top of page

Evaluate the role of situational versus dispositional factors in explaining behavior.

Social Approach

Psychology Essays

 A Level/AS Level/O Level

Free Essay Outline

Briefly define situational and dispositional factors. Introduce the debate surrounding their influence on behaviour. State your argument - will you lean towards situational, dispositional, or an interactionist approach?

Situational Factors
Define situational factors with examples (e.g., social norms, peer pressure). Discuss key studies supporting the influence of situational factors, like Milgram's obedience study or Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment. Analyze the strengths and limitations of these studies.

Dispositional Factors
Define dispositional factors with examples (e.g., personality traits, genetics). Discuss key theories focusing on dispositional influences like Eysenck's personality theory or the Five Factor Model. Explain how these theories apply to behaviour. Analyze the strengths and limitations of focusing solely on dispositional factors.

The Interactionist Approach
Introduce the interactionist approach as a balanced perspective. Explain how both situational and dispositional factors interact to shape behaviour. Use an example study, such as Bandura's Bobo Doll experiment, which highlights the interaction between individual traits and environmental influences.

Reiterate your argument, summarizing the key points discussed. Offer a nuanced perspective on the complexity of explaining behavior solely through situational or dispositional factors. Conclude with a final thought on the importance of considering both for a comprehensive understanding of human behaviour.

Free Essay

The question of whether our actions are driven by our internal characteristics or by external circumstances is a long-standing debate in psychology. Situational factors refer to the external influences that can shape our behaviour, such as social norms, environmental pressures, and cultural contexts. Conversely, dispositional factors encompass internal characteristics, such as personality traits, genetics, and attitudes, that contribute to our behaviours. While both play a significant role, this essay will argue that a comprehensive understanding of behaviour requires an integration of both situational and dispositional factors through an interactionist approach.

Situational Factors
Situational factors, also known as environmental influences, can significantly impact our choices and actions. Social norms, unwritten rules governing behaviour within a group, provide a powerful example. Studies like Asch's conformity experiments demonstrate how individuals are influenced by the majority opinion, even when their personal judgment contradicts it (Asch, 1951). This suggests that even in the absence of direct pressure, the social context can shape our behaviour. Furthermore, peer pressure, the influence exerted by one's peers, can lead to risky behaviour such as substance use as highlighted by research on adolescent social groups (Dishion et al., 2004).

However, focusing solely on situational factors has limitations. The impact of social norms and peer influence is not universal; individual differences play a critical role. Furthermore, while studies like Milgram's obedience experiments (Milgram, 1963) and Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo, 2007) provide compelling evidence for the power of situational influences, they are criticized for their ethical concerns and potential for exaggerating the power of situational factors. Their findings are not easily generalizable to real-world contexts.

Dispositional Factors
Dispositional factors, often referred to as personality traits, can also significantly influence behaviour. Eysenck's personality theory (Eysenck, 1967), for instance, proposes that individuals can be categorized along three dimensions: introversion-extroversion, neuroticism-stability, and psychoticism-normality. These dimensions, believed to be rooted in biological factors, influence how individuals react to various situations. For example, highly neurotic individuals may be more susceptible to stress and anxiety, impacting their behaviour in stressful situations.

The Five Factor Model (Costa & McCrae, 1992), another prominent dispositional model, identifies five key dimensions of personality: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (OCEAN). These traits are believed to be relatively stable across an individual's lifespan and influence various aspects of behaviour, including career choices, interpersonal relationships, and health outcomes.

However, attributing behaviour solely to dispositional factors overlooks the complexity of human behaviour. Individuals can exhibit different behaviours in different situations, suggesting that situational context is crucial. Furthermore, the deterministic nature of some dispositional theories raises concerns about free will and the potential for labelling individuals based on their traits.

The Interactionist Approach
Recognizing the limitations of both solely situational and solely dispositional perspectives, the interactionist approach offers a more nuanced view of behaviour. This approach recognizes that behaviour is a result of the interplay between individual characteristics and environmental influences. Bandura's Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977), which emphasizes the role of observational learning and vicarious reinforcement, provides a strong example. The Bobo Doll experiment (Bandura, 1961) demonstrated that children who observed an adult behaving aggressively towards the doll were more likely to engage in similar aggressive behaviour. This highlights the interaction between individual tendencies (aggression) and environmental exposure (observing aggressive behaviour).

The interactionist approach emphasizes that individuals are not passive recipients of their environment but actively interpret and respond to situations based on their dispositional characteristics. For instance, a person with a high level of conscientiousness might be less likely to engage in risky behaviours in a social setting, while someone with a lower level of agreeableness might be more prone to conflict in a group situation.

In conclusion, while situational and dispositional factors both contribute to behaviour, a complete understanding requires an interactionist approach. The interplay between internal characteristics and external influences shapes our choices and actions. Solely focusing on situational or dispositional factors can lead to incomplete and potentially misleading conclusions. By acknowledging the complexity of human behaviour and the dynamic interaction between personal traits and environmental influences, we can gain a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of why people behave the way they do.



Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men (pp. 177–190). Carnegie Press.
Bandura, A. (1961). Influence of model's reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1 (6), 589-595.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6), 653-665.
Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., & Capaldi, D. M. (2004). Peer influence on adolescent adjustment: A developmental cascade model. Developmental Review, 24, 1-33.
Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378.
Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York: Random House.

bottom of page