显性和隐性方法估计默许的时间稳定性

IF 1.1 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Studia Psychologica Pub Date : 2022-12-12 DOI:10.31577/sp.2022.04.857
Patrik Havan, Michal Kohút, P. Halama
{"title":"显性和隐性方法估计默许的时间稳定性","authors":"Patrik Havan, Michal Kohút, P. Halama","doi":"10.31577/sp.2022.04.857","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Acquiescence is the consistent tendency toward a shift of responses in the direction of agreement rather than disagreement regardless of the content, and it is usually measured by manifest approach based on a deviation from the median of the response scale and by latent approach using confirmatory factor analysis. Our goal was to investigate whether acquiescence, as measured by both approaches, was stable over time. We explored the relationship of acquiescence with variables that are usually considered to be validating criteria for acquiescence. The research was conducted on a general sample of 443 Slovak adult participants, while using the BFI-2 as the tool to identify acquiescence. Data were collected twice with an interval of almost two years. The results showed that both approaches showed relative stability over time, with correlation coefficients r = .50 for the manifest and r = .55 for the latent approach. The time stability of acquiescence suggests that acquiescence is more of a participant-related than a situation-related construct. Both approaches positively correlated with counts of agreements used as validating variables. For future research, we recommend using CFA to identify acquiescence because of the low reliability of the manifest approach and counts of agreements from another time point as a validity criterion whenever possible.","PeriodicalId":45798,"journal":{"name":"Studia Psychologica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Time Stability of Acquiescence as Estimated by Manifest and Latent Approaches\",\"authors\":\"Patrik Havan, Michal Kohút, P. Halama\",\"doi\":\"10.31577/sp.2022.04.857\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Acquiescence is the consistent tendency toward a shift of responses in the direction of agreement rather than disagreement regardless of the content, and it is usually measured by manifest approach based on a deviation from the median of the response scale and by latent approach using confirmatory factor analysis. Our goal was to investigate whether acquiescence, as measured by both approaches, was stable over time. We explored the relationship of acquiescence with variables that are usually considered to be validating criteria for acquiescence. The research was conducted on a general sample of 443 Slovak adult participants, while using the BFI-2 as the tool to identify acquiescence. Data were collected twice with an interval of almost two years. The results showed that both approaches showed relative stability over time, with correlation coefficients r = .50 for the manifest and r = .55 for the latent approach. The time stability of acquiescence suggests that acquiescence is more of a participant-related than a situation-related construct. Both approaches positively correlated with counts of agreements used as validating variables. For future research, we recommend using CFA to identify acquiescence because of the low reliability of the manifest approach and counts of agreements from another time point as a validity criterion whenever possible.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45798,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studia Psychologica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studia Psychologica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31577/sp.2022.04.857\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Psychologica","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31577/sp.2022.04.857","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

默认是指无论内容如何,反应都朝着同意而不是不同意的方向转变的一致趋势,通常采用基于偏离反应量表中位数的明显方法和使用验证性因子分析的潜在方法来测量。我们的目标是调查通过两种方法测量的默许是否随着时间的推移而稳定。我们探讨了默认与变量的关系,这些变量通常被认为是默认的验证标准。这项研究以443名斯洛伐克成年人为样本进行,同时使用BFI-2作为识别默许的工具。数据收集两次,间隔近两年。结果表明,随时间推移,两种方法都表现出相对稳定性,显性方法的相关系数为r = 0.50,潜在方法的相关系数为r = 0.55。默认的时间稳定性表明默认更多的是参与者相关的构念,而不是情境相关的构念。这两种方法都与作为验证变量的协议数呈正相关。对于未来的研究,我们建议使用CFA来识别默许,因为清单方法的可靠性较低,并且尽可能将来自另一个时间点的同意计数作为有效性标准。
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
Time Stability of Acquiescence as Estimated by Manifest and Latent Approaches
Acquiescence is the consistent tendency toward a shift of responses in the direction of agreement rather than disagreement regardless of the content, and it is usually measured by manifest approach based on a deviation from the median of the response scale and by latent approach using confirmatory factor analysis. Our goal was to investigate whether acquiescence, as measured by both approaches, was stable over time. We explored the relationship of acquiescence with variables that are usually considered to be validating criteria for acquiescence. The research was conducted on a general sample of 443 Slovak adult participants, while using the BFI-2 as the tool to identify acquiescence. Data were collected twice with an interval of almost two years. The results showed that both approaches showed relative stability over time, with correlation coefficients r = .50 for the manifest and r = .55 for the latent approach. The time stability of acquiescence suggests that acquiescence is more of a participant-related than a situation-related construct. Both approaches positively correlated with counts of agreements used as validating variables. For future research, we recommend using CFA to identify acquiescence because of the low reliability of the manifest approach and counts of agreements from another time point as a validity criterion whenever possible.
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
Studia Psychologica
Studia Psychologica PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
8.30%
发文量
21
审稿时长
43 weeks
期刊介绍: The international journal Studia Psychologica is published by the Institute of Experimental Psychology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovak Republic, since 1956. The journal publishes original articles in the area of psychology of cognitive processes in personality and social context. The journal aims at providing contributions to the understanding of cognitive processes which are used in the everyday functioning of human beings. This includes studies on the acquisition and use of knowledge about the world by human beings, the nature of such knowledge, and the relationship between knowledge, behavior and personality conceived as an agent in his/her environment.
期刊最新文献
Correlation of Cognitive and Linguistic Factors with Spoken Language Comprehension in Early Elementary Students Perceived Stress, COVID-19 Stressors, Loneliness, and Resilience of University Students after the Strictest Lockdown Body Appreciation, Self-Compassion, and Sexual Self-Consciousness in Women: The Example of Turkey and Azerbaijan Unlocking the Power of Self-Compassion and Psychological Flexibility: Enhancing Emotional Health, Subjective Wellbeing, and Quality of Life in College Students Unlocking the Power of Parenting: Unraveling How Family Atmosphere and Parenting Styles Impact the Pivotal Role in Bullying Behavior
×
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