A personality trait is a relatively enduring tendency in how a person thinks, feels, wants, and behaves across many occasions. A personality state is the person's psychological functioning at a particular time, in a particular context. The same individual may be assertive during a familiar work discussion, reserved at a stranger's gathering, patient with a child, and irritable after a night without sleep. These differences are entirely compatible with a recognizable personality. Contemporary personality science explains their coexistence by studying dispositions as patterns of probability, states as observable momentary expressions, and situations as conditions under which those expressions become more or less likely. Fleeson, 2001; Columbus and Strandsbjerg, 2025.
The trait–state distinction matters because a single episode supplies limited information about a person's characteristic functioning. A trait estimate summarizes tendencies across contexts and time; a state describes what happens here and now. Neither description is complete by itself. Understanding everyday personality requires explaining both the reliable differences among people and the substantial fluctuations within each person. Evidence from repeated real-world assessments establishes both phenomena, while research on specific mechanisms, causal pathways, and reliable personal prediction remains more uneven. Fleeson and Gallagher, 2009; Kuper et al., 2024.
What Personality Traits and Personality States Mean
A trait describes a distribution of tendencies
A dispositional description such as organized, adventurous, considerate, or easily frustrated conveys an expectation about recurring patterns. It does not claim that every thought or action expresses the disposition. To describe someone as generally cautious is to expect cautious choices more often, across a relevant range of situations, than would be expected from a less cautious person under comparable conditions. A trait is inferred from sufficiently representative evidence: repeated behavior, self-description, reports by knowledgeable others, or combinations of such sources. The inference is about a tendency and the degree of uncertainty surrounding it. Fleeson and Jayawickreme, 2015.
Traits can concern emotion, social conduct, motivation, attention, persistence, or self-regulation. Their psychological meaning depends on the trait construct and the behavior or experience being measured. A high questionnaire score does not imply an uninterrupted stream of trait-consistent action. It implies that, over appropriate observations, the person's pattern tends to occupy a different region of the population distribution. Trait scores are therefore comparative and probabilistic; their interpretation depends on the assessment method, reference group, context, and measurement reliability. Fleeson, 2001; Fleeson and Law, 2015.
A state describes a particular occasion
A state is what a person is experiencing, thinking, intending, or doing at an identifiable time. Examples include feeling confident during a presentation, showing warmth in a conversation, being unusually methodical while completing a demanding task, or withdrawing from a tense social interaction. States can be assessed with brief self-reports, observer ratings, behavioral indicators, or records of activities close to the time when they occur. They often shift across minutes, hours, settings, and relationship partners. Columbus and Strandsbjerg, 2025; Lakey et al., 2022.
The word state in personality research has a specific scope: a momentary expression relevant to personality. It should be distinguished from a temporary emotional episode, a physical condition, and a psychiatric state, although these categories can interact. A person's present sadness, for example, is an affective state; their pattern of emotional reactivity across occasions is a different, more enduring question. Describing someone as argumentative during one encounter is not enough to establish a general trait, and recording repeated quiet behavior does not reveal its motivation without additional context. Columbus and Strandsbjerg, 2025.
Trait versus state in one daily-life example
Imagine two colleagues, both of whom speak little during an unfamiliar meeting. One usually speaks freely but is unfamiliar with the subject. The other generally prefers to listen before contributing. Their identical observed state has different dispositional and situational explanations. Later, during a familiar team discussion, their behavior may diverge. Conversely, two people with similar questionnaire scores may display markedly different conduct in a given moment because one is under scrutiny, one has an immediate goal, or one encounters a supportive relationship partner. A sound interpretation asks what is typical across occasions, what occurred in this particular setting, and which processes might connect the two. Fleeson and Noftle, 2008; Lakey et al., 2022.
Why People Vary Across Situations Without Losing Their Personality
Stable rank differences coexist with fluctuating behavior
Everyday variability is a central finding of intensive personality research. Fleeson's experience-sampling work showed that people routinely occupy a wide range of state levels while maintaining recognizable differences in their average expressions. A person who tends to be socially energetic may also have many quiet hours; a generally restrained person may sometimes become the most talkative participant in a group. Stable differences in means do not require fixed behavior. Even variability itself can exhibit individual differences. Fleeson, 2001.
