Thesis (B.A.(Hons.))--University of Queensland, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington. / Vita. "References": L. [133]-135.

Thesis--Yeshiva University. / eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Université de Lyon, 1882. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis--Yeshiva University. / eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1971. / eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1974. / Typescript. Vita. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1973. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

In the early history of research into personality two opposing theories were prominent. These were trait theory and situationism. Where trait theory proposed cross-situational consistency of behavior, situationism proposed situational specificity. The debate between these theories resulted in a theory that sought to adjust each to the other by incorporating elements of both. This was interactionism. As a theory of personality, interactionism proposed that personality was a product of the interaction of trait and situational variables. Since the 1960s interactionism has been solidified into a more complete theory. The ultimate intention of this theory was to recognize the inseparability of person and situation in the study of personality. Interactionism has, however, failed at this. It has not been able to move beyond treating person and situation as separate variables in a mechanistic fashion. Following a discussion of the various weaknesses of interactionism, a theory that appears to overcome this problem is introduced. Activity theory overcomes the reductionism of interactionism by providing a unit of analysis that successfully bridges the separation of person and situation. This unit is activity. In order to fully grasp present-day human behavior it is necessary to have an understanding of the phylogenetic development of mind as has been developed by A. N. Leontyev. This sets the stage for an examination of activity theory and the important contribution it has to make in the field of personality. The field of personality has existed in separation from other pertinent sources of information about personality, such as issues of personality development, the effects of restricted development, the influence of culture and society, and the processes of change. It is concluded that activity theory, by taking these into account, is a more adequate theory of personality. / Graduate