Michel’s “Situational Strength” hypothesis suggested that

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

We start by restating the question and the answer choices to anchor the analysis.
Question: Michel’s “Situational Strength” hypothesis suggested that
Options:
A. Personality should predict behaviour more powerfully when there are clear expectations for behaviour.
B. Personality should predict behaviour more powerfully when there are unclear expectations for behaviour.
C. Personality should predict behaviour more powerfully when there are few incentives contingent on behaviour.
D. Both B and C are true.

Now we examine each option in turn.

Option A: The claim is that personality predicts behaviour more in the presence of clear expectations. However, according to the Situational Strength framework, strong situations (which have clear, strong expectations) tend to suppress stable individual differences because people conform to the norm of the situation. In such contexts, personality explains less variance in behavior, not more. Therefore, this statement is inconsistent with the core idea of situational strength and is incorrect.

Option B: The statement asserts that personality should predict behaviour more when expectations are unclear. This aligns with the notion that weak or ambiguous situations leave more room for individual differences to manifest, allowing personality traits to influence actions more strongly. This is a correct reflection of the hypothesized effect.

Option C: The statement claims that personality should predict behaviour more when there are few incentives contingent on behaviour. Fewer external incentives reduce external regulatory pressure, letting internal dispositions (personality traits) play a larger role in guiding behavior. This also matches the logic of situational strength and is thus correct.

Option D: This option says that both B and C are true. Since both B and C individually express plausible implications of the Situational Strength hypothesis, combining them into one statement accurately captures the shared idea that weaker situations and fewer contingencies increase the observed influence of personality on behavior. Consequently, this combined statement coherently follows from the theory.

In summary, A misstates the theory by emphasizing clear expectations, which leads to reduced predictive power of personality; B and C each correctly describe conditions under which personality would predict behavior more strongly; D correctly aggregates those conditions, reflecting the comprehensive implication of Michel’s Situational Strength hypothesis. The reasoning shows why B and C are individually valid and why D encapsulates the correct combined claim.

Michel’s “Situational Strength” hypothesis suggested that单项选择题

类似问题

Michel’s “Situational Strength” hypothesis suggested that... 米歇尔的“情境强度”假设提出……

Michel’s “Situational Strength” hypothesis suggested that...

In what ways do strong situations (e.g., funerals) and weak situations (e.g., hanging out with friends) affect personality differently?

Question9Question 9Inline Choice Question Try selecting one of the choices from the drop down menu: The capital of New South Wales is [select: , Tasmania, Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne]. ResetMaximum marks: 1 Flag question undefined

Question 30 Choose a, b, c or d as the best answer. The author’s main argument is that the 100:80:100 model __________.

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单