In a synthesis of 15 experience-sampling studies involving more than 20,000 reports, Fleeson and Gallagher found that questionnaire trait standing was associated with aggregated everyday trait expression; reported correlations for average manifestations ranged from approximately .42 to .56. The same body of work found substantial within-person variation in state behavior. These findings apply to studied samples, measures, and behavioral domains, and their association sizes should not be converted into predictions for particular people or single occasions. The scientific conclusion is that trait tendencies can be visible in aggregate despite pronounced behavioral range. Fleeson and Gallagher, 2009.
Why one episode is weak evidence of a disposition
The apparent contradiction between a person's characteristic style and a particular act often disappears when the reference period is specified. Being helpful once establishes that helpfulness was expressed in that circumstance. The claim that someone is characteristically helpful requires sufficiently varied occasions, opportunities to act, and comparison with a meaningful baseline. Similarly, a person who is quiet during one seminar may be tired, uncertain, culturally deferential, focused on listening, or reluctant to speak in that specific social hierarchy. Observed conduct is evidence, but its dispositional interpretation requires replication and context. Fleeson and Law, 2015; Fleeson and Noftle, 2008.
The distinction also guards against a common inferential error: reading a person's entire character backward from an emotionally salient event. A public argument, a generous gesture, a failed deadline, and a courageous decision may be genuine behaviors without being representative. Researchers reduce this ambiguity by sampling behavior repeatedly and aggregating over opportunities, while also asking when unusually strong or weak expressions occur. This approach helps identify the recurring conditions under which a person's dispositions become visible. Fleeson, 2004.
Density Distributions: A Scientific Model of Daily Personality
Mean, variability, and range
The density-distribution approach describes a person's trait as the distribution of corresponding states measured across an interval. One feature is the mean, which summarizes a typical level. Other features include the spread of states, the frequency of unusually high or low expressions, and the shape of the distribution. Two people can have a similar mean level of sociability yet differ in how variable their sociability is, how quickly it changes, and which contexts elicit it. The distribution offers more information than a single trait score, while remaining sensitive to the settings and time frames sampled. Fleeson, 2001; Fleeson and Jayawickreme, 2015.
These quantities are not alternative personality types. A broad distribution is not inherently instability, pathology, or weakness, and a narrow distribution is not necessarily healthy consistency. Variation can reflect flexible adaptation, constrained environments, changing demands, diverse social relationships, or the limits of a measure. A person's mean state level may also depend on which experiences are sampled. A record taken only during workdays may represent a different slice of life than a record encompassing home, travel, and weekends. Geukes et al., 2017.
What repeated observations establish
Fleeson and Law examined the contributions of people, situations, and observers to recurring state expression. Their research addressed whether behavioral distributions merely reflected the kinds of situations people encountered, and whether state variability existed beyond self-perception. Findings supported meaningful person-level patterns while also showing variation across circumstances and convergence with observers. This helps establish that personality states can be investigated as recurring behavioral phenomena rather than treated solely as verbal claims about identity. It does not remove all possible effects of observation, shared context, or measurement reactivity. Fleeson and Law, 2015.
Trait and state are related, but they are not interchangeable scores
A trait inventory commonly asks people what they do generally. A state survey typically asks about their experience or behavior now, today, or during a specified event. Replacing 'usually' with 'at this moment' changes the object of measurement and sometimes the validity of the item. A trait may predict a person's average daily state without producing a high trait–state association on every occasion. State means likewise need not coincide exactly with questionnaire traits because the two instruments draw on different information, recall periods, reference groups, and potential biases. The current review literature recognizes both convergence and meaningful differences between the measures. Columbus and Strandsbjerg, 2025.
