Editorial

States and Traits

https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1015-5759/a000413 - Wednesday, June 02, 2021 7:19:19 PM - IP Address:110.138.92.205

Theories, Models, and Assessment

Christian Geiser,1 Thomas Götz,2,3 Franzis Preckel,4
and Philipp Alexander Freund5
1
Department of Psychology, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA, 2Educational Science, University of
Konstanz, Germany, 3Thurgau University of Teacher Education, 4Department of Psychology,
University of Trier, Germany, 5Department of Psychology, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Germany

The question of whether characteristics of persons (stable
personality dispositions that are often referred to as traits),
characteristics of situations, or Person · Situation interac-
tions are more relevant to psychological behavior has been
debated for decades (e.g., Donnellan, Lucas, & Fleeson,
2009; Epstein, 1983; Fleeson, 2001, 2004; Funder, 1991,
2008; Funder, Guillaume, Kumagai, Kawamoto, & Sato,
2012; Kenrick & Funder, 1988; Mischel, 1968). In psycho-
logical measurement, the distinction between trait (enduring
or stable) components and state residual (variable or fluctu-
ating) components has been of ever-increasing interest to
researchers since the 1980s and 1990s when more sophisti-
cated theoretical and statistical approaches became
available (Steyer, Ferring, & Schmitt, 1992; Steyer, Majcen,
Schwenkmezger, & Buchner, 1989). Furthermore, new
methodological approaches have recently been developed
to better conceptualize and understand psychological
situations (e.g., Rauthmann, Sherman, & Funder, 2015).
To illustrate the increasing interest in person-situation
research, a search in the international database PsychINFO
using the term ‘‘state-trait’’ (carried out in November 2016)
returned 491 hits for the period between 1970 and 1979,
1,538 hits between 1980 and 1989, 1,989 hits between
1990 and 1999, 6,277 hits between 2000 and 2009, and
9,044 hits between 2010 and 2016 (19,339 results total).
Moreover, the increase in publication rates related to ‘‘states
and traits’’ was stronger relative to the overall increase in
scientific publications in psychology as shown in Figure 1.
Publication rates are presented as the number of ‘‘state-
trait’’ papers per 100,000 publications in the PsychINFO
database. Figure 1 illustrates that the scientific interest
in the ‘‘state-trait’’ topic has strongly increased since
1970. In this special issue, our contributors present new
methodological developments and substantive findings in
the context of state and trait analysis.
States and Traits in Psychology
Past studies have shown that most psychological variables
contain both state and trait components to varying degrees
(e.g., Deinzer et al., 1995). On the one extreme, measure-
ments of hormone levels (e.g., Kirschbaum et al., 1990)
and mood (Eid, Schneider, & Schwenkmezger, 1999) show
rather low amounts of person-specific trait variance and can
thus be considered more ‘‘state-like’’ constructs. On the
other extreme, individual differences in intelligence and
other ability scores have been found to be highly stable
(‘‘trait-like’’) across time, reflecting only negligible
amounts of situation-specific variance (Danner, Hagemann,
Schankin, Hager, & Funke, 2011). However, most psycho-
logical variables appear to be somewhere ‘‘in between,’’
containing both substantial trait and substantial state resid-
ual components. Therefore, it seems important to consider
both aspects as well as potential interactions between traits
and situations (e.g., Schmitt & Baumert, 2010).
Latent State-Trait Theory
The high interest in psychological states and traits
has resulted not only in many substantive contributions to
the field, but also in the development of more and more
sophisticated methods for measuring states and traits.

 2017 Hogrefe Publishing European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2017; Vol. 33(4):219–223
DOI: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000413
 220
800
700
600
500
400
300
https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1015-5759/a000413 - Wednesday, June 02, 2021 7:19:19 PM - IP Address:110.138.92.205
200
100
0 (Geiser, Keller, et al., 2015) and have discussed hybrid
1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009 2010-2016
Figure 1. Number of papers on ‘‘state-trait’’ per 100,000
publications in PsycINFO databases.
