Situation explains much behavior, but residual variance need not be trait-based

Evidence

Several social psychology studies including Zimbardo’s (1969) on deindividuation, Latané’s and my own on responding to emergencies, and Milgram’s, have demonstrated a high degree of situational control over actions usually thought to be largely under dispositional control. Certainly, the Milgram (1974) findings of a high percentage of subjects behaving obediently defeats the attribution of sadistic personalities unless we want to make the rather improbable claim that a majority of New Haven dwellers are sadistic. However, as Funder and Ozer (1991) pointed out, there is still plenty of variance in those studies that potentially could be explained by individualdifference variables. True. Still, it may not be useful to conceive of these individual differences as trait-described dispositions acquired during childhood socialization. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4047

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: The move of conceding individual-difference variance yet refusing the trait paradigm is a subtle departure from standard dispositional logic — worth sitting with as a model of nuanced argument.
• XREF: connects to: Frequent ‘disasters’ select for traits while rare ‘catastrophes’ mostly just decrease fitness — S. T. A. Pickett and P. S. White, eds., The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and…, 95