The Person–Situation Question: How Context Shapes Expression
From competing explanations to interaction
Personality psychologists have long investigated whether behavior is better understood through dispositions or immediate situations. Contemporary work identifies multiple legitimate levels of consistency. Across single occasions, behavior can fluctuate widely. Across appropriately sampled periods, aggregated differences among people may be stable and predictable. A complete account therefore studies dispositions, situation characteristics, and the processes linking them. Historical positions in the person–situation debate helped establish the need to investigate within-person dynamics explicitly. Fleeson, 2004; Fleeson and Noftle, 2008.
A situation is more than an address or social label. It includes tasks, interpersonal demands, perceived opportunities, obstacles, social norms, stakes, and the meaning a person assigns to what is happening. The identical meeting can be experienced as supportive by one participant and threatening by another. Situation selection matters too: people actively enter, maintain, or avoid contexts that fit their aims and habits. Current integrative accounts describe recurring cycles in which people select environments, perceive their features, express states, and encounter outcomes that influence subsequent choices. These cycles are useful theoretical frameworks, while empirical evidence for individual pathways differs in strength. Horstmann et al., 2021; Li and Wilt, 2025.
Situational affordances, demands, and constraints
A trait may be especially visible when a setting gives it an opportunity to operate. An organized disposition may be expressed through planning when a task has several competing deadlines; assertiveness may become evident when a group requires a decision. When a setting restricts everyone's behavior through strong rules, the same trait may be harder to observe. Trait activation theory, particularly developed for work behavior, specifies how demands, distractors, constraints, facilitators, and other features shape opportunities for trait expression. This perspective describes conditions for behavioral relevance; its original organizational findings do not automatically establish the same pathways in every family, cultural, or clinical setting. Tett and Burnett, 2003.
Actual behavior also responds to capacities, incentives, goals, momentary affect, and immediate cognition. In preregistered everyday-life research, Horstmann and colleagues examined personality-related behavioral states in relation to situation perception and affect, underscoring that momentary experiences contribute information not contained in broad trait scores. The analyses remain subject to the inferential limitations of intensive self-reports: correlated perceptions and behavior may arise from shared circumstances, common response processes, or reciprocal influence. Horstmann et al., 2021.
Individualized if–then patterns
People can have characteristic conditional patterns, such as becoming outspoken when a topic feels familiar and withdrawn when evaluation is anticipated. These patterns are sometimes described as 'if–then' signatures: if a recognizable class of circumstances occurs, then a recurring response becomes more likely. Conditional regularities complement trait averages by specifying the settings in which an expression occurs. They must be inferred from repeated, appropriately classified experiences rather than assumed from an anecdote. Kuper et al., 2022.
The emerging evidence is specific. In five studies with 952 participants and 32,052 assessments, Kuper and colleagues found appreciable individual differences in links between situation characteristics and personality states; these individual differences had moderate estimated reliability and short-term stability. Crucially, those personal situation–state contingencies were only weakly and inconsistently related to standard trait self-reports and mean state levels. Distinct aspects of an individual's situational responsiveness cannot simply be read off a conventional questionnaire score. Kuper et al., 2022.
Four Different Meanings of Person by Situation Interaction
A claim that 'personality interacts with situations' can refer to several different statistical phenomena. Researchers distinguish overall person-by-situation variation, person-specific responses to measured situation characteristics, variation in trait–state relations across situations, and the narrow interaction between a particular measured trait and a particular measured situational feature. These are related questions but they are not identical tests. Conflating them makes broad theoretical assertions appear more strongly confirmed than the actual evidence warrants. Kuper et al., 2024.
In two preregistered online studies involving 622 and 818 participants who responded to standardized images and videos, Kuper and colleagues found substantial broad person-by-situation variation and meaningful individual differences in responses to situation characteristics. In contrast, specific measured trait-by-measured situation interactions were generally small, even when statistically detectable. This distinction matters because substantial variation across people and situations does not guarantee that a familiar trait score will precisely identify which circumstance will change a particular person's behavior. Laboratory-like stimulus ratings also remain different from extended real-life encounters. Kuper et al., 2024.
