Understand the person and situation | The Behavioral Scientist by Jason Hreha

Start with the person who will act

Imagine two friends who like different kinds of gatherings. One enjoys a crowded dinner, including the noise and the shifting conversation. Another enjoys seeing the same people but would prefer to talk with one person at a time. Inviting both to the same restaurant creates different experiences for them, even when the food, company, and timing are identical.

This is easy to recognize in everyday life and easy to forget when designing a behavior-change plan. A plan may begin with a target activity and then search for a technique that will get everyone to do it. But people do not arrive as blank slates. Their temperaments, interests, skills, and previous experiences affect how difficult or appealing they find the activity.

If a person repeatedly avoids large social gatherings but readily makes time for one-to-one conversations, that pattern should influence the options you consider. It does not prove they can never enjoy a party. It gives you a better starting point than assuming that a more persuasive invitation will make the party equally appealing to everyone.

What personality tells you—and what stability means

Personality traits describe relatively enduring differences in how people tend to think, feel, and act. The word “tend” matters: a trait concerns a pattern across occasions, not a rule that predicts every action. Someone can generally prefer quiet settings and still enjoy a lively evening with close friends.

Researchers distinguish two kinds of change that are easy to confuse. Relative standing describes how people compare with one another on a trait. Average change describes whether the group’s average level of that trait rises or falls over time. Consider conscientiousness, which includes tendencies such as being organized, dependable, and careful about completing tasks. People in a group could become more conscientious on average, while those who were most conscientious at the start still tend to be the most conscientious later.

A large 2022 meta-analysis by Wiebke Bleidorn and colleagues found that relative standing becomes more stable through early life and reaches a plateau in young adulthood. The review also documented changes in average trait levels. The practical implication is that enduring differences deserve serious attention even though people can develop and change.

Bleidorn and colleagues (2022): Personality stability and change

Why lasting differences deserve attention

Genetic influences on personality are substantial. A 2015 meta-analysis by Tena Vukasović and Denis Bratko estimated average personality heritability at about 40%, with higher estimates in twin studies than in family and adoption studies. Heritability describes the share of differences among people that a study attributes to genetic differences in the population and conditions examined. It does not divide one person’s personality into a fixed part and a changeable part.

For example, a heritability estimate cannot tell you that a particular person has used up their capacity to become more organized. It cannot tell you which skills they could learn, what changes to their daily routine might help, or what would be too much to ask of them right now.

What it does help challenge is the assumption that people begin alike and can be made alike by applying the same advice. A sensible plan takes recurring differences seriously. If you have disliked a particular activity for years, your plan should not depend entirely on suddenly finding it enjoyable. You can still decide it is worth doing, but you should also consider whether another activity could help you reach the same goal without the same repeated frustrations.

Vukasović and Bratko (2015): Heritability of personality

Observe the pattern and the conditions

Stable differences coexist with considerable variation within a person. Fleeson and Law’s research, which used observers as well as self-reports, found both patterns. People differ reliably from one another, but a single person also behaves differently across occasions.

Consider a colleague who says little in a large meeting but offers detailed suggestions in a conversation with two people. “Quiet” is an incomplete explanation of their participation. You would want to know whether the smaller group gives them more time to think, whether they know the people better, or whether the meeting format makes it hard to enter the discussion. You would need to ask the colleague or observe what happens in different meetings to find out. Calling them “quiet” doesn’t answer those questions.

This is why a personality assessment cannot choose an activity for you. A score might help describe a recurring tendency, but it does not tell you which friend you want to see or whether a particular walking route is accessible. An assessment can help you recognize a pattern, but you still need to consider what you enjoy, what you can do, and what is possible in your daily life.

Fleeson and Law (2015): stable traits and within-person variation

The same visible failure can have different causes

Return to the dinner that never happened. One friend may dislike noisy groups. Another may want to come but be unable to afford the restaurant. A third may have caregiving responsibilities on Friday. All three can fail to attend, but the attendance record alone does not tell you why.

The differences matter because they point to different changes. A quieter, smaller gathering addresses the first possibility. A less expensive activity addresses the second. A different time may help with the third. Sending all three people a stronger reminder would leave those obstacles in place.

Now consider a workplace example. Suppose employees are not using a reporting tool. Some may not know how to use it, some may not have access to the required data, and some may find that it duplicates work they already do elsewhere. Training may help someone learn to use the tool. It will not give them access to data they cannot see or remove work they have already done elsewhere. Before choosing training, ask what is preventing the particular action.

The Behavioral State Model develops this reporting-tool problem into an eight-part diagnosis. Its point is not to force one explanation onto the failure. It is to keep several plausible constraints visible long enough to test them.

Preferences, skills, and circumstances can interact, so you will not always find one neat cause. Begin with what you can observe and ask about. The purpose is to identify a useful change, whether that means learning a skill, changing the setting, or selecting a different behavior.

Why the walk deserves a trial

In our imagined example, two friends enjoy talking one-to-one and work near each other. One has little free time in the evening. A lunchtime walk is promising because it combines an activity they already like with a time that may be available. They have reasons to try it that do not depend on becoming more sociable or more disciplined.

They still need to check a few things. Do their lunch breaks overlap? Can both comfortably use the proposed route? Would they rather sit and talk over lunch? The answers could show that a walk suits them both, or that they would prefer something else. Until they have checked, they do not yet know whether it is a good fit.

Check your understanding

Two employees miss the same training session. One dislikes large groups; the other cannot leave a customer desk unattended. Would a smaller group address both problems?

It might make the session more appealing to the first employee. It would not provide desk coverage for the second. The same absence can reflect different demands, so you need to ask about the person and circumstances before choosing a change.

Try it yourself

For two possible activities, describe what the person generally likes, what they can currently do, and what they would need to do each activity. Include concrete facts such as access, timing, cost, or a relevant skill. Mark assumptions separately from observations. If someone else would do the activity, ask them about their experience before deciding why they act as they do.

Read further

You can now connect each option to a particular person and setting. The next lesson uses that information to compare options and choose one to try.