The development of latent state-trait (LST) theory and
models (Steyer et al., 1989, 1992) represented a significant
methodological advancement in the area of person-situation
research in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Formulated on
the basis of stochastic measurement theory (Zimmerman,
1975), LST theory demonstrated how state, trait, and state
residual latent variables can be constructively defined based
on conditional expectations of observed (measured) vari-
ables and separated from random measurement error.
‘‘Constructively’’ means that latent variables in LST theory
are not simply ‘‘assumed to exist,’’ but are given explicit
definitions in terms of (conditional expectations of)
observed variables. This is helpful to clarify how states
and traits can be operationalized mathematically, to avoid
ambiguities in the labeling and interpretation of latent vari-
ables that are common in latent variable modeling, and to
derive the properties of latent variables.
According to LST theory, latent state scores reflect
individuals’ true scores within a specific situation, that is,
averages of (hypothetical) intra-individual distributions of
measured (e.g., item, test, or questionnaire) scores within
a given situation. Trait scores reflect averages of (hypothet-
ical) intra-individual distributions of measured scores
across situations. State scores thus reflect persons in situa-
tions, whereas trait scores reflect the persons only. State
residual latent variables are defined as the difference
between state and trait latent variables and reflect both
situation effects and potential person-situation interactions
(Steyer et al., 1992).
On the applied side, LST theory showed how state- and
trait-related variance components can be estimated in statis-
tical measurement models based on repeated measurements
of observed variables. The LST methodology uses latent
variables, allowing researchers to separate systematic
effects of persons and situations from unsystematic effects
due to random measurement error. LST models make
it possible to determine what proportion of the observed
score variance is due to trait (person-specific), occasion-
specific (situation or person-situation interaction), and error
European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2017; Vol. 33(4):219–223
Editorial
variance and thus help clarify the question of whether
person or situation/interaction influences determine individ-
ual differences in psychological measurements to a larger
extent.
In a recently published updated version of LST theory
(so-called LST-R theory) the static person concept in the
original theory has been revised to take into account the fact
that persons constantly make experiences so that psycho-
logically, the person u at time t is not necessarily exactly
the same as the person u at time t + 1 (Steyer, Mayer,
Geiser, & Cole, 2015). Related to this idea of a more
‘‘dynamic’’ person concept, recent methodological studies
have clarified connections between pure ‘‘variability’’ (clas-
sical LST) models and models for measuring trait changes
approaches that allow researchers to study state, trait, and
trait change processes simultaneously (Bishop, Geiser, &
Cole, 2015; Eid & Hoffmann, 1998; Tisak & Tisak,
2000). Furthermore, extended LST designs including both
random and fixed situations allow for an analysis of the
potential situation specificity of traits and make it possible
to study main effects of situations as well as person-situa-
tion interactions in more detail (Geiser, Litson, et al., 2015).
Other recent extensions of LST models have enabled
researchers to take into account and analyze systematic
method-specific effects. Method effects are of interest to
psychologists in general (e.g., Podsakoff, MacKenzie, &
Podsakoff, 2012), because their presence can indicate a lack
of validity of psychological measures (Campbell & Fiske,
1959) or because different methods’ unique perspectives
can provide special insights (Eid & Diener, 2006). Multi-
method extensions of LST approaches allow researchers
to examine the consistency of states and traits across differ-
ent methods (Courvoisier, Nussbeck, Eid, Geiser, & Cole,
2008; Eid, 1996; Eid et al., 1999; Geiser & Lockhart,
2012; Koch, Schultze, Holtmann, Geiser, & Eid, in press;
Steyer et al., 1992) and our special issue features a novel
contribution in this area as discussed below.