How Relationships Influence Personality States
A person's characteristic expression can depend on whom they are with. Supportive and familiar relationships may afford openness and conversational initiative, while relationships involving conflict, status inequality, uncertainty, or perceived criticism may bring out different states. In three studies, Lakey and colleagues examined the expression of personality characteristics in relation to specific partners. People showed notable cross-partner consistency alongside meaningful partner-specific expression; supportive relationships were associated with greater expressions of extraversion, agreeableness, and openness in these samples. The findings illustrate interpersonal context as a component of daily personality dynamics, while their reliance on studied participants and assessments limits universal extrapolation. Lakey et al., 2022.
The relational interpretation is richer than saying that people have a different personality with each person. A recurring response to one relationship may arise from shared history, reciprocal expectations, roles, communication norms, emotional safety, or a particular interaction pattern. Individuals also contribute to which relationship situations persist. Because these processes may influence one another, a correlational association between perceived support and outgoing behavior does not establish which process initiated the change. Careful studies of relationships consider both partners, the history of interaction, and repeated observations. Lakey et al., 2022; Fleeson and Jayawickreme, 2015.
Whole Trait Theory: Connecting Description and Mechanism
Whole Trait Theory proposes that traits have a descriptive component represented by distributions of personality states and an explanatory component concerned with the social-cognitive processes that generate states. Goals, interpretations, expectations, and other processes are candidates for explaining why a person expresses one state in one circumstance and another elsewhere. On this account, average trait standing and momentary variation can be integrated into one scientific program. The framework is an influential theory with empirical foundations, and particular accounts of the generating processes require independent tests. Fleeson and Jayawickreme, 2015.
The approach matters because it distinguishes statistical description from psychological explanation. Knowing that a person's average state level is high describes the distribution; it does not by itself reveal whether this tendency arises through preferred activities, beliefs about social interaction, reward sensitivity, social opportunities, or learned behavioral skills. Researchers may observe a stable state pattern while continuing to test alternative mechanisms for its origin. The same caution applies to claims that a change in everyday behavior necessarily represents a change in a stable trait. Fleeson and Jayawickreme, 2015; Columbus and Strandsbjerg, 2025.
Distinguishing Differences Between People From Changes Within One Person
Between-person research asks whether people with higher average levels of a characteristic differ from others in another characteristic. Within-person research asks whether a given individual behaves differently from their own usual level when their circumstances vary. These questions use different comparison standards and can yield different answers. If people who spend more time in demanding roles report greater average organization, that observation does not by itself prove that an individual will become more organized whenever a particular task becomes demanding. The first pattern involves differences among people; the second requires repeated observations within the same person, with attention to time and confounding. Geukes et al., 2017; Kuper et al., 2022.
Researchers often separate a person's average state level from the deviation occurring during a particular experience. The distinction permits estimates of how characteristics of occasions relate to state fluctuations independently of stable between-person differences. Multilevel analysis can model repeated reports nested within people; more advanced designs may examine sequences, changes in responsiveness, and heterogeneity of processes. However, statistical partitioning does not automatically identify causal effects. Temporal ordering, measurement error, selection into contexts, and unmeasured events remain important. Horstmann et al., 2021; Kuper et al., 2024.
How Scientists Measure States in Everyday Life
Experience sampling and ecological momentary assessment
Experience-sampling methods ask people to report on their current experiences or recent behavior repeatedly across ordinary life. Prompts may occur at random times, after particular events, or at scheduled intervals. These designs can capture variability that a single retrospective survey would conceal. An assessment of personality states may ask whether a person has been talkative, attentive, considerate, tense, or spontaneous since the last prompt. Researchers can combine such reports with information about companions, location type, activity, perceived demands, and goals. Fleeson and Gallagher, 2009; Columbus and Strandsbjerg, 2025.
A good experience-sampling design must define its time window carefully. 'Right now,' 'since the previous signal,' and 'today' ask different questions. Sampling too infrequently can miss rapid changes; sampling very frequently can burden participants and influence the situations being observed. Missed reports are rarely random: distressing, socially active, and demanding moments may be particularly difficult to report. Consequently, researchers must assess compliance, missingness, and whether the observed moments adequately represent the person's normal range of life. Columbus and Strandsbjerg, 2025; Geukes et al., 2017.
