调查设计可调节自我工作压力报告中的消极性偏差,而非积极性偏差

IF 3.2 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED European Journal of Psychological Assessment Pub Date : 2024-01-12 DOI:10.1027/1015-5759/a000806
Roman Pauli, Jessica Lang
{"title":"调查设计可调节自我工作压力报告中的消极性偏差,而非积极性偏差","authors":"Roman Pauli, Jessica Lang","doi":"10.1027/1015-5759/a000806","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: Self-report measures are both frequently used and criticized in studies of job-related stress. The question remains whether affective dispositions lead to biased assessments. In this study, we examine the extent to which survey characteristics are susceptible to bias by the characteristics of the person making the assessment. Participants ( N = 1,509) in an online split ballot experiment were randomly assigned to report their job stressors using a 2 (task vs. person-related items) × 2 (frequency vs. agreement response format) factorial design. Participants high in neuroticism or negative affectivity, but not positive affectivity, reported more job stressors when responding to person-related items compared to task-related items. Individuals high in neuroticism reported more job stressors when assessed with agreement compared to frequency response format. However, the response format did not alter the relationship between self-reported job stressors and positive or negative affectivity. Findings indicate how survey design can reinforce affectivity bias in the assessments of job stressors. If an assessment is intended to evaluate objective circumstances rather than subjective experiences at work (e.g., the presence of general risk factors within psychosocial risk assessment), it is recommended to employ condition-related questionnaires with task-related item wordings and frequency response formats.","PeriodicalId":48018,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Psychological Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Survey Design Moderates Negativity Bias but not Positivity Bias in Self-Reported Job Stress\",\"authors\":\"Roman Pauli, Jessica Lang\",\"doi\":\"10.1027/1015-5759/a000806\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract: Self-report measures are both frequently used and criticized in studies of job-related stress. The question remains whether affective dispositions lead to biased assessments. In this study, we examine the extent to which survey characteristics are susceptible to bias by the characteristics of the person making the assessment. Participants ( N = 1,509) in an online split ballot experiment were randomly assigned to report their job stressors using a 2 (task vs. person-related items) × 2 (frequency vs. agreement response format) factorial design. Participants high in neuroticism or negative affectivity, but not positive affectivity, reported more job stressors when responding to person-related items compared to task-related items. Individuals high in neuroticism reported more job stressors when assessed with agreement compared to frequency response format. However, the response format did not alter the relationship between self-reported job stressors and positive or negative affectivity. Findings indicate how survey design can reinforce affectivity bias in the assessments of job stressors. If an assessment is intended to evaluate objective circumstances rather than subjective experiences at work (e.g., the presence of general risk factors within psychosocial risk assessment), it is recommended to employ condition-related questionnaires with task-related item wordings and frequency response formats.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48018,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Psychological Assessment\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Psychological Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000806\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000806","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要:在与工作有关的压力研究中,自我报告测量法既被频繁使用,又饱受批评。问题是,情感倾向是否会导致评估出现偏差。在本研究中,我们研究了调查特征在多大程度上容易受到评估者特征的影响而产生偏差。我们采用 2(任务与个人相关项目)×2(频率与同意回答格式)的因子设计,随机分配在线分票实验的参与者(N = 1,509)来报告他们的工作压力。与任务相关的项目相比,神经质或消极情绪性高的参与者在回答与人相关的项目时会报告更多的工作压力,而积极情绪性低的参与者则不会报告更多的工作压力。与频率响应形式相比,神经质程度高的人在以协议形式进行评估时会报告更多的工作压力。然而,回答格式并没有改变自我报告的工作压力与积极或消极情绪之间的关系。研究结果表明,在评估工作压力时,调查设计可能会加强情感偏差。如果评估的目的是评价客观情况而不是主观工作经历(例如,社会心理风险评估中是否存在一般风险因素),建议采用与任务相关的项目措辞和频率响应格式的条件相关问卷。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Survey Design Moderates Negativity Bias but not Positivity Bias in Self-Reported Job Stress
Abstract: Self-report measures are both frequently used and criticized in studies of job-related stress. The question remains whether affective dispositions lead to biased assessments. In this study, we examine the extent to which survey characteristics are susceptible to bias by the characteristics of the person making the assessment. Participants ( N = 1,509) in an online split ballot experiment were randomly assigned to report their job stressors using a 2 (task vs. person-related items) × 2 (frequency vs. agreement response format) factorial design. Participants high in neuroticism or negative affectivity, but not positive affectivity, reported more job stressors when responding to person-related items compared to task-related items. Individuals high in neuroticism reported more job stressors when assessed with agreement compared to frequency response format. However, the response format did not alter the relationship between self-reported job stressors and positive or negative affectivity. Findings indicate how survey design can reinforce affectivity bias in the assessments of job stressors. If an assessment is intended to evaluate objective circumstances rather than subjective experiences at work (e.g., the presence of general risk factors within psychosocial risk assessment), it is recommended to employ condition-related questionnaires with task-related item wordings and frequency response formats.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: The main purpose of the EJPA is to present important articles which provide seminal information on both theoretical and applied developments in this field. Articles reporting the construction of new measures or an advancement of an existing measure are given priority. The journal is directed to practitioners as well as to academicians: The conviction of its editors is that the discipline of psychological assessment should, necessarily and firmly, be attached to the roots of psychological science, while going deeply into all the consequences of its applied, practice-oriented development.
期刊最新文献
Trait- and State-Aspects of Procrastination and Their Relation to Study Satisfaction How Happy Is Happy Enough? The Internal Consistency of the Moral Injury Event Scale Heterogeneity of Alexithymia Subgroups A Persian Validation of the Occupational Depression Inventory
×
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