A Psychometric Evaluation of the Tend-and-Befriend Questionnaire.

IF 2.8 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Journal of personality assessment Pub Date : 2024-10-31 DOI:10.1080/00223891.2024.2413148
Jessica K Hlay, Benjamin N Johnson, Carolyn R Hodges-Simeon, Kenneth N Levy
{"title":"A Psychometric Evaluation of the Tend-and-Befriend Questionnaire.","authors":"Jessica K Hlay, Benjamin N Johnson, Carolyn R Hodges-Simeon, Kenneth N Levy","doi":"10.1080/00223891.2024.2413148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In response to Cannon's widely accepted fight-or-flight system, Taylor et al. proposed the tend-and-befriend hypothesis to better capture variance in women's stress response behaviors. The Tend-and-Befriend Questionnaire (TBQ) measures self-reported individual differences in the use of fight, flight, tend, and befriend. Several studies have used this scale to evaluate sex differences in these behaviors, yet it has not yet been rigorously evaluated. Using three samples (<i>N</i> = 1094), we first explore the factor structure of the TBQ to produce and validate a revised measure, the TBQ-Short Form (TBQ-SF). Next, we evaluate the claim that women use tend-and-befriend more than men. Results indicated that the TBQ-SF provided both reliable subscales and largely acceptable model fit, yet the factor structure and validity varied across the three samples. While men do report more fighting than women, <i>both</i> men and women report use tending and befriending more than fighting or fleeing. Finally, other variables-namely attachment-capture more variance in TBQ-SF factors than sex. While the TBQ-SF does capture differences in stress reactions (fight, flight, tend/befriend), we suggest that the scale is most reliable in measuring overall stress reactivity. Therefore, future research should aim to construct a better scale specific to tend-and-befriend using alternative methodologies.</p>","PeriodicalId":16707,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality assessment","volume":" ","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of personality assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2024.2413148","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In response to Cannon's widely accepted fight-or-flight system, Taylor et al. proposed the tend-and-befriend hypothesis to better capture variance in women's stress response behaviors. The Tend-and-Befriend Questionnaire (TBQ) measures self-reported individual differences in the use of fight, flight, tend, and befriend. Several studies have used this scale to evaluate sex differences in these behaviors, yet it has not yet been rigorously evaluated. Using three samples (N = 1094), we first explore the factor structure of the TBQ to produce and validate a revised measure, the TBQ-Short Form (TBQ-SF). Next, we evaluate the claim that women use tend-and-befriend more than men. Results indicated that the TBQ-SF provided both reliable subscales and largely acceptable model fit, yet the factor structure and validity varied across the three samples. While men do report more fighting than women, both men and women report use tending and befriending more than fighting or fleeing. Finally, other variables-namely attachment-capture more variance in TBQ-SF factors than sex. While the TBQ-SF does capture differences in stress reactions (fight, flight, tend/befriend), we suggest that the scale is most reliable in measuring overall stress reactivity. Therefore, future research should aim to construct a better scale specific to tend-and-befriend using alternative methodologies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
亲友问卷的心理测量学评估
针对 Cannon 广为接受的 "战斗或逃跑 "系统,Taylor 等人提出了 "倾向和友谊 "假说,以更好地捕捉女性压力反应行为中的差异。趋向和结交问卷(TBQ)测量的是在使用战斗、逃跑、趋向和结交时自我报告的个体差异。已有多项研究使用该量表来评估这些行为的性别差异,但尚未对其进行严格评估。通过使用三个样本(样本数 = 1094),我们首先探究了 TBQ 的因子结构,制作并验证了修订后的量表 TBQ-简表(TBQ-SF)。接下来,我们对女性比男性更多使用 "招标交友 "这一说法进行了评估。结果表明,TBQ-SF 提供了可靠的子量表和基本可接受的模型拟合度,但三个样本的因子结构和有效性各不相同。虽然男性报告的打架次数多于女性,但男性和女性报告的照顾和结交次数都多于打架或逃离次数。最后,其他变量--即依恋--比性别更能捕捉 TBQ-SF 因子中的变异。虽然 TBQ-SF 确实捕捉到了压力反应(战斗、逃跑、照料/结交)的差异,但我们认为该量表在测量整体压力反应方面最为可靠。因此,未来的研究应着眼于使用其他方法构建一个更好的、专门针对趋向和结交的量表。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
8.80%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: The Journal of Personality Assessment (JPA) primarily publishes articles dealing with the development, evaluation, refinement, and application of personality assessment methods. Desirable articles address empirical, theoretical, instructional, or professional aspects of using psychological tests, interview data, or the applied clinical assessment process. They also advance the measurement, description, or understanding of personality, psychopathology, and human behavior. JPA is broadly concerned with developing and using personality assessment methods in clinical, counseling, forensic, and health psychology settings; with the assessment process in applied clinical practice; with the assessment of people of all ages and cultures; and with both normal and abnormal personality functioning.
期刊最新文献
Trait Considerations in Clinical Practice: A Commentary Based on Gubler et al. (2024) and Lau et al. (2024). Assessment of Personality Functioning Across Immigrant Groups- Measurement Invariance and Its Association with Mental Distress in a German Population-Based Sample. Comparison of Resilience Measures in Chinese Adolescents: Based on Item Response Theory. Psychometric Evidence and Measurement Invariance by College-Going Status for the Inventory of the Dimensions of Emerging Adulthood (IDEA). Psychometric Properties of the Dutch Version of the Young Positive Schema Questionnaire (YPSQ-NL).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1