Observers, behavioral records, and convergence
Self-reports convey aspects of subjective experience that outside observers may not see. They also reflect memory, self-perception, interpretation of questions, and the desire to make a coherent impression. Observer ratings can capture visible conduct while missing private motives or thoughts. Digital traces and automated sensing provide additional behavioral indicators, but the validity of inferring a broad psychological state from clicks, location, speech patterns, or device activity must be demonstrated rather than assumed. Combining multiple sources can improve the interpretation of a state without making any one observation infallible. Fleeson and Law, 2015; Columbus and Strandsbjerg, 2025.
Behavior and motivation also need to be separated. A quiet response may reflect uncertainty, thoughtful listening, respect, anxiety, disinterest, or an external rule. A completed task may reflect conscientiousness, immediate necessity, skill, or a supervisor's reminder. Reliable personality science does not assign a single psychological meaning to every observed act. It tests whether indicators remain interpretable across differing circumstances, informants, and groups. Fleeson and Law, 2015.
Within-context versus cross-context variability
Two kinds of daily variation can produce the same overall spread of states. A person may fluctuate substantially while remaining in a comparable context, or may show consistent behavior within each setting but very different behavior across work, home, and social occasions. The Within and Across Context framework separates these patterns. Geukes and colleagues used repeated observations of students' everyday social interactions to demonstrate the importance of distinguishing variation within situations from variation across categories of situations. Their illustrative sample was relatively small and restricted, so the approach is methodologically valuable while its particular estimates require replication in broader populations. Geukes et al., 2017.
Does Acting Outside One's Usual Trait Mean the Trait Has Changed?
A temporarily unusual state indicates behavioral range, not necessarily enduring development. An ordinarily quiet person may speak extensively at a celebration, and an energetic person may behave quietly while recovering from illness. Trait change is a different inference that requires observations over substantial time, evidence that the reference conditions are comparable, and attention to measurement properties. Longitudinal personality research finds both stability and change over the life course, but those findings concern changes across repeated trait assessments rather than a momentary deviation alone. Bleidorn et al., 2022; Fleeson and Jayawickreme, 2015.
Repeatedly enacting behaviors can, in principle, contribute to longer-term habits, learning, social consequences, and evolving self-understanding. Whether and when such repeated states consolidate into trait change is an active research question, not a guaranteed result of adopting a behavioral strategy for several days. Reviews of intervention research indicate that personality trait measures can change across some intervention contexts, with substantial variation in design, populations, and target characteristics. Those intervention findings do not establish that isolated deliberate state shifts cause durable personality transformation. Roberts et al., 2017; Columbus and Strandsbjerg, 2025.
Where the Evidence Is Strong and Where It Remains Contested
Established: distributions and average individual differences
Repeated-measure studies provide substantial evidence that individuals display wide within-person fluctuations in personality-relevant behavior, alongside meaningful and often reproducible differences in average state expression. These findings have been observed using intensive self-report methods and, in important work, observational comparisons. They support probabilistic accounts of disposition and contradict the expectation that a trait requires uniform behavior. Fleeson, 2001; Fleeson and Gallagher, 2009; Fleeson and Law, 2015.
Emerging: individualized situation–state mechanisms
It is increasingly clear that people differ in their responses to situations. However, the task of identifying highly reliable, transportable individual contingency profiles is more difficult. Kuper and colleagues found measurable but only moderately reliable and stable individual differences in situation–state contingencies. Other work demonstrates sizable broad person-by-situation interactions while finding comparatively small interactions between particular measured traits and situation features. The correct interpretation recognizes heterogeneity without treating ordinary trait inventories as precise moment-to-moment prediction engines. Kuper et al., 2022; Kuper et al., 2024.
Contested: the benefits of always fitting trait or situation
It may seem intuitive that people should feel best when acting in line with their traits or when their behavior matches a situation's perceived demands. Research does not establish such a universal rule. Across three intensive longitudinal datasets, Kritzler and colleagues found no consistent replicable evidence that trait–state fit, state–situation fit, or their complex interactions reliably predicted momentary affect. Their findings concern specific operationalizations of fit and affect, not every imaginable form of congruence. They show why plausible explanations need robust, repeated empirical testing. Kritzler et al., 2024.
