Discovering trends of social interaction behavior over time:An introduction to relational event modeling: Trends of social interaction

Real-life social interactions occur in continuous time and are driven by complex mechanisms. Each interaction is not only affected by the characteristics of individuals or the environmental context but also by the history of interactions. The relational event framework provides a flexible approach to studying the mechanisms that drive how a sequence of social interactions evolves over time. This paper presents an introduction of this new statistical framework and two of its extensions for psychological researchers. The relational event framework is illustrated with an exemplary study on social interactions between freshmen students at the start of their new studies. We show how the framework can be used to study: (a) which predictors are important drivers of social interactions between freshmen students who start interacting at zero acquaintance; (b) how the effects of predictors change over time as acquaintance increases; and (c) the dynamics between the different settings in which students interact. Findings show that patterns of interaction developed early in the freshmen student network and remained relatively stable over time. Furthermore, clusters of interacting students formed quickly, and predominantly within a specific setting for interaction. Extraversion predicted rates of social interaction, and this effect was particularly pronounced on the weekends. These results illustrate how the relational event framework and its extensions can lead to new insights on social interactions and how they are affected both by the interacting individuals and the dynamic social environment

Wege aus der Vertrauenskrise

Psychology faces a so-called crisis of confidence as does sport psychology (see title of this special issue). While the debate on its causes and consequences is lively, the deduction of individual opportunities to collectively increase trust is missing. We propose ways out of this crisis and above all describe individual steps toward a reliable and open science. Reliable science refers to the publication of robust effects, as well as to direct and conceptual replications, and open science refers to transparency regarding the design (preregistration), the conducting (open material), and the analysis (open data, reproducible code) of scientific studies. The commitment to reliable and open science will change our behavior in the diverse roles within the scientific system (e.g., as researchers, reviewers, supervisors, editors, or members of commissions). In this sense, we consider the current discussion as a chance to enhance the trustworthiness of our findings and to ultimately create justified confidence.Die Psychologie, und mit ihr auch die Sportpsychologie, befindet sich in einer sogenannten Vertrauenskrise (siehe Titel des Themenhefts). Während die Diskussion ihrer Ursachen und Konsequenzen lebendig geführt wird, fehlt es an der Herausarbeitung individueller Möglichkeiten, Vertrauen wieder kollektiv herzustellen. In diesem Beitrag zeigen wir Wege aus dieser Vertrauenskrise auf und beschreiben insbesondere individuelle Schritte hin zu verlässlichem und offenem Forschen: Verlässliches Forschen bezieht sich auf das Publizieren von robusten Ergebnissen, sowie von direkten und konzeptuellen Replikationsstudien und offenes Forschen auf die Transparenz hinsichtlich der Planung (Präregistrierung), der Durchführung (Open Material) und der Analyse (Open Data, Reproducible Code) wissenschaftlicher Untersuchungen. Das Bekenntnis zu verlässlicher und offener Forschung wird unser Handeln in den verschiedenen Rollen im Wissenschaftssystem (als Forscher, Reviewer, Herausgeber, Betreuer, Kommissionsmitglied etc.) verändern. In diesem Sinne begreifen wir in diesem Beitrag die momentane Diskussion als Chance, die Zuverlässigkeit unserer Befunde nachhaltig zu steigern und langfristig gerechtfertigtes Vertrauen zu schaffen

