Current Psychology最新文献

Social media posts may elicit strong, instantaneous feelings of irritation, or "annoyance." The current experiment investigated how participants' ratings of Facebook posts and their levels of closeness to the poster impacted these feelings. Respondents (N = 476) were asked to rate how irrelevant, inappropriate, mundane, and annoying Facebook posts from an imagined close friend, moderately close friend, and acquaintance were. A cross-classified, Bayesian structural equation model determined the unique contributions at the rater level, target level, and the distinct combination of rater and target at the within level. At the within level, results suggested irrelevance, mundaneness, and inappropriateness of posts were positively associated with annoyance. At the rater level, we found participants who tended to rate all posts as being more inappropriate, spent more time on Facebook, and/or reported having more Facebook friends, tended to report greater annoyance. Finally, at the target level, participants rated acquaintances' posts as being more irrelevant and mundane relative to close friends. Contrary to expectations, posts from acquaintances did not appear to evoke more annoyance. Overall, a consistent finding between inappropriateness and annoyance emerged across all three levels such that inappropriate content posted to Facebook appeared to strongly elicit annoyance among users.

Participant selection bias is of concern to researchers conducting surveys of all types. For momentary data capture studies, such as Ecological Momentary Assessment, the level of burden associated with these techniques and the possibility of low uptake rates makes the concerns especially salient. This study invited 3,000 individuals to participate in a study of health and mood and recorded the uptake rates at various points in the process. Respondents expressing interest in participating in general were randomized into a one-time survey, a low-burden momentary study, or a high-burden momentary study. Overall, 85.9% of the sample did not respond to the study invitation (including confirming non-interest); 6.9% of the sample expressed interest in the study by completing a brief survey; 2.1% agreed to participate in the study when the protocol specifics were described (none of the study protocols were actually run). Whites were more likely to complete the survey. Of those completing the survey, individuals who reported higher income, a more "open" personality, better typing skills, better computer skills, who viewed the research topic as important, and who expressed interest in research on daily feelings more likely consented to being enrolled in the experiment. The number of prior surveys taken had an inverted-U shaped association with participation in this study. Finally, all individuals randomized to the one-time survey group agreed to participate compared to two-thirds of individuals in the momentary groups. These results suggest that participant selection bias may affect both one-time survey and momentary data capture studies, with the caveat that the degree of such bias will be related to a study's hypotheses.

In positive psychology, defining the wellbeing construct has been a challenge. We used the psychometric network approach to study the structure of wellbeing. The sample consisted of Dutch adults registered with the Netherlands Twin Register. The variables were measured through standardized surveys. The network was estimated using the Mixed Graphical Models method and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regularization to limit the number of spurious edges. We estimated a network in a trimming sample (N=1343, 63% females, M _age = 53.18, SD _age = 9.45) and in an estimation sample (N=726, 75% females, M _age = 45.27, SD _age = 11.12) to examine its performance and accuracy. Our final network consists of a positive cluster including satisfaction with life, subjective happiness, and flourishing items, and a negative cluster including depressive symptoms, loneliness, and neuroticism items. We identified the four most central nodes: one satisfaction with life item, one neuroticism item, and two depression items. This suggests that to get a general sense of the wellbeing construct, these items would serve as most informative.  The network approach clearly demonstrates the different, yet connected positive and negative clusters of wellbeing and therefore re-affirms the complex interconnectivity of wellbeing phenotypes. In addition, the network results reject the view of strictly delineated wellbeing domains. Having identified the most central nodes in the network, these can be used in futures studies with limited resources, as they are likely to be the most representative of the wellbeing spectrum.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-024-06363-0.

To be able to develop effective policy and targeted support for children and young people, it is vital to develop and validate measures that enable us to understand what aspects of pandemics are associated with anxiety and stress across a wide age range. We examined the psychometric properties of the Pandemic Anxiety Scale- Parent-report (PAS-P), which measures levels of child and adolescent pandemic-related anxieties. Factor structure, reliability, and convergent and discriminant validity of the PAS-P was assessed in a convenience sample of parents/carers (N- = 8410) over at three time points in 2020 when COVID-19 case rates and restrictions varied. Factor structure was identified via two exploratory factor analyses (EFAs; n = 5601 and n = 1005) and then tested using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; n = 800), measurement invariance tests, and a longitudinal CFA (n = 1651). Two factors structure for disease and consequence anxiety were observed across both EFAs and were found to have good fit in the CFAs. The PAS-P demonstrated good internal consistency and discriminant validity, as well as partial scalar invariance in latent construct measurement across child age, gender, and time. The PAS-P is a robust parent-report measure of two distinct forms of pandemic-related anxiety, suitable for reporting on children and adolescents aged 4-16 years. Although the scale has been validated in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is not limited to this specific pandemic and, with minor wording modifications, may be a reliable tool in other health epidemic contexts.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-024-06784-x.