Cultural Context and the Limits of Generalization
Trait and state research has frequently drawn on Western, educated, and student samples, whose roles, conversational norms, schedules, and reporting styles may not generalize across populations. Social expectations influence when assertiveness, restraint, expressiveness, or self-control are encouraged and how observers interpret such behaviors. Language, social categories, discrimination, institutional norms, and structural opportunity also contribute to which contexts people encounter. Cultural interpretation matters both when comparing average trait scores and when studying fluctuations within individuals. Kuper et al., 2026; Lakey et al., 2022.
A multinational study involving 15,221 participants from 61 countries and one geographic region examined links among personality traits, perceived situation characteristics, and behavioral states. Some trait–state and situation–state associations generalized across national contexts, while some associations varied with cultural indicators; specific trait-by-situation interactions tended to be small and less consistently significant. The study offers broader comparative coverage than earlier single-country research, yet its design focused on reports about situations rather than repeated tracking of each participant through many days. Broad geographic coverage does not substitute for intensive within-person evidence. Kuper et al., 2026.
A cross-cultural or multilingual difference in reported expression should not be translated into a stereotype about an individual's true character. Differences in norms, opportunity, response style, translation, and perceived expectations can alter the meaning of behavioral indicators. The research challenge is to examine comparable constructs while allowing for genuinely different social ecologies and forms of expression. Kuper et al., 2026.
Practical Interpretation: Using Traits and States Responsibly
In educational and workplace contexts, dispositional information can help form hypotheses about typical preferences or demands, while direct observation remains essential for understanding performance in a particular task. A single lapse, uncharacteristic emotional reaction, or public performance supplies limited evidence for an enduring label. Personality assessments may be useful only within their validated purpose, appropriate population, and demonstrated level of predictive accuracy. It is misleading to treat everyday trait labels as explanations that eliminate the need to ask what a setting required or afforded. Tett and Burnett, 2003; Kuper et al., 2024.
In relationships, the distinction supports greater precision about recurring conduct. 'You were withdrawn during this conversation' identifies a particular episode; 'you are a withdrawn person' attributes a more enduring tendency. One may be true without the other. Repeated observations, the interaction's history, and the viewpoints of relevant partners help determine what claim is justified. The goal of scientific description is to account for patterns, contexts, and uncertainty rather than to assign immutable identities. Lakey et al., 2022; Fleeson and Law, 2015.
Normal variation in shyness, enthusiasm, emotional intensity, self-discipline, or social behavior is not a psychiatric diagnosis. Clinical judgments about a disorder require clinically relevant evidence, enduring patterns, functional consequences, and the criteria of an applicable diagnostic framework. A momentary state report, a trait questionnaire score, or a statistical association with distress does not establish such a diagnosis. The distinction protects the interpretation of ordinary human variation while leaving legitimate clinical evaluation to its own evidence and methods. For that specialized boundary, see Personality Disorders vs Personality Traits: Clinical Differences.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a person have a stable trait and show the opposite state?
Yes. People with a relatively high average tendency can display low expressions on many individual occasions, and vice versa. Trait estimates describe recurring distributions of behavior, not a rule for each encounter. To interpret an apparent exception, examine the situation and how representative the observation is. Fleeson, 2001.
Is mood the same as a personality state?
Mood is a form of affective experience that may influence a personality-relevant state, but the two terms refer to different constructs. A state assessment can include thoughts, goals, and behavior, whereas mood focuses on affective experience. Operational definitions determine what researchers are actually measuring. Columbus and Strandsbjerg, 2025.
Are personality states less real than traits?
States are momentary experiences and expressions that can be measured repeatedly; traits summarize patterns inferred across such evidence. Both are scientifically meaningful at their respective levels. Observable states may vary considerably even when broad tendencies remain recognizable. Fleeson and Gallagher, 2009.
Do different social roles mean someone has several personalities?