Contributions in This Special Issue
The present special issue features both methodological and
substantive advancements related to the analysis of states
and traits. On the methodological side, two areas of state-
trait modeling that appear to be receiving more and more
attention in recent years concern (1) the use of item-level
data (i.e., categorical observed variables such as binary or
ordinal response variables) for measuring categorical or
continuous latent state and trait variables and (2) the ques-
tion of how method effects can be appropriately modeled in
longitudinal studies. As part of this special issue, Crayen,
Eid, Lischetzke, and Vermunt (2017) present a new
continuous-time latent Markov modeling approach that uses
categorical observed variables as indicators for measuring
latent classes (i.e., categorical latent variables). In this
approach, several different state and trait latent class
variables can be examined that represent stability and
variability at different levels. Crayen et al.’s new approach
represents an extension of Eid and Langeheine’s (1999)
 2017 Hogrefe Publishing
 Editorial
latent class LST approach to intensive longitudinal designs
with many measurements for each person. The new
approach should be of particular interest to substantive
researchers who want to model stability and change based
on many repeated measurements of the same individuals,
for example, through ecological momentary assessments.
Thielemann, Sengewald, Kappler, and Steyer (2017)
also present a methodological innovation for the modeling
of state-trait data with categorical observed variables. Their
new latent state item response model for longitudinal data
https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1015-5759/a000413 - Wednesday, June 02, 2021 7:19:19 PM - IP Address:110.138.92.205
enables researchers to study method effects (such as
response styles) at the level of binary items relative to a
‘‘gold-standard’’ item using a latent difference score
approach. Thielemann et al.’s approach should be useful
for researchers interested in using binary items to measure
continuous latent state and trait variables and to investiga-
tors who want to study method effects at the item level.
Item-level method effects can occur, for example, when
an item set includes both positively and negatively keyed
items or when multi-method measurement designs are used
(e.g., self- and other reports). The approach is also useful
when different items are not perfectly homogenous in
measuring a single state or trait (i.e., when items capture
different facets of a construct such as sadness versus
sleeping problems as indicators of depression)..
Researchers dealing with measurement designs in which
measurement occasions are closely spaced in time (e.g.,
multiple measurement occasions per week) often find that
adjacent measurements are more strongly related to one
another than measurements that are spaced out farther in
time. LST modeling extensions that take into account such
additional sources of stability beyond pure trait effects have
therefore been of great interest to researchers, especially
since Cole, Martin, and Steiger’s (2005) seminal discussion
of autoregressive effects in LST models. However, it has
previously been unclear whether models with autoregres-
sive effects are in line with the concepts of LST-R theory
(Steyer et al., 2015). In this special issue, Eid, Holtmann,
Santangelo, and Ebner-Priemer (2017) propose a new
model with autoregressive effects and show that this model
is fully in line with LST-R theory. Eid et al.’s (2017)
approach is innovative in that it represents the first LST
model that explicitly links situational influences to subse-
quent trait scores. This constitutes a radically different
approach to the modeling of the interplay of traits and states
compared to previous LST approaches. It offers exciting
new possibilities for the modeling of intensive longitudinal
data from a more dynamic trait perspective: In Eid et al.’s
(2017) modeling framework, traits can change due to previ-
ous situational influences such as momentary hassles or
uplifts or critical life events.
In an applied paper, Gnambs and Butins (2017)
examined longitudinal measurement properties of single
life satisfaction items versus multi-item scales using
sophisticated hybrid LST/trait change models. Their contri-
bution is relevant from both a methodological and a
substantive point of view. Methodologically, Gnambs and
Butins’ paper addresses an important assessment-related
question: (When) should researchers use single items versus
multi-item scales to measure variability and change in life
 2017 Hogrefe Publishing
221
satisfaction across time? Substantively, their paper exami-
nes state variability (short-term fluctuations) and trait
changes (long-term growth or decline) in life satisfaction.
The assessment of family-level and dyadic data is of
increasing interest to psychologists. Consequently, many
novel methodological contributions related to the analysis
of such data in both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies
have been presented (e.g., Ledermann & Macho, 2014).
