>-<lpage>153</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Endler, N.S.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Magnusson, D.</surname></name> (Eds.). (<year>1976</year>). <source>Interactional psychology and personality</source>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>John Wiley</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Epstein, S.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>O’Brien, E.</surname></name> (<year>1985</year>). <article-title>The person-situation debate in historical and current perspective</article-title>. <source>Psychological Bulletin</source>, <volume>98</volume>, <fpage>513</fpage>-<lpage>537</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Fazio, R.H.</surname></name> (<year>1990</year>). <article-title>Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an integrative framework</article-title>. In <name name-style="western"><surname>M.P. Zanna</surname></name> (Ed.), <source>Advances in experimental social psychology</source> (Vol. 23, pp. <fpage>75</fpage>-<lpage>109</lpage>). <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Academic Press</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Feather, N.T.</surname></name> (<year>1999</year>). <source>Values, achievement, and justice</source>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Kluwer Academic/Plenum</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Heckhausen, H.</surname></name> (<year>1989</year>). <source>Motivation und Handeln</source> [Motivation and action]. <publisher-loc>Berlin</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Springer</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Lamm, H.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Schwinger, T.</surname></name> (<year>1980</year>). <article-title>Norms concerning distributive justice: Are needs taken into consideration in allocation decisions?</article-title><source>Social Psychology Quarterly</source>, <volume>43</volume>, <fpage>425</fpage>-<lpage>429</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Marusic, A.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Eysenck, H.J.</surname></name> (<year>2001</year>). <article-title>Synergistic interaction of smoking and neuroticism as a risk factor in schaemic heart disease: A case-control study</article-title>. <source>Personality and Individual Differences</source>, <volume>30</volume>, <fpage>47</fpage>-<lpage>57</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mikula, G.</surname></name> (<year>1980</year>). <article-title>On the role of justice in allocation decisions</article-title>. In <name name-style="western"><surname>G. Mikula</surname></name> (Ed.), <source>Justice and social interaction</source> (pp. <fpage>127</fpage>-<lpage>166</lpage>). <publisher-loc>Bern, Germany</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Huber</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mischel, W.</surname></name> (<year>1968</year>). <source>Personality and assessment</source>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>John Wiley</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Monson, T.C.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Hesley, J.W.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Chernick, L.</surname></name> (<year>1982</year>). <article-title>Specifying when personality traits can and cannot predict behavior: An alternative to abandoning the attempt to predict single act criteria</article-title>. <source>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</source>, <volume>43</volume>, <fpage>385</fpage>-<lpage>399</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Piliavin, J.A.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Dovidio, J.F.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Gaertner, S.L.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Clark, R.D.</surname></name> (<year>1981</year>). <source>Emergency intervention</source>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Academic Press</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Riemann, B.C.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>McNally, R.J.</surname></name> (<year>1995</year>). <article-title>Cognitive processing of personally relevant information</article-title>. <source>Cognition and Emotion</source>, <volume>9</volume>, <fpage>325</fpage>-<lpage>340</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ruch, W.</surname></name> (<year>1993</year>). <article-title>Exhilaration and humor</article-title>. In <name name-style="western"><surname>M. Lewis</surname></name> & <name name-style="western"><surname>J.M. Haviland</surname></name> (Eds.), <source>The handbook of emotions</source> (pp. <fpage>605</fpage>-<lpage>616</lpage>). <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Guilford</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Sabbagh, C.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Dar, Y.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Resh, N.</surname></name> (<year>1994</year>). <article-title>The structure of social justice judgments: A facet approach</article-title>. <source>Social Psychology Quarterly</source>, <volume>57</volume>, <fpage>244</fpage>-<lpage>261</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Schmitt, M.</surname></name> (<year>1990</year>). <source>Konsistenz als Persönlichkeitseigenschaft</source> [Consistency as a trait]. <publisher-loc>Berlin</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Springer</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Schmitt, M.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Dörfel, M.</surname></name> (<year>1999</year>). <article-title>Procedural injustice at work, justice sensitivity, job satisfaction, and psychosomatic well-being</article-title>. <source>European Journal of Social Psychology</source>, <volume>29</volume>, <fpage>443</fpage>-<lpage>453</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Schmitt, M.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Montada, L.</surname></name> (<year>1982</year>). <article-title>Determinanten erlebter Gerechtigkeit</article-title> [Determinants of experienced justice]. <source>Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie</source>, <volume>13</volume>, <fpage>32</fpage>-<lpage>44</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Schwinger, T.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Winterhoff-Spurk, P.