Different roles can invite different expressions of the same person's psychological tendencies. Variation with partners, demands, and norms is common. A finding that people behave differently with different partners does not imply separate identities or a dissociative disorder. Lakey et al., 2022.
Can a questionnaire predict exactly how someone will behave today?
Questionnaires can provide probabilistic information about typical patterns within their validated scope. An individual day's behavior depends on circumstances, current goals, other people, and measurement limits. Even substantial trait associations with aggregated behavior do not imply accurate prediction of a specific act or emotional experience. Fleeson and Gallagher, 2009; Kuper et al., 2024.
Does changing daily behavior change personality?
An immediate behavioral change is a change in state. Enduring trait change requires repeated evidence across time and contexts. Interventions and life experience can be associated with changes in personality measures, but the processes linking repeated state enactment to durable trait development require study rather than assumption. Roberts et al., 2017; Bleidorn et al., 2022.
Related Articles
Cluster Personality Traits, Temperament and Individual Differences — the scientific overview of personality differences, temperament, development, measurement, and the interaction of dispositions with experience.
Personality Traits vs States: How the Big Five Changes Across Situations — the already published model-specific treatment of trait and state expression within the Big Five framework.
Personality Disorders vs Personality Traits: Clinical Differences — the separate clinical account of normal-range traits, impairment, and personality-disorder classification.
References
Bleidorn, W., et al. (2022). Personality stability and change: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000365
Columbus, S., and Strandsbjerg, C. F. (2025). Personality states. Current Opinion in Psychology, 65, 102099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102099
Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 1011–1027. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.1011
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(2), 83–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00280.x
Fleeson, W., and Gallagher, P. (2009). The implications of Big-Five standing for the distribution of trait manifestation in behavior: Fifteen experience-sampling studies and a meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1097–1114. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016786
Fleeson, W., and Jayawickreme, E. (2015). Whole Trait Theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.10.009
Fleeson, W., and Law, M. K. (2015). Trait enactments as density distributions: The role of actors, situations, and observers in explaining stability and variability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1090–1104. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039517
Fleeson, W., and Noftle, E. (2008). The end of the person-situation debate: An emerging synthesis in the answer to the consistency question. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(4), 1667–1684. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00122.x
Geukes, K., Nestler, S., Hutteman, R., Küfner, A. C. P., and Back, M. D. (2017). Trait personality and state variability: Predicting individual differences in within- and cross-context fluctuations in affect, self-evaluations, and behavior in everyday life. Journal of Research in Personality, 69, 124–138. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656616300514
Horstmann, K. T., Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R. A., and Ziegler, M. (2021). Unveiling an exclusive link: Predicting behavior with personality, situation perception, and affect in a preregistered experience sampling study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(5), 1317–1343. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000357
Kritzler, S., Horstmann, K. T., Quintus, M., Egloff, B., Wrzus, C., and Luhmann, M. (2024). Are state-trait fit and state-situation fit relevant for within-person dynamics of personality states? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 127(4), 880–900. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000519
Kuper, N., Breil, S. M., Horstmann, K. T., et al. (2022). Individual differences in contingencies between situation characteristics and personality states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(5), 1166–1198. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000435
Kuper, N., Gardiner, G., Baranski, E., Funder, D. C., Rauthmann, J. F., and the International Situations Project. (2026). Cultural differences in the Personality Triad: The interplay of personality traits, situation characteristics, and behavioral states around the world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 130(5), 1002–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000581
Kuper, N., von Garrel, A. S., Wiernik, B. M., et al. (2024). Distinguishing four types of Person × Situation interactions: An integrative framework and empirical examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 126(2), 282–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000473
Lakey, B., Hubbard, S. A., Brummans, J., Obreiter, A., and Perrin, P. B. (2022). The relational regulation of within-person variation in personality expression. Journal of Personality, 90(2), 152–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12659
Li, R., and Wilt, J. A. (2025). Situated selves: A cyclical model of personality expression in context. Current Opinion in Psychology, 65, 102104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102104
Roberts, B. W., et al. (2017). A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000088
Tett, R. P., and Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.500