Loncke et al. (2017) fill an important gap in the dyadic data
modeling literature by presenting an LST modeling
approach for dyadic data. Their new approach allows
researchers to model states and traits with dyadic data.
From a substantive perspective, Loncke et al. (2017) show
that variability in perceived family support can mostly be
attributed to individual perceiver effects. However, Loncke
et al. (2017) found that the degree to which perceiver effects
of support can be attributed to traits rather than states was
smaller for adolescents and siblings as compared to parents.
Furthermore, the relative importance of trait and state
components in adolescents’ perceptions changed over time
whereas supportive family climate remained rather stable.
These findings offer new insights into developmental
aspects in relational processes within families and underline
the usefulness of state-trait models.
Nett, Bieg, and Keller (2017) present an application
of multiconstruct LST models to academic emotions
(enjoyment, pride, anger, anxiety, and boredom) in the
context of mathematics classes. Nett et al. found compara-
ble proportions of trait variance and state residual compo-
nents for all five emotions. Interestingly, on the one hand
latent trait components of emotions of different valence
(i.e., positive vs. negative connotation) were mostly
unrelated to each other. On the other hand, latent state resid-
ual components of emotions of different valence were neg-
atively correlated. According to Nett et al. (2017, p. 239),
this shows that ‘‘an anxious student can also be a happy
student’’ with regard to psychological traits, but in a given
situation (during typical mathematics classes), a student
will feel either anxious or happy, but not experience
emotions of different valence simultaneously.
Outlook
The analysis of state and trait components is of increasing
interest to psychological research. We hope that this special
issue will stimulate further substantive and methodological
research in this area. As we have alluded to in this editorial,
LST theory provides suitable statistical models for studying
the nature of psychological constructs with regard to the
question if they should be conceptualized and defined as
states, traits, or both. From a developmental perspective,
the interaction between traits and situations and their rela-
tive influence at different developmental stages deserves
further investigation.
In addition, LST theory can help researchers justify
their operationalization of a given construct. For example,
LST theory can be useful in exploring one central aspect
of construct validity – construct representation (Embretson,
1983). Construct representation refers to a cognitive theory
European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2017; Vol. 33(4):219–223
 222 Editorial
that explains response behavior for that measure. LST
models can be used to investigate the impact of situations
on response behavior. Therefore, we like to suggest that
LST studies could routinely be implemented in the develop-
ment of new psychometric measures and help test develop-
ers gain a better understanding of the relationship between
the constructs they target and the tests they devise to
measure them. If the measurement of a construct does not
work in the intended way, it is theoretically useless in the
given situation, be it a research study or a practical context.
https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1015-5759/a000413 - Wednesday, June 02, 2021 7:19:19 PM - IP Address:110.138.92.205
Working toward a better understanding of the nature of
constructs should actually be an important research goal
in itself, especially in the light of the ever-growing number
of constructs encountered in published studies. We argue
that such endeavors will ultimately improve the quality of
psychological research.
References
Bishop, J., Geiser, C., & Cole, D. A. (2015). Modeling latent
growth with multiple indicators: A comparison of three
approaches. Psychological Methods, 20, 43–62.
Courvoisier, D. S., Eid, M., & Nussbeck, F. W. (2007). Mixture
distribution latent state-trait analysis: Basic ideas and
applications. Psychological Methods, 12, 80–104.
Crayen, C., Eid, M., Lischetzke, T., & Vermunt, J. K. (2017). A
continuous-time mixture latent state-trait Markov model for
experience sampling data: Application and evaluation.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 33,
296–311. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000418
Danner, D., Hagemann, D., Schankin, A., Hager, M., & Funke, J.
(2011). Beyond IQ: A latent state-trait analysis of general
intelligence, dynamic decision making, and implicit learning.
