{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.010358565737051793, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006374501992031873, 'mean_word_length': 5.507772020725389, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Interactionism revisited: Reflections on the continuing crisis in the personality area

The current status of the personality area is critically examined with the view that problems in the discipline voiced two decades ago are still prevalent. Recurring problems in the personality area have important ramifications for much of contemporary theoretical and applied psychology. The interactional approach to personality came to the fore in the 1970s and early 1980s as an explicit attempt to resolve a number of perceived weaknesses in the personality area. While it has become common for researchers to publicly advocate an interactional position, in practice little interactional research has been conducted recently. The historical developments of the trait and situationism models of personality research and relevant assessment issues are outlined. This history is of interest because it helps to illuminate why and how many current personality researchers continue to perpetuate problems in the personality area. The interactional model of personality is also examined. Finally, the development of an interactional model for the study of anxiety is examined as a specific example of the theoretical, research, and practical benefits of this approach.