CAPTION-ing the situation: A lexically-derived taxonomy of psychological situation characteristics

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Volumn 112, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 642-681

  Parrigon, Scott ^a   Woo, Sang Eun ^a   Tay, Louis ^a   Wang, Tong ^b  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

CAPTION; Lexical; Situation; Situation characteristics; Situation measure

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIOR; CASE REPORT; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; MODEL; MOTIVATION; NERVOUS SYSTEM; PSYCINFO; SAMPLING; SATISFACTION; TAXONOMY; ADULT; AFFECT; CLASSIFICATION; FACTOR ANALYSIS; FEMALE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERSONALITY; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOMETRY;

ADULT; AFFECT; CLASSIFICATION; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PERSONALITY; PSYCHOMETRICS;

EID: 84982085462     PISSN: 00223514     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/pspp0000111     Document Type: Article

References (145)

1. Allport, G., & Odbert, H. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47, 1-171.
2. Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2005). A defence of the lexical approach to the study of personality structure. European Journal of Personality, 19, 5-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.541.
3. Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 340-345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223890902935878.
4. Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Goldberg, L. R. (2004). A hierarchical analysis of 1,710 English personality-descriptive adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 707-721. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-3514.87.5.707.
5. Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 397-438. http://dx.doi .org/10.1080/10705510903008204.
6. Barger, P., Behrend, T., Sharek, D., & Sinar, E. (2011). IO and the crowd: Frequently asked questions about using Mechanical Turk for research. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 49, 11-17.
7. Barker, R. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
8. Battistich, V., & Thompson, E. (1980). Students' perceptions of the college milieu: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 74-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 014616728061011.
9. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323.
10. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1252.
11. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117 .3.497.
12. Beehr, T. A., & Newman, J. E. (1978). Job stress, employee health, and organizational effectiveness: A facet analysis, model, and literature review. Personnel Psychology, 31, 665-699.
13. Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2011). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
14. Block, J. (1961). The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research. Springfield, IL: Thomas. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 13141-000.
15. Block, J., & Block, J. (1981). Studying situational dimensions: A grand perspective and some limited empiricism. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a psychology of situations: An interactional perspective (pp. 85- 106). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Brown, N. A., Neel, R., & Sherman, R. A. (2015). Measuring the evolutionarily important goals of situations situational affordances for adaptive problems. Evolutionary Psychology, 13, 1474704915593662. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/1474704915593662.
17. Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 41, 977-990. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.977.
18. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1745691610393980.
19. Buss, A. H. (1989). Personality as traits. American Psychologist, 44, 1378-1388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.11.1378.
20. Cantor, N., Mischel, W., & Schwartz, J. (1982). A prototype analysis of psychological situations. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 45-77. http://dx.doi .org/10.1016/0010-0285(82)90004-4.
21. Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. (1993). When do individual differences matter? A paradoxical theory of personality coherence. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 247-271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0404_1.
22. Cattell, R. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 476-506. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0054116.
23. Collobert, R., & Weston, J. (2008). A unified architecture for natural language processing: Deep neural networks with multitask learning. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 160-167). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1390156.1390177.
24. Corballis, M. C. (2009). The evolution of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1156, 19-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749- 6632.2009.04423.x.
25. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 668-678. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.4.668.
26. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the revised NEO personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 21-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/ s15327752jpa6401_2.
27. Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 887-898.
28. Dalal, R., Meyer, R., Bradshaw, R., Green, J., Kelly, E., & Zhu, M. (2015). Personality strength and situational influences on behavior: A conceptual review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 41, 261-287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206314557524.
29. De Raad, B., Perugini, M., Hrebckov, M., & Szarota, P. (1998). Lingua franca of personality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 212- 232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022198291011.
30. DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880-896. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514 .93.5.880.
31. Dimitropoulou, M., Duñabeitia, J. A., Avilés, A., Corral, J., & Carreiras, M. (2010). Subtitle-based word frequencies as the best estimate of reading behavior: The case of Greek. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 218.
32. Eckes, T. (1995). Features of situations: A two-mode clustering study of situation prototypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 366-374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167295214007.
33. Edwards, J., & Templeton, A. (2005). The structure of perceived qualities of situations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 705-723. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.271.
34. Ekehammar, B. (1974). Interactionism in personality from a historical perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1026-1048. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0037457.
