Whole Trait Theory expands upon traditional personality theories by integrating social-cognitive processes like goals, motivations and interpretations to explain how traits manifest dynamically in behavior. Whole Trait Theory argues that traits are not static dispositions, but emerge instead from distributions of behavior states that vary based on internal cognitive processes and external contextual factors.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. Proposed by William Fleeson and Eranda Jayawickreme, Whole Trait Theory posits that personality traits are underpinned by dynamic psychological processes characterized by situational variability and emergent patterns of behavior.Fleeson, W., & Jayawickreme, E. (2021). Whole trait theory puts dynamics at the core of structure. In The handbook of personality dynamics and processes (pp. 579-599). Academic Press. By conceptualizing traits as density distributions of states, Whole Trait Theory transcends traditional models to account for both the stability of personality and the contextual variability of behavior.Fleeson, W., & Jayawickreme, E. (2015). Whole Trait Theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 82–92.
Background
Personality trait theories like the Five-Factor Model typically emphasize behavioral consistency across time and place.McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (2nd ed., pp. 139–153). New York: Guilford Press. Critics argue, however, that these models are not able to account for significant intra-individual variability observed across different situational contexts.Mischel, W. (1968; 2013). Personality and Assessment. New York: Wiley.Cervone, D. (2005). Personality architecture: Within-person structures and processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 423–452. The person-situation debate questioned whether behavior is primarily influenced by enduring traits or by situational factors.Kenrick, D. T., & Funder, D. C. (1988). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person–situation debate. American Psychologist, 43(1), 23–34. Social-cognitive theories account for situational variability but underrepresent emergent trait stability embodied in behavioral patterns.Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality. Psychological Review, 102(2), 246–268. The need for an integrative approach that addressed these limitations became evident.Roberts, B. W. (2009). Back to the future: Personality and assessment and personality development. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(2), 137–145.
In 2001, Fleeson introduced the concept of traits as density distributions of states, proposing that 1) individual behavior is characterized by localized variability around a dynamic mean, and 2) behavioral states aggregate over time as (typically) normal distributions characterizing emergent trait-level consistency.Jayawickreme, E., & Blackie, L. E. R. (2014). Post‐traumatic growth as positive personality change: Evidence, controversies and future directions. European Journal of Personality, 28(4), 312–331. Jayawickreme's research focused on the underlying psychological processes contributing to personality development and positive change.Jayawickreme, E., & Blackie, L. E. R. (2016). Exploring the psychological benefits of hardship: A critical reassessment of posttraumatic growth. In Growth following adversity (pp. 21–36). Wiley-Blackwell. In 2015, the initial collaboration between these social scientists culminated in the formal articulation of Whole Trait Theory.
Core concepts
The descriptive aspect of Whole Trait Theory conceptualizes personality traits as density distributions of states. Traits are viewed as distributions representing the frequency and intensity of various momentary behavioral states that an individual exhibits over time.Fleeson, W., & Law, M. K. (2015). Trait enactments as density distributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1090–1104. This perspective acknowledges that while people display considerable variability in their daily actions, stable patterns emerge when these behaviors are aggregated.Fleeson, W., & Noftle, E. E. (2008). The end of the person–situation debate. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(4), 1667–1684. Measurement within this framework involves collecting and aggregating data on individuals' momentary states across different contexts and times.Conner, T. S., & Mehl, M. R. (2015). Ambulatory assessment. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 247–270). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Experience sampling methods are commonly employed for this purpose, wherein participants report their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in real time, often multiple times a day.Scollon, C. N., & Prieto, C. K. (2009). Experience sampling. In E. Diener (Ed.), Assessing Well-Being (pp. 157–180). Dordrecht: Springer. Analysis of these data results in both local and global metrics, providing a nuanced portrayal of traits that captures coexistent consistency and fluctuation.Moskowitz, D. S., & Zuroff, D. C. (2004). Flux, pulse, and spin. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(6), 880–893.McCabe, K. O., & Fleeson, W. (2016). Are traits useful? Explaining trait manifestations as tools in the pursuit of goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(2), 287–301.