Intelligence, 39, 323–334. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2011.06.004
Deinzer, R., Steyer, R., Eid, M., Notz, P., Schwenkmezger, P.,
Ostendorf, F., & Neubauer, A. (1995). Situational effects in
trait assessment: The FPI, NEOFFI and EPI questionnaires.
European Journal of Personality, 9, 1–23.
Donnellan, M. B., Lucas, R. E., & Fleeson, W. (2009). Editorial:
Introduction to personality and assessment at age 40:
Reflections on the legacy of the person-situation debate
and the future of person-situation integration. Journal of
Research in Personality, 43, 117–119.
Eid, M. (1996). Longitudinal confirmatory factor analysis for
polytomous item responses: Model definition and model
selection on the basis of stochastic measurement theory.
Methods of Psychological Research – Online, 1, 65–85.
Eid, M., & Hoffmann, L. (1998). Measuring variability and
change with an item response model for polytomous
variables. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics,
23, 193–215.
Eid, M., Holtmann, J., Santangelo, P., & Ebner-Priemer, U.
(2017). On the definition of latent state-trait models
with autoregressive effects: Insights from LST-R theory.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 33, 285–295.
doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000435
Eid, M., & Langeheine, R. (1999). Measuring consistency
and occasion specificity with latent class models: A new
model and its application to the measurement of affect.
Psychological Methods, 4, 100–116.
Eid, M., Schneider, C., & Schwenkmezger, P. (1999). Do you
feel better or worse? The validity of perceived deviations
of mood states from mood traits. European Journal of
Personality, 13, 283–306.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2017; Vol. 33(4):219–223
Embretson, S. E. (1983). Construct validity: Construct repre-
sentation versus nomothetic span. Psychological Bulletin,
93, 179–197.
Epstein, S. (1983). The stability of confusion: Reply to Mischel
and Peake. Psychological Review, 90, 179–184.
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,
1011–1027.
Fleeson, W. (2004). Moving personality beyond the person-
situation debate: The challenge and the opportunity of
within-person variability. Current Directions in Psycholog-
ical Science, 13, 83–87.
Funder, D. C. (1991). Global traits: A Neo-Allportian approach
to personality. Psychological Science, 2, 31–39.
Funder, D. C. (2008). Persons, situations, and person-situation
interactions. In O. P. John, R. Robins, & L. Pervin (Eds.),
Handbook of personality (3rd ed, pp. 568–580). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Funder, D. C., Guillaume, E., Kumagai, S., Kawamoto, S., &
Sato, T. (2012). The person-situation debate and the
assessment of situations. Japanese Journal of Personality,
21, 1–11.
Geiser, C., Keller, B. T., Lockhart, G., Eid, M., Cole, D. A., &
Koch, T. (2015). Distinguishing state variability from trait
change in longitudinal data: The role of measurement
(non)invariance in latent state-trait analyses. Behavior
Research Methods, 47, 172–203.
Geiser, C., Litson, K., Bishop, J., Keller, B. T., Burns, G. L.,
Servera, M., & Shiffman, S. (2015). Analyzing person,
situation, and person · situation interaction effects: Latent
state-trait models for the combination of random and fixed
situations. Psychological Methods, 20, 165–192.
Geiser, C., & Lockhart, G. (2012). A comparison of four
approaches to account for method effects in latent state trait
analysis. Psychological Methods, 17, 255–283.
Gnambs, T., & Butins, K. (2017). The measurement of
variability and change in life satisfaction: A comparison
of single-item and multi-item instruments. European Jour-
nal of Psychological Assessment, 33, 224–238. doi: 10.1027/
1015-5759/a000414
Hertzog, C., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1987). Beyond autoregressive
models: Some implications of the trait-state distinction for
the structural modeling of developmental change. Child
Development, 58, 93–109.
Kenny, D. A., & Zautra, A. (1995). The trait-state-error model
for multiwave data. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 63, 52–59.