35. Endler, N. (1981). Situational aspects of interactional psychology. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a psychology of situations: An interactional perspective (pp. 361-373). London, England: Erlbaum.
36. Endler, N. S., Hunt, J. M. C. V., & Rosenstein, A. J. (1962). An SR inventory of anxiousness. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 76, 1-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0093817.
37. Endler, N. S., & Magnusson, D. (1976). Toward an interactional psychology of personality. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 956-974. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/0033-2909.83.5.956.
38. Epstein, S., & O'Brien, E. J. (1985). The person-situation debate in historical and current perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 513-537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.3.513.
39. Ferrand, L., Brysbaert, M., Keuleers, E., New, B., Bonin, P., Méot, A.Pallier, C. (2011). Comparing word processing times in naming, lexical decision, and progressive demasking: Evidence from chronolex. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 306. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00306.
40. Finkelstein, L., Gabrilovich, E., Matias, Y., Rivlin, E., Solan, Z., Wolfman, G., & Ruppin, E. (2001). Placing search in context: The concept revisited. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 406-414).
41. Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distribution of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 1011-1027. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-3514.80.6.1011.
42. Fleeson, W. (2004). Moving personality beyond the person-situation debate: The challenge and the opportunity of within-person variability. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 83-87. http://dx.doi .org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00280.x.
43. Fleeson, W., & Jayawickreme, E. (2015). Whole trait theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 82-92.
44. Forgas, J. (1976). The perception of social episodes: Categorical and dimensional representations in two different social milieus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 199-209. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/0022-3514.34.2.199.
45. Forgas, J. (1978). Social episodes and social structure in an academic setting: The social environment of an intact group. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 434-448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ 0022-1031(78)90040-9.
46. Funder, D. C. (2001). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 197-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.197.
47. Funder, D. (2006). Towards a resolution of the personality triad: Persons, situations, and behaviors. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 21-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.003.
48. Galton, F. (1884). The measurement of character. Fortnightly Review. 179-185.
49. Goldberg, L. (1982). From ace to zombie: Some explorations in the language of personality. In C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 1, pp. 203-234). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
50. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216.
51. Goldberg, L. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. J. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7-28). Tilburg, the Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
52. Graff, D., Kong, J., Chen, J., & Maeda, K. (2003). English gigaword corpus (Corpus number LDC2003T05). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
53. Hampson, S. E. (2012). Personality processes: Mechanisms by which personality traits "get outside the skin." Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 315-339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100419.
54. Harris, Z. (1954). Distributional structure. Word, 10, 146-162. http://dx .doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1954.11659520.
55. Hopwood, C. J., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). How should the internal structure of personality inventories be evaluated? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 332-346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/108886 8310361240.
56. Hoyle, R. H., Fejfar, M. C., & Miller, J. D. (2000). Personality and sexual risk taking: A quantitative review. Journal of Personality, 68, 1203- 1231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00132.
57. Jennrich, R. I., & Bentler, P. M. (2012). Exploratory bi-factor analysis: The oblique case. Psychometrika, 77, 442-454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s11336-012-9269-1.
58. John, O., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102-138). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
59. Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of content on organizational behavior. The Academy of Management Review, 31, 386-408. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2006.20208687.
60. Johnson, J. W. (2000). A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor variables in multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 1-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3501_1.
61. Johnson, W. (2015). Let's not search just where the light is good. European Journal of Personality, 29, 395-396.
62. Judge, T. A., Rodell, J. B., Klinger, R. L., Simon, L. S., & Crawford, E. R. (2013). Hierarchical representations of the five-factor model of personality in predicting job performance: Integrating three organizing frameworks with two theoretical perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 875-925. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033901.
63. Kelley, H., Holmes, J., Kerr, N., Reis, H., Rusbult, H., & Van Lange, P. (2003). An atlas of interpersonal situations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499845.
64. King, G. A., & Sorrentino, R. M. (1983). Psychological dimensions of goal-oriented interpersonal situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 140 -162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.140.
65. Kirby, S. (2007). The evolution of language. Oxford handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 669-681). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
66. Kreuger, J. (2015). Situations are not persons. European Journal of Personality, 29, 397-398.
67. Kučera, H., & Francis, W. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
68. Kuipers, G. (2015). Good humor, bad taste: A sociology of the joke. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781501510441.
69. Kuykendall, L., Tay, L., & Ng, V. (2015). Leisure engagement and subjective well-being: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 364-403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038508.
70. Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.
71. Lee, K., & Ashton, M. (2010). Multivariate behavioral psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329-358.
72. Leite, W. L., Huang, I. C., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2008). Item selection for the development of short forms of scales using an ant colony optimization algorithm. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 43, 411-431. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/00273170802285743.
73. Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10019-000.
74. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York, NY: Harper.
75. MacIver, R. M. (1942). Social causation. New York, NY: Ginn and Company.
76. Magnusson, D. (1971). An analysis of situational dimensions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 32, 851-867. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pms.1971.32.3.851.
77. Magnusson, D. (1981). Toward a psychology of situations: An interactional perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
78. Magnusson, D. (1984). Persons in situations: some comments on a current issue. In H. Bonarius, G. Van Heck, & N. Smid (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe: Theoretical and empirical developments (pp. 149-164). Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.
79. Marcoulides, G. A., & Drezner, Z. (2003). Model specification searches using ant colony optimization algorithms. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 154-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM1001_8.
80. Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. J., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22, 471-491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019227.
81. Marsh, H. W., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Morin, A. J., & Trautwein, U. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: Application to students' evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 439-476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008220.
82. Martin, R. A. (2001). Humor, laughter, and physical health: Methodological issues and research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 504-519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.4.504.
83. Martin, R. A. (2010). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
84. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509-516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.509.
85. Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
86. Meyer, R., Dalal, R., & Hermida, R. (2010). A review and synthesis of situational strength in the organizational sciences. Journal of Management, 36, 121-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206309349309.
87. Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, C., & Dean, J. (2013). Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations.
88. Mikolov, T., Yih, W., & Zweig, G. (2013). Linguistic regularities in continuous space word representations. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics-Human Language Technologies (pp. 746-751).
89. Miller, G., & Charles, W. (1991). Contextual correlates of semantic similarity. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 1-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690969108406936.
90. Mischel, W. (1999). Implications of person-situation interaction: Getting over the field's borderline personality disorder. European Journal of Personality, 13, 455- 461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099- 0984(199909/10)13:5<455::AID-PER357>3.0.CO;2-5.
91. Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246- 268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.246.
92. Moos, R. (1973). Conceptualizations of human environments. American Psychologist, 28, 652-665. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0035722.
93. Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126, 247-259.
94. Murray, H. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
95. Murtagh, F., & Legendre, P. (2014). Ward's hierarchical agglomerative clustering method: Which algorithms implement Ward's criterion? Journal of Classification, 31, 274-295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00357- 014-9161-z.
96. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998 -2012). Mplus user's guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
97. Nascimento-Schulze, C. M. (1981). Towards situational classification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 11, 149-159. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/ejsp.2420110203.
98. Newman, D. B., Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2014). Leisure and subjective well-being: A model of psychological mechanisms as mediating factors. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 555-578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10902-013-9435-x.
99. Neyer, F., Mund, M., & Zimmermann, J. (2015). The person makes the situation matter. European Journal of Personality, 29, 403-404.
100. Norman, W. (1967). 2,800. personality trait descriptors-normative operating characteristics for a university population (Report number UM-00310-1-T).
101. Olaru, G., Witthöft, M., & Wilhelm, O. (2015). Methods matter: Testing competing models for designing short-scale big-five assessments. Journal of Research in Personality, 59, 56-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j .jrp.2015.09.001.
102. Ozer, D. J. (2007). Evaluating effect size in personality research. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, & R. F. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 495-501). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
103. Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 524-539.
104. Pennington, J., Socher, R., & Manning, C. (2014). GloVe: Global vectors for word representation. Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.
105. Pervin, L. (1976). A free-response description approach to the analysis of person-situation interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 465-474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.3.465.
106. Pervin, L. (1978). Definitions, measurements, and classifications of stimuli, situations, and environments. Human Ecology, 6, 71-105. http://dx .doi.org/10.1007/BF00888567.
107. Pinker, S., & Bloom, P. (1990). Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 707-727. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ S0140525X00081061.
108. Price, R., & Blashfield, R. (1975). Explorations in the taxonomy of behavior settings: Analysis of dimensions and classification of settings. American Journal of Community Psychology, 3, 335-351. http://dx.doi .org/10.1007/BF00880776.