Wege aus der Vertrauenskrise

Psychology faces a so-called crisis of confidence as does sport psychology (see title of this special issue). While the debate on its causes and consequences is lively, the deduction of individual opportunities to collectively increase trust is missing. We propose ways out of this crisis and above all describe individual steps toward a reliable and open science. Reliable science refers to the publication of robust effects, as well as to direct and conceptual replications, and open science refers to transparency regarding the design (preregistration), the conducting (open material), and the analysis (open data, reproducible code) of scientific studies. The commitment to reliable and open science will change our behavior in the diverse roles within the scientific system (e.g., as researchers, reviewers, supervisors, editors, or members of commissions). In this sense, we consider the current discussion as a chance to enhance the trustworthiness of our findings and to ultimately create justified confidence.Die Psychologie, und mit ihr auch die Sportpsychologie, befindet sich in einer sogenannten Vertrauenskrise (siehe Titel des Themenhefts). Während die Diskussion ihrer Ursachen und Konsequenzen lebendig geführt wird, fehlt es an der Herausarbeitung individueller Möglichkeiten, Vertrauen wieder kollektiv herzustellen. In diesem Beitrag zeigen wir Wege aus dieser Vertrauenskrise auf und beschreiben insbesondere individuelle Schritte hin zu verlässlichem und offenem Forschen: Verlässliches Forschen bezieht sich auf das Publizieren von robusten Ergebnissen, sowie von direkten und konzeptuellen Replikationsstudien und offenes Forschen auf die Transparenz hinsichtlich der Planung (Präregistrierung), der Durchführung (Open Material) und der Analyse (Open Data, Reproducible Code) wissenschaftlicher Untersuchungen. Das Bekenntnis zu verlässlicher und offener Forschung wird unser Handeln in den verschiedenen Rollen im Wissenschaftssystem (als Forscher, Reviewer, Herausgeber, Betreuer, Kommissionsmitglied etc.) verändern. In diesem Sinne begreifen wir in diesem Beitrag die momentane Diskussion als Chance, die Zuverlässigkeit unserer Befunde nachhaltig zu steigern und langfristig gerechtfertigtes Vertrauen zu schaffen

Measuring Perceived Realistic Physical Threat Imposed by Migrants: Scale Development and Validation

Individuals differ in the extent to which they perceive threat imposed by out-groups like migrants. An established distinction in intergroup threat research is between symbolic and realistic threat. While symbolic threats concern a perceived menace against societal values, realistic threats jeopardize in-group members’ well-being more directly. Typically applied realistic threat conceptions explicitly include the aspect of physical integrity, but most empirical research captures only realistic economic threats, arguably also due to a lack of appropriate measures. Therefore, we have developed the Perceived Realistic Physical Threat scale (PRPT) with samples from Germany and the UK (total N = 1,391). Moreover, we conducted follow-up analyses with data from a subsample (N = 473) of the initial UK sample. Factor analyses indicated an 8-item one-factorial solution for the PRPT scale. We further identified measurement invariance across samples and over time and stability across 21 months. We found convincing evidence for its convergent and divergent validity and for its predictive and, importantly, incremental validity, above and beyond the prediction of relevant criteria by other threat types. The PRPT scale appears to be a distinct, comprehensive, and psychometrically sound measure of perceived realistic physical threat, complementing the existing body of available measures

Age and gender differences in narcissism: A comprehensive study across eight measures and over 250,000 participants

Age and gender differences in narcissism have been studied often. However, considering the rich history of narcissism research accompanied by its diverging conceptualizations, little is known about age and gender differences across various narcissism measures. The present study investigated age and gender differences and their interactions across eight widely used narcissism instruments (i.e., Narcissistic Personality Inventory, Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale, Dirty Dozen, Psychological Entitlement Scale, Narcissistic Personality Disorder Symptoms from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Version IV, Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire-Short Form, Single-Item Narcissism Scale, and brief version of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory). The findings of Study 1 (N = 5,736) revealed heterogeneity in how strongly the measures are correlated. Some instruments loaded clearly on one of the three factors proposed by previous research (i.e., Neuroticism, Extraversion, Antagonism), while others cross-loaded across factors and in distinct ways. Cross-sectional analyses using each measure and meta-analytic results across all measures (Study 2) with a total sample of 270,029 participants suggest consistent linear age effects (random effects meta-analytic effect of r = -.104), with narcissism being highest in young adulthood. Consistent gender differences also emerged (random effects meta-analytic effect was -.079), such that men scored higher in narcissism than women. Quadratic age effects and Age × Gender effects were generally very small and inconsistent. We conclude that despite the various conceptualizations of narcissism, age and gender differences are generalizable across the eight measures used in the present study. However, their size varied based on the instrument used. We discuss the sources of this heterogeneity and the potential mechanisms for age and gender differences

A global experience-sampling method study of well-being during times of crisis : The CoCo project

