自闭症谱系障碍测量的个体差异

IF 1.2 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Journal of Individual Differences Pub Date : 2021-07-29 DOI:10.1027/1614-0001/a000351
K. Elpers, T. Coyle
{"title":"自闭症谱系障碍测量的个体差异","authors":"K. Elpers, T. Coyle","doi":"10.1027/1614-0001/a000351","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Previous research suggests that theory of mind tasks such as the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) are correlated with general intelligence ( g). The present study replicated and extended this research by testing correlations between g, the RMET, and two related measures, the empathy quotient (EQ) and systematizing quotient (SQ). The RMET, EQ, and SQ were all significantly correlated with g (r = .27 with RMET; r = −.15 with EQ; r = .27 with SQ). To determine if the RMET, EQ, and SQ derive their predictive power from g, a hierarchical regression examined whether the RMET, EQ, and SQ predicted feelings toward STEM and humanities after controlling for g. The EQ and SQ continued to significantly predict feelings toward STEM (β = −.20 for EQ; β = .42 for SQ) after controlling for g, and the RMET and EQ continued to significantly predict feelings toward humanities (β = .10 for RMET; β = .20 for EQ) after controlling for g, suggesting that these measures do not entirely derive their predictive power from g.","PeriodicalId":47049,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Differences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring Individual Differences in Measures of Autism Spectrum Disorders\",\"authors\":\"K. Elpers, T. Coyle\",\"doi\":\"10.1027/1614-0001/a000351\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract. Previous research suggests that theory of mind tasks such as the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) are correlated with general intelligence ( g). The present study replicated and extended this research by testing correlations between g, the RMET, and two related measures, the empathy quotient (EQ) and systematizing quotient (SQ). The RMET, EQ, and SQ were all significantly correlated with g (r = .27 with RMET; r = −.15 with EQ; r = .27 with SQ). To determine if the RMET, EQ, and SQ derive their predictive power from g, a hierarchical regression examined whether the RMET, EQ, and SQ predicted feelings toward STEM and humanities after controlling for g. The EQ and SQ continued to significantly predict feelings toward STEM (β = −.20 for EQ; β = .42 for SQ) after controlling for g, and the RMET and EQ continued to significantly predict feelings toward humanities (β = .10 for RMET; β = .20 for EQ) after controlling for g, suggesting that these measures do not entirely derive their predictive power from g.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47049,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Individual Differences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Individual Differences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000351\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Individual Differences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000351","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要先前的研究表明,心理理论任务,如阅读眼睛中的想法测试(RMET)与一般智力相关(g)。本研究通过测试g、RMET和两个相关指标——移情商(EQ)和系统化商(SQ)之间的相关性,复制并扩展了这项研究。RMET、EQ和SQ均与g显著相关(RMET为.27;EQ为−.15;SQ为.27)。为了确定RMET、EQ和SQ是否从g中获得其预测力,一项分层回归检验了RMET、情商和SQ在控制g后是否预测了对STEM和人文学科的感觉。EQ和SQ在控制g后继续显著预测对STEM的感觉(EQ为β=−.20;SQ为β=.42),在控制g后,RMET和EQ继续显著预测对人文学科的感觉(RMET的β=0.10;EQ的β=0.20),这表明这些指标的预测力并不完全来自g。
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
Measuring Individual Differences in Measures of Autism Spectrum Disorders
Abstract. Previous research suggests that theory of mind tasks such as the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) are correlated with general intelligence ( g). The present study replicated and extended this research by testing correlations between g, the RMET, and two related measures, the empathy quotient (EQ) and systematizing quotient (SQ). The RMET, EQ, and SQ were all significantly correlated with g (r = .27 with RMET; r = −.15 with EQ; r = .27 with SQ). To determine if the RMET, EQ, and SQ derive their predictive power from g, a hierarchical regression examined whether the RMET, EQ, and SQ predicted feelings toward STEM and humanities after controlling for g. The EQ and SQ continued to significantly predict feelings toward STEM (β = −.20 for EQ; β = .42 for SQ) after controlling for g, and the RMET and EQ continued to significantly predict feelings toward humanities (β = .10 for RMET; β = .20 for EQ) after controlling for g, suggesting that these measures do not entirely derive their predictive power from g.
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 Individual Differences
Journal of Individual Differences PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Researchers, teachers, and students interested in all areas of individual differences (e.g., gender, temperament, personality, intelligence) and their assessment in human and animal research will find the Journal of Individual Differences useful. The Journal of Individual Differences publishes manuscripts dealing with individual differences in behavior, emotion, cognition, and their developmental aspects. This includes human as well as animal research. The Journal of Individual Differences is conceptualized to bring together researchers working in different areas ranging from, for example, molecular genetics to theories of complex behavior.
期刊最新文献
“Always Look on the Bright Side of Life” Being Flexible in Zuckerman’s Alternative Personality Space Stoicism Changing Ourselves Detecting Applicant Faking With a Context-Specific Overclaiming Questionnaire
×
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