2 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
REFINEMENT OF THE SPITEFULNESS CONSTRUCT
In this research we reviewed the current definition of Spite in the psychology field and the current and historical definitions of Spite in other related fields. Given the narrow contemporary definition of spite used by psychological researchers, the first aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive and refined conceptualization of spite that differentiates it from similar aggressive behaviors, along with delineating conditions in which spite may arise. The second aim of this study was to create a measure of trait spitefulness and a measure of engagement in spiteful behaviors. A total of 156 respondents participated in this study, which entailed answering questions about how they would preferably act to proposed scenarios and other questions meant to assess aggression and personality traits. These respondents were all university students, comprised mainly of women between the ages of 19-29, and worked primarily in sales, food service, and education related careers. A total of three subject matter experts who were all university faculty and had at minimum a Master’s degree level education were also contacted to provide consultative advice on how to improve and refine the created measures. Results from the trait spitefulness measure development demonstrated that the portion of the measure meant to assess realistic spitefulness had low reliability, whilst the portion of the measure meant to assess idealistic spite had unacceptable reliability. Results from the engagement in spitefulness measure development demonstrated that the measure was generally reliable but could be refined and shortened. Results of the scale validation supported that spite was related to factors such as negative reciprocity beliefs, reactive aggression, and premeditated aggression, but distinct from factors such impulsive aggression. Results also demonstrated that engagement in spitefulness was related to negative reciprocity beliefs. In addition, the results also demonstrated that the selected personality measures were generally poor predictors of trait spitefulness and engagement in spite. Results from the mediation analysis demonstrated a link between trait spitefulness and engaging in spite, but our proposed mediators did not mediate the relationship as predicted. Results from the subject matter expert feedback demonstrated that the experts generally approved of the items. Overall, this research provides the first step in a comprehensive and refined measure of trait spitefulness that reflects its choice-driven and calculated nature, provides a measure that assess engagement in spite. And provides theoretical and practical implications with suggestions for future research
Recommended from our members
Learning Multiple Categories Without Feedback
How do people acquire new categories in an unsupervised (no-feedback) environment? We distinguish two general classes of models. Correlation tracking models assume that new categories are acquired by tracking associations among the features of different stimuli until reliable patterns are learned. Category invention models assume that new categories are triggered as an all-or-none response to novel or surprising objects that violate existing categories. Previous research tested the models by manipulating the order in which examples of two different categories were shown in an unsupervised learning task. As predicted by the category invention model, people learned best when a training sequence maximized the perceived contrast between two potential categories, e.g., by showing them in separate blocks, even if fewer examples were shown than in a comparable lowcontrast (e.g., randomly interleaved) sequence. This “negative exposure effect” cannot be accommodated by pure correlation tracking models. Of course, people often acquire more than two categories at a time in the real world, and so it is important to determine whether evidence for category invention can also be obtained in a multi-category task. In this experiment, participants saw examples of three categories in two different sequences: (a) mixed from the start of training (interleaved sequence), or (b) staggered so that examples of the first category only were shown for several trials, followed by examples of the first and second categories in random alternation, and finally by examples of all three categories in random alternation (semi-blocked sequence). As in previous two-category studies, learning of all categories was better in the semiblocked condition than in the interleaved condition, even when fewer examples were shown. This is a clear victory for category invention as a theoretical model, and perhaps also for the practical value of blocked or semi-blocked training sequences when people must acquire separate categories under unsupervised conditions. On the other hand, people in the contrast condition showed evidence of reduced learning after the third category was introduced, suggesting that they may have had difficulty maintaining three separate categories in this unsupervised task. Further research will attempt to investigate the causes of this “category load” effect and clarify its impact on people’s ability to acquire and maintain large sets of related categories under both supervised and unsupervised task conditions