of contrasting typical behaviors and maximal behaviors. That is, one theme
that emerged as a potential resolution of this controversy was the concept of
aggregation. Personality theorists argued that when behaviors are aggregated
across many situations, trait measures predict behavioral tendencies rela-
tively well. Such aggregation essentially involves an estimate of an individ-
ual’s typical behaviors. In contrast, situations can be designed to elicit behav-
iors that individuals are capable of, but would not necessarily engage in
under unconstrained circumstances.
Only a few trait researchers have attempted to assess personality specifi-
cally in the context of maximal performance (e.g., see Willerman, Turner, &
Peterson, 1976). The data are too sparse to derive any substantive conclu-
sions, but the general theme of this research is consistent with the notion that
the behavior of many individuals can be responsive to such circumstances.
Moreover, other research has suggested that personality traits may not be all
that consistent in different contexts. We can speak of traits like conscien-
tiousness, in the context of work, home, and with friends—where individuals
may have different tendencies in these different contexts (see Murtha, Kan-
fer, & Ackerman, 1996).
It is quite reasonable to speculate that not all personality traits are affected
to equal degrees under typical behavior and maximal performance conditions.
Although there are literally dozens of different posited personality traits (e.g.,
see French, 1953), in recent decades many researchers have converged on a
five-factor model of personality, which includes the most general and highly
replicated traits of Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Openness–Culture, Extrover-
sion, and Conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Digman, 1990; Gold-
berg, 1971; though see Block, 1995, for a contrasting view). Extroversion, for
example, seems to be more variable in typical–maximal situations—with cer-
tain limitations (see Humphreys & Revelle, 1984). That is, level of extroversion
may interact with underlying information processing capabilities, so that cog-
nitive performance of extroverts and introverts may have a relatively low level
of malleability. Moreover, responsivity may be asymmetric, such that all but
the most extreme introverts may be able to function quite well for brief periods
in highly extroverted situations (such as at a party, or giving a public lecture).
Extroverts may do reasonably well in introverted activities when required
(such as studying), but can be expected to be much more susceptible to intru-
sive interpersonal stimuli (such as when a roommate walks into the dormitory
room while the extrovert is trying to study).
It is an open question how reactive individuals are to maximal perform-
ance situations, in terms of Agreeableness, Openness–Culture, and Conscien-
tiousness. Part of the question will have to do with the strength of the situa-
tion under these circumstances (e.g., see the review by Epstein & O’Brien,
1985). Least responsive, at least on the low side, is likely to be Neuroticism.
Because there are substantial autonomic responses to perceived threats of ex-
- TYPICAL AND MAXIMAL PERFORMANCE 123