We present a global experience-sampling method (ESM) study aimed at describing, predicting, and understanding individual differences in well-being during times of crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This international ESM study is a collaborative effort of over 60 interdisciplinary researchers from around the world in the “Coping with Corona” (CoCo) project. The study comprises trait-, state-, and daily-level data of 7490 participants from over 20 countries (total ESM measurements = 207,263; total daily measurements = 73,295) collected between October 2021 and August 2022. We provide a brief overview of the theoretical background and aims of the study, present the applied methods (including a description of the study design, data collection procedures, data cleaning, and final sample), and discuss exemplary research questions to which these data can be applied. We end by inviting collaborations on the CoCo dataset

A global experience-sampling method study of well-being during times of crisis : the CoCo project

[Corrections added on 5 July 2023 after first online publication: The authorship footnote has been modified on page 1 and the duplicate phrase “experience sampling” has been removed on page 2.]We present a global experience-sampling method (ESM) study aimed at describing, predicting, and understanding individual differences in well-being during times of crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This international ESM study is a collaborative effort of over 60 interdisciplinary researchers from around the world in the “Coping with Corona” (CoCo) project. The study comprises trait-, state-, and daily-level data of 7490 participants from over 20 countries (total ESM measurements = 207,263; total daily measurements = 73,295) collected between October 2021 and August 2022. We provide a brief overview of the theoretical background and aims of the study, present the applied methods (including a description of the study design, data collection procedures, data cleaning, and final sample), and discuss exemplary research questions to which these data can be applied. We end by inviting collaborations on the CoCo dataset.Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.https://wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/spc3am2024PsychologySDG-03:Good heatlh and well-bein

When the stakes are high

Ziel dieser Dissertation war die Vorhersage von motorischer Leistung durch Personenvariablen (Persönlichkeitstraits) und Situationsvariablen (hoher privater, gemischter, öffentlicher Druck). Aufgrund personenbezogener Befunde innerhalb der Forschung zu Leistung unter Druck (Self-Focus und Self-Presentation Model) wurden Selbstaufmerksamkeits- (private Selbstaufmerksamkeit) und Selbstpräsentationseigenschaften (öffentliche Selbstaufmerksamkeit, Narzissmus) als Prädiktoren von Leistung unter Druck untersucht. Auf Basis des interaktionistischen Prinzips der Eigenschaftsaktivierung wurde vorhergesagt und empirisch gefunden, dass private Selbstaufmerksamkeit Leistung in privaten und gemischten Drucksituationen negativ vorhersagt und öffentliche Selbstaufmerksamkeit und Narzissmus Leistung in öffentlichen Drucksituationen positiv vorhersagen. Der Einbezug von Situationsvariablen ergab eine drucksituationsspezifische Relevanz von Personenvariablen für die Vorhersage von Leistung unter Druck

ASP-Tagung 2016: OpenScience Workshop

Hier gibt's alle Dateien dazu..

Wege aus der Vertrauenskrise – Individuelle Schritte hin zu verlässlicher und offener Forschung

Die Psychologie, und mit ihr auch die Sportpsychologie, befindet sich in einer sogenannten Vertrauenskrise (siehe Titel des Themenhefts). Während die Diskussion ihrer Ursachen und Konsequenzen lebendig geführt wird, fehlt es an der Herausarbeitung individueller Möglichkeiten, Vertrauen wieder kollektiv herzustellen. In diesem Beitrag zeigen wir Wege aus dieser Vertrauenskrise auf und beschreiben insbesondere individuelle Schritte hin zu verlässlichem und offenem Forschen: Verlässliches Forschen bezieht sich auf das Publizieren von robusten Ergebnissen, sowie von direkten und konzeptuellen Replikationsstudien und offenes Forschen auf die Transparenz hinsichtlich der Planung (Präregistrierung), der Durchführung (Open Material) und der Analyse (Open Data, Reproducible Code) wissenschaftlicher Untersuchungen. Das Bekenntnis zu verlässlicher und offener Forschung wird unser Handeln in den verschiedenen Rollen im Wissenschaftssystem (als Forscher, Reviewer, Herausgeber, Betreuer, Kommissionsmitglied etc.) verändern. In diesem Sinne begreifen wir in diesem Beitrag die momentane Diskussion als Chance, die Zuverlässigkeit unserer Befunde nachhaltig zu steigern und langfristig gerechtfertigtes Vertrauen zu schaffen