Kenrick, D. T., & Funder, D. C. (1988). Profiting from contro-
versy: Lessons from the person-situation debate. The
American Psychologist, 43, 23–34.
Kirschbaum, C., Steyer, R., Eid, M., Patalla, U.,
Schwenkmezger, P., & Hellhammer, D. H. (1990). Cortisol
and behavior: 2 Application of a latent state-trait model to
salivary cortisol. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 15, 297–307.
doi: 10.1016/0306-4530(90)90080-S
Koch, T., Schultze, M., Holtmann, J., Geiser, C., & Eid, M. (in
press). A multimethod latent state-trait model for
structurally different and interchangeable methods.
Psychometrika.
Ledermann, T., & Macho, S. (2014). Analyzing change at the
dyadic level: The common fate growth model. Journal of
Family Studies, 28, 204–213.
Loncke, J., Mayer, A., Eichelsheim, V., Branje, S., Meeus, W.,
Koot, H., . . . Loeys, T. (2017). Latent state-trait models
for longitudinal family data: Investigating consistency
in perceived support. European Journal of Psychologi-
cal Assessment, 33, 256–270. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/
a000415
 2017 Hogrefe Publishing
 Editorial
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York, NY:
Wiley.
Nett, U. E., Bieg, M., & Keller, M. M. (2017). How much trait
variance is captured by measures of academic state
emotions? A latent state-trait-analysis. European Journal
of Psychological Assessment, 33, 239–255. doi: 10.1027/
1015-5759/a000416
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012).
Sources of method bias in social science research and
recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of
Psychology, 65, 539–569.
https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/1015-5759/a000413 - Wednesday, June 02, 2021 7:19:19 PM - IP Address:110.138.92.205
Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R. A., & Funder, D. C. (2015).
Principles of situation research: Towards a better under-
standing of psychological situations. European Journal of
Personality, 29, 363–381. doi: 10.1002/per.1994
Roberts, B. W. (2009). Back to the future: Personality and
assessment and personality development. Journal of
Research in Personality, 43, 137–145.
Schmitt, M., & Baumert, A. (2010). On the diversity of dynamic
person · situation interactions. European Journal of
Personality, 24, 497–500.
Steyer, R., Ferring, D., & Schmitt, M. J. (1992). States and
traits in psychological assessment. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 8, 79–98.
Steyer, R., Geiser, C., & Fiege, C. (2012). Latent state-
trait models. In H. Cooper (Ed.), Handbook of research
methods in psychology (pp. 291–308). Washington, DC:
APA.
Steyer, R., Majcen, A.-M., Schwenkmezger, P., & Buchner, A.
(1989). A latent state-trait anxiety model and its application
 2017 Hogrefe Publishing
223
to determine consistency and specificity coefficients.
Anxiety Research, 1, 281–299.
Steyer, R., Mayer, A., Geiser, C., & Cole, D. A. (2015). A theory
of states and traits – revised. Annual Review of Clinical
Psychology, 11, 71–98. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-
032813-153719
Steyer, R., Schmitt, M., & Eid, M. (1999). Latent state-trait
theory and research in personality and individual differ-
ences. European Journal of Personality, 13, 389–408.
Thielemann, D., Sengewald, M.-A., Kappler, G., & Steyer, R.
(2017). A probit latent state IRT model with latent item-
effect variables. European Journal of Psychological Assess-
ment, 33, 271–284. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000417
Tisak, J., & Tisak, M. S. (2000). Permanency and ephemerality
of psychological measures with application to organizational
commitment. Psychological Methods, 5, 175–198.
Zimmerman, D. W. (1975). Probability spaces, Hilbert spaces,
and the axioms of test theory. Psychometrika, 40, 395–412.
doi: 10.1007/BF02291765
Christian Geiser
Department of Psychology
Utah State University
2810 Old Main Hill
Logan, UT 84322-2810
USA
E-mail christian.geiser@usu.edu
European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2017; Vol. 33(4):219–223