明确兴趣分析层次的重要性:以自我同情为例进行说明。

IF 5 1区 心理学 Q1 Psychology Journal of Personality Pub Date : 2024-03-10 DOI:10.1111/jopy.12924
Anabel Büchner, Christina Ewert, Cosma F A Hoffmann, Michela Schröder-Abé, Kai T Horstmann
{"title":"明确兴趣分析层次的重要性:以自我同情为例进行说明。","authors":"Anabel Büchner, Christina Ewert, Cosma F A Hoffmann, Michela Schröder-Abé, Kai T Horstmann","doi":"10.1111/jopy.12924","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Theories about within-person (WP) variation are often tested using between-person (BP) research, despite the well-established fact that results may not generalize across levels of analysis. One possible explanation is vague theories that do not specify which level of analysis is of interest. We illustrate such a case using the construct of self-compassion. The factor structure at the BP level has been highly debated, although the theory is actually concerned with relationships at the WP level.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Multilevel confirmatory factor analysis was applied to experience-sampling data of self-compassion (N = 213, with n = 4052 measurement occasions).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At both levels of analysis, evidence for a two-factor model was found. However, the factors were moderately related at the WP level (r = 0.37, p < 0.001) but largely independent at the BP level (r = 0.04, p = 0.696). Exploratory analyses revealed considerable heterogeneity in the WP relationship among individuals.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We discuss how our results provide new impulses to move the debate around self-compassion forward. Lastly, we outline how the WP level-which is of major interest for self-compassion and other constructs in psychology-can guide the conceptualization and assessment to promote advancements of the theory and resulting applications.</p>","PeriodicalId":48421,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Personality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the importance of being clear about the level of analysis of interest: An illustration using the case of self-compassion.\",\"authors\":\"Anabel Büchner, Christina Ewert, Cosma F A Hoffmann, Michela Schröder-Abé, Kai T Horstmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jopy.12924\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Theories about within-person (WP) variation are often tested using between-person (BP) research, despite the well-established fact that results may not generalize across levels of analysis. One possible explanation is vague theories that do not specify which level of analysis is of interest. We illustrate such a case using the construct of self-compassion. The factor structure at the BP level has been highly debated, although the theory is actually concerned with relationships at the WP level.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Multilevel confirmatory factor analysis was applied to experience-sampling data of self-compassion (N = 213, with n = 4052 measurement occasions).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At both levels of analysis, evidence for a two-factor model was found. However, the factors were moderately related at the WP level (r = 0.37, p < 0.001) but largely independent at the BP level (r = 0.04, p = 0.696). Exploratory analyses revealed considerable heterogeneity in the WP relationship among individuals.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We discuss how our results provide new impulses to move the debate around self-compassion forward. Lastly, we outline how the WP level-which is of major interest for self-compassion and other constructs in psychology-can guide the conceptualization and assessment to promote advancements of the theory and resulting applications.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48421,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Personality\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Personality\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12924\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Personality","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12924","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:关于人内(WP)变异的理论经常使用人际(BP)研究来检验,尽管事实已经证明,结果可能无法在不同的分析层面上通用。一种可能的解释是,理论含糊不清,没有明确指出哪一个分析层次是我们感兴趣的。我们用 "自我同情 "来说明这种情况。尽管该理论实际上关注的是 WP 层面的关系,但 BP 层面的因子结构一直备受争议:方法:对自我同情的经验抽样数据(N = 213,n = 4052 个测量场合)进行多层次确认性因素分析:结果:在两个层次的分析中,都发现了双因素模型的证据。然而,在 WP 层面上,各因素之间存在中度相关性(r = 0.37,p 结论):我们讨论了我们的研究结果如何为推动有关自我同情的讨论提供了新的动力。最后,我们概述了 WP 层次(这是自我同情和心理学中其他建构的主要关注点)如何指导概念化和评估,以促进理论的进步和由此产生的应用。
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
On the importance of being clear about the level of analysis of interest: An illustration using the case of self-compassion.

Objective: Theories about within-person (WP) variation are often tested using between-person (BP) research, despite the well-established fact that results may not generalize across levels of analysis. One possible explanation is vague theories that do not specify which level of analysis is of interest. We illustrate such a case using the construct of self-compassion. The factor structure at the BP level has been highly debated, although the theory is actually concerned with relationships at the WP level.

Method: Multilevel confirmatory factor analysis was applied to experience-sampling data of self-compassion (N = 213, with n = 4052 measurement occasions).

Results: At both levels of analysis, evidence for a two-factor model was found. However, the factors were moderately related at the WP level (r = 0.37, p < 0.001) but largely independent at the BP level (r = 0.04, p = 0.696). Exploratory analyses revealed considerable heterogeneity in the WP relationship among individuals.

Conclusion: We discuss how our results provide new impulses to move the debate around self-compassion forward. Lastly, we outline how the WP level-which is of major interest for self-compassion and other constructs in psychology-can guide the conceptualization and assessment to promote advancements of the theory and resulting applications.

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
Journal of Personality
Journal of Personality PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL-
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
6.00%
发文量
100
期刊介绍: Journal of Personality publishes scientific investigations in the field of personality. It focuses particularly on personality and behavior dynamics, personality development, and individual differences in the cognitive, affective, and interpersonal domains. The journal reflects and stimulates interest in the growth of new theoretical and methodological approaches in personality psychology.
期刊最新文献
Paragons of character-Character strengths and well-being of moral, creative, and religious exemplars. Who makes a more consistent first impression? Examining the structure and correlates of dissensus. Primary affective systems and personality: Disentangling the within-person reciprocal relationships. Development of beliefs in a just world among Chinese early adolescents and the predictive role of family factors: A three-wave longitudinal study. Purpose and goal pursuit as a self-sustaining system: Evidence of daily within-person reciprocity among adolescents in self-driven learning.
×
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