Julian Schulze, Manuel Heinrich, Jan-Philipp Freudenstein, Philipp Schäpers, Stefan Krumm
{"title":"揭示黑暗三合会自我评价中的隐藏框架:人们在回答一般的 \"黑暗三元组 \"项目时会使用什么参照框架?","authors":"Julian Schulze, Manuel Heinrich, Jan-Philipp Freudenstein, Philipp Schäpers, Stefan Krumm","doi":"10.1177/10731911231220357","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In typical Dark Triad (DT) questionnaires, generic items oftentimes refer to \"others\" or \"people\" in general. Hence, respondents have to mentally aggregate their behavior across several kinds of \"others\" (e.g., work colleagues, family members, and friends). It remains unknown if individuals consider different kinds of interaction partners equally or if their self-reports contain \"hidden\" interaction partner-specific tendencies. To shed light on this issue, we assessed generic and contextualized DT items (referring to family, friends, work, and strangers; <i>N</i> = 814 from the general population). The correlated trait-correlated (method - 1) model was used to investigate preregistered research questions. On average, generic DT items showed the strongest association with work-contextualized DT items and the weakest association with family-contextualized DT items. However, the associations varied considerably across DT items and traits. In sum, our results suggest that hidden framings exist in some DT items, which may impact their ability to predict relevant criteria due to contextual (a)symmetries. The generalizability of the findings to other DT instruments, items, and participant groups should be examined in future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11411850/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Uncovering Hidden Framings in Dark Triad Self-Ratings: What Frames-of-Reference Do People Use When Responding to Generic Dark Triad Items?\",\"authors\":\"Julian Schulze, Manuel Heinrich, Jan-Philipp Freudenstein, Philipp Schäpers, Stefan Krumm\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10731911231220357\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In typical Dark Triad (DT) questionnaires, generic items oftentimes refer to \\\"others\\\" or \\\"people\\\" in general. Hence, respondents have to mentally aggregate their behavior across several kinds of \\\"others\\\" (e.g., work colleagues, family members, and friends). It remains unknown if individuals consider different kinds of interaction partners equally or if their self-reports contain \\\"hidden\\\" interaction partner-specific tendencies. To shed light on this issue, we assessed generic and contextualized DT items (referring to family, friends, work, and strangers; <i>N</i> = 814 from the general population). The correlated trait-correlated (method - 1) model was used to investigate preregistered research questions. On average, generic DT items showed the strongest association with work-contextualized DT items and the weakest association with family-contextualized DT items. However, the associations varied considerably across DT items and traits. In sum, our results suggest that hidden framings exist in some DT items, which may impact their ability to predict relevant criteria due to contextual (a)symmetries. The generalizability of the findings to other DT instruments, items, and participant groups should be examined in future research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11411850/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911231220357\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911231220357","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
Uncovering Hidden Framings in Dark Triad Self-Ratings: What Frames-of-Reference Do People Use When Responding to Generic Dark Triad Items?
In typical Dark Triad (DT) questionnaires, generic items oftentimes refer to "others" or "people" in general. Hence, respondents have to mentally aggregate their behavior across several kinds of "others" (e.g., work colleagues, family members, and friends). It remains unknown if individuals consider different kinds of interaction partners equally or if their self-reports contain "hidden" interaction partner-specific tendencies. To shed light on this issue, we assessed generic and contextualized DT items (referring to family, friends, work, and strangers; N = 814 from the general population). The correlated trait-correlated (method - 1) model was used to investigate preregistered research questions. On average, generic DT items showed the strongest association with work-contextualized DT items and the weakest association with family-contextualized DT items. However, the associations varied considerably across DT items and traits. In sum, our results suggest that hidden framings exist in some DT items, which may impact their ability to predict relevant criteria due to contextual (a)symmetries. The generalizability of the findings to other DT instruments, items, and participant groups should be examined in future research.