The explanatory aspect of Whole Trait Theory integrates cognitive, affective, and motivational processes to elucidate how and why traits are expressed in behavior. Underlying psychosocial mechanisms like goals, motivations, beliefs, and interpretations underlie emergent patterns observed in the descriptive aspect. These mechanisms influence momentary states that, over time, form density distributions that represent traits. By incorporating social-cognitive theories, the explanatory aspect accounts for the dynamic processes influencing behavior.Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. For example, an individual's interpretation of a social event, their emotional responses, and their personal goals can affect how they act in a given context.Cervone, D., Shadel, W. G., & Jencius, S. (2001). Social-cognitive theory of personality assessment. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(1), 33–51.Eranda, J. & William, F. (2017). Does Whole Trait Theory Work for the Virtues? Sinnott-Armstrong, W. & Miller, C. (eds.) Moral Psychology, Volume 5: Virtue and Character. This integration allows for a more comprehensive understanding of personality by explaining both the stability of traits and the situational variability of behavior.Fleeson, W., & Wilt, J. (2010). The relevance of Big Five trait content in behavior to subjective authenticity. Journal of Personality, 78(4), 1353–1382.
Methodology
Whole Trait Theory employs empirical methods designed to capture both the stability and variability of personality traits as they manifest in real-life contexts. A primary methodological approach is the experience sampling method (ESM), also known as ecological momentary assessment (EMA). This technique involves collecting data on individuals' thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in real time, multiple times a day over extended periods.Hofmann, W., & Patel, P. V. (2015). SurveySignal: A convenient solution for experience sampling research using participants' own smartphones. Social Science Computer Review, 33(2), 235–253. Fleeson's seminal 2001 study prompted participants at random intervals to report their current behaviors and experiences, enabling the collection of in situ data that reflected the dynamic nature of personality. A 2009 meta-analysis provided robust evidence to support Whole Trait Theory's core precepts, finding that traits like extraversion show high stability at the aggregate level and significant variability within individuals across different contexts.Fleeson, W., & 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. Subsequent ESM-based research has explored underlying psychological processes that contribute to trait expression, examining how cognitive appraisals and emotional responses influence the manifestation of traits.Fleeson, W., & 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 Statistical analyses in Whole Trait Theory research often involve multilevel modeling techniques.Nezlek, J. B. (2012). Multilevel modeling analyses of diary-style data. In Handbook of Research Methods for Studying Daily Life (pp. 357–383). New York: Guilford Press.Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J.-P. (2013). Intensive Longitudinal Methods. New York: Guilford Press. Density distribution analyses provide a comprehensive understanding of personality by illustrating not just average tendencies but also the range and variability of behaviors an individual exhibits.
Empirical support
Empirical research has provided substantial support for Whole Trait Theory. Fleeson utilized experience sampling methods to generate real-time data on individual behavior and internal states over extended period of time. The findings supporting the concept of traits as density distributions of states by demonstrating that individuals exhibited significant variability in behavior across situations, while their aggregated behavior patterns remained remarkably stable over time. Fleeson and Gallagher conducted a meta-analysis of experience sampling studies involving over 800 participants.Fleeson, W., & Gallagher, P. (2009). The implications of Big Five standing for the distribution of trait manifestation in behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1097–1114. The analysis demonstrated that individuals' momentary expressions of trait-relevant behaviors varied widely, yet their mean levels of these behaviors were consistent, reinforcing the idea that traits represent stable patterns amid situational variability.Wrzus, C., & Roberts, B. W. (2017). Processes of personality development in adulthood. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(3), 253–277.
Fleeson and Jayawickreme explored the explanatory mechanisms underlying trait expression, examining how cognitive and motivational processes influence momentary behaviors and demonstrating that these underlying processes predict the expression of trait-relevant behaviors in specific contexts.Jayawickreme, E., Meindl, P., Helzer, E. G., Furr, R. M., & Fleeson, W. (2014). Virtuous states and virtuous traits. Journal of Personality, 82(5), 423–434. Cross-cultural studies have also validated Whole Trait Theory's applicability across diverse populations, finding that the patterns of behavioral variability and trait stability proposed by the theory were evident across different cultures.Church, A. T., & Katigbak, M. S. (2017). Trait consistency and validity across cultures: Examining trait and cultural psychology perspectives.Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S., & Fan, W. (2013). From Chinese to cross-cultural personality inventory. Advances in culture and psychology, 3, 117.