109. Rauthmann, J. (2015). Structuring situational information. European Psychologist, 20, 176-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000225.
110. Rauthmann, J. (2016). Motivational factors in the perception of psychological situation characteristics. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 92-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12239.
111. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037250.
112. 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, 363-381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.1994.
113. R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
114. Reis, H. T. (2008). Reinvigorating the concept of situation in social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 311-329.
115. Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. (1991). The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
116. Rubenstein, H., & Goodenough, J. (1965). Contextual correlates of synonymy. Communications of the Association for Computational Machinery, 8, 627-633. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/365628.365657.
117. Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450-461.
118. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68 -78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
119. 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, 479-504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00446.x.
120. Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (2001). Lexical studies of indigenous personality factors: Premises, products, and prospects. Journal of Personality, 69, 847-879. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.696167.
121. Saucier, G., & Srivastava, S. (2015). What makes a good structural model of personality? Evaluating the Big Five and alternatives. Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 283-305.
122. Schmitt, D. P. (2004). The Big Five related to risky sexual behaviour across 10 world regions: Differential personality associations of sexual promiscuity and relationship infidelity. European Journal of Personality, 18, 301-319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.520.
123. Sherman, R. A., Nave, C. S., & Funder, D. C. (2010b). Situational similarity and personality predict behavioral consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 330-343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019796.
124. Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Wright, J. C. (1994). Intraindividual stability in the organization and patterning of behavior: Incorporating psychological situations into the idiographic analysis of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 674-687. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.674.
125. Ten Berge, M., & De Raad, B. (1999). Taxonomies of situations from a trait psychological perspective. A review. European Journal of Personality, 13, 337-360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199909/10)13:5<337::AID-PER363>3.0.CO;2-F.
126. Ten Berge, M., & De Raad, B. (2001). The construction of a joint taxonomy of traits and situations. European Journal of Personality, 15, 253-276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.410.
127. Ten Berge, M., & De Raad, B. (2002). The structure of situations from a personality perspective. European Journal of Personality, 16, 81-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.435.
128. Thornton, G. C., Rupp, D. E., & Hoffman, B. (2015). Assessment center perspectives for talent management strategies. New York, NY: Routledge.
129. Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. (2011). Relative importance analysis: A useful supplement to regression analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 1-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9204-3.
130. Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. (2015). RWA web: A free, comprehensive, web-based, and user-friendly tool for relative weight analyses. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 207-216.
131. Tonidandel, S., Lebreton, J. M., & Johnson, J. W. (2009). Determining the statistical significance of relative weights. Psychological Methods, 14, 387-399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017735.
132. Turney, P., Littman, M., Bigham, J., & Shnayder, V. (2003). Combining independent modules to solve multiple-choice synonym and analogy problems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (pp. 482-489).
133. van Beest, I., & Williams, K. D. (2006). When inclusion costs and ostracism pays, ostracism still hurts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 918-928.
134. Van Heck, G. (1984). The construction of a general taxonomy of situations. In H. Bonarius, G. Van Heck, & N. Smid (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe: Theoretical and empirical developments (pp. 149-164). Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.
135. Van Heck, G. (1989). Situation concepts: Definitions and classification. In P. Hettema (Ed.), Personality and environment: Assessment of human adaptation (pp. 53-69). Oxford, England: Wiley.
136. van Heuven, W. J., Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2014). SUBTLEX-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 67, 1176-1190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 17470218.2013.850521.
137. Vazire, S., & Bleidorn, W. (2015). Where is personality most visible. European Journal of Personality, 29, 414-415.
138. Ward, J., Jr. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 236-244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1963.10500845.
139. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
140. Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the Internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748-762.
141. Woo, S. E., Chernyshenko, O. S., Longley, A., Zhang, Z. X., Chiu, C. Y., & Stark, S. E. (2014). Openness to experience: Its lower level structure, measurement, and cross-cultural equivalence. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 29-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.806328.
142. Wood, D. (2015). Testing the lexical hypothesis: Are socially important traits more densely reflected in the English lexicon? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 317-335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038343.
143. Yang, Y., Read, S., & Miller, L. (2006). A taxonomy of situations from Chinese idioms. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 750-778. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.09.007.
144. Yang, Y., Read, S., & Miller, L. (2009). The concept of situations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 1018-1037. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00236.x.
145. Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go? Ostracism by a computer is sufficient to lower self-reported levels of belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 560-567.