</surname></name> (<year>1984</year>). <article-title>Gleichheits- vs. Leistungsprinzip: Rasch-Skalen zur Messung dispositioneller Einstellungen zu zwei Prinzipien distributiver Gerechtigkeit</article-title> Parity vs. equity: Rasch scales for measuring dispositional attitudes toward two principles of distributive justice]. <source>Diagnostica</source>, <volume>30</volume>, <fpage>125</fpage>-<lpage>143</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Shaver, K.G.</surname></name> (<year>1985</year>). <source>The attribution of blame: Causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness</source>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Springer</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Spielberger, C.D.</surname></name> (<year>1972</year>). <article-title>Anxiety as an emotional state</article-title>. In <name name-style="western"><surname>C.D. Spielberger</surname></name> (Ed.), <source>Anxiety: Current trends in theory and research</source> (Vol. 1, pp. <fpage>23</fpage>-<lpage>49</lpage>). <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Academic Press</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Stemmler, G.</surname></name> (<year>1997</year>). <article-title>Selective activation of traits: Boundary conditions for the activation of anger</article-title>. <source>Personality and Individual Differences</source>, <volume>22</volume>, <fpage>213</fpage>-<lpage>233</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Törnblom, K.Y.</surname></name> (<year>1992</year>). <article-title>The social psychology of distributive justice</article-title>. In <name name-style="western"><surname>K. Scherer</surname></name> (Ed.), <source>Justice: Interdisciplinary perspectives</source> (pp. <fpage>175</fpage>-<lpage>236</lpage>). <publisher-loc>Cambridge, UK</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Cambridge University Press</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Törnblom, K.Y.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Foa, U.G.</surname></name> (<year>1983</year>). <article-title>Choice of a distribution principle: Cross-cultural evidence on the effects of resources</article-title>. <source>Acta Sociologica</source>, <volume>26</volume>, <fpage>161</fpage>-<lpage>173</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Weiner, B.</surname></name> (<year>1996</year>). <source>Judgments of responsibility</source>. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Guilford</publisher-name>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Williams, J.M.G.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Watts, F.N.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>MacLeod, C.</surname></name>, & <name name-style="western"><surname>Matthews, A.</surname></name> (<year>1997</year>). <source>Cognitive psychology and emotional disorder</source>. <publisher-loc>Chichester, UK</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Wiley</publisher-name>.</citation></ref></ref-list></back></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Synergistic Person × Situation Interaction in Distributive Justice Behavior</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA"><title>Synergistic Person × Situation Interaction in Distributive Justice Behavior</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Manfred</namePart><namePart type="family">Schmitt</namePart><affiliation>University of Trier</affiliation></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Michael</namePart><namePart type="family">Eid</namePart><affiliation>University of Koblenz-Landau</affiliation></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Jürgen</namePart><namePart type="family">Maes</namePart><affiliation>University of Trier</affiliation></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Thousand Oaks, CA</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2003-01</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2003</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">A person × situation interaction is synergistic when a personality trait amplifies the effect of a situational factor. The present study tested how individuals’ justice attitudes and situational factors jointly affect the allocation of financial burdens. Six insurance cases were described to 80 participants. Economic status of client (high, low) and responsibility of client for damage of the insured (high, low) were manipulated between subjects. Participants suggested a percentage of the total costs that they considered a fair contribution by the client. In accordance with the synergistic model, justice attitude (person factor) and responsibility for damage (situation factor) interacted and explained 5% of the variance of the dependent variable. With increasing negativity of attitude toward equality, the effect of responsibility was larger. Several cognitive mechanisms, such as motivated perception, selective attention, and the availability of attitude congruent situation schemas, that may account for synergistic interactions in justice behavior and in other domains were discussed.</abstract><subject><genre>keywords</genre><topic></topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0146-1672</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1552-7433</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">PSP</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID-hwp">sppsp</identifier><part><date>2003</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>29</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>1</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>141</start><end>147</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">17E5A13C468C7A4F539DC66BF2B463BDD3DB84A0</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1177/0146167202238379</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">10.1177_0146167202238379</identifier><recordInfo><recordContentSource>SAGE</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Rhénanie/explor/UnivTrevesV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001444 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001444 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Rhénanie
|area= UnivTrevesV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:17E5A13C468C7A4F539DC66BF2B463BDD3DB84A0
|texte= Synergistic Person × Situation Interaction in Distributive Justice Behavior
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.31. |  |