Authoritarianism Scales And Response Bias

Scales of authoritarianism differ from other self-report measures like the MMPI in ways that make them particularly susceptible to agreement response bias: (1) depending particularly on item content in relation to a theoretical syndrome; (2) using ambiguous items; (3) scoring all items in 1 direction. Fittingly, evidence now indicates that response bias is a major factor on authoritarian scales and not on the MMPI. This evidence can be maintained against the counterproposals of Rokeach and Samelson. Support is reiterated for interpreting (1) response bias not mechanically but as a response tendency when the S is uncertain; (2) high authoritarianism scale scores as representing simple-mindedness more than authoritarian ideologies. The latter interpretation is supported not only for college students but even more from survey data for the general population

In Search Of An Evaluative Factor: Comments On Deboeck

Argues that P. de Boeck\u27s (see record 1979-22559-001) analysis of the author\u27s (see record 1968-03876-001) analysis of trait scales is related to 2 contexts: the traditional methods of factor analysis and the substantive history of an evaluative factor. Three issues are considered: (a) Because de Boeck\u27s procedure differs from the one that is traditional for ability tests, features of the trait inference data that make his analysis possible are examined. (b) Since de Boeck\u27s evaluative factor differs from the historical one that was clearly the largest, the relative importance of evaluation is determined. (c) When de Boeck discards the traditional policy of rotation to simple structure, a justification for a more explicit general argument is considered. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved

Evaluative And Descriptive Aspects In Personality Perception: A Reappraisal

The widespread emphasis on evaluation in personality perception was questioned by D. Peabody, who showed the importance of separating evaluative and descriptive aspects of trait judgments. The available evidence including the from S. Rosenberg and K. Olshan (see PA, Vol. 45:Issue 4) and A. Felipe (see PA, Vol. 45:Issue 4) is reexamined and suggests the following conclusions: (a) in the covariation of many traits, evaluative and descriptive relations are of comparable importance; (b) in separate trait judgments, descriptive effects are the more important when descriptive relations are strong; and (c) in the combining of several traits, it is the descriptive effects that are enhanced

Symmetry And Asymmetry In Interpersonal Relations—With Implications For The Concept Of Projection

This paper first reviews evidence for some proposals about interpersonal relations These relations tend to be “symmetrical” or “asymmetrical”—i.e, involve similar or dissimilar characteristics for the two parties—depending on what the characteristics are. Certain characteristics (eg., love-hate) are—and are perceived to be—symmetrical, and others (eg, dominance-submission) asymmetrical. The implications are then illustrated for the concept of projection A process of attributing to others characteristics that “explain” one\u27s own would account for symmetrical projection for certain characteristics and asymmetrical projection for others This reformulation can provide a simpler and more unified account for cases that are traditionally treated separately as “supplementary” and “complementary” projection

Group Judgments In The Philippines: Evaluative And Descriptive Aspects

Judgments about Chinese living in the Philippines, and about Filipinos, Americans, and Japanese were made by members of the 1st 2 groups using 14 pairs of scales designed to separate evaluative and descriptive aspects. Results showed major effects for both aspects: the groups tended to (1) disagree about their evaluations of each other, but (2) agree about the descriptive characteristics of each group. The Chinese were judged tight in impulse control and unassertive; the Japanese tight and assertive; the Filipinos more loose in impulse expression and unassertive; and the Americans a mixture of tight and loose characteristics and assertive

Personality Dimensions Through Trait Inferences

The author extends his (1967) earlier study that (a) classified trait adjectives to unconfound evaluative and descriptive aspects, (b) made a selection from those that could be unconfounded, and (c) omitted those that could not. The present study adds representation of the achievement and affiliation adjectives omitted then. 10 undergraduates made inferences from 30 new traits (and 90 old ones) to 15 new scales (and 40 old ones). Factor analysis of the 120 traits produced 3 larger descriptive dimensions. Factor analysis of the 55 scales produced confounded factors, but these could be deliberately rotated to general evaluation, plus the descriptive dimensions. The dimensions corresponded well with those from interpersonal traits and psychopathology, but to only 3 of the Big Five factors derived from R. B. Cattell\u27s (1947) 35 scales. The discrepancies are discussed as plausibly due to differences in representativeness or to differences between judgments about people and about traits (as opposed to claims for a close correspondence between them). (20 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved

National Characteristics

https://works.swarthmore.edu/alum-books/3495/thumbnail.jp