Measuring collective action intention toward gender equality across cultures

Collective action is a powerful tool for social change and is fundamental to women and girls’ empowerment on a societal level. Collective action towards gender equality could be understood as intentional and conscious civic behaviors focused on social transformation, questioning power relations, and promoting gender equality through collective efforts. Various instruments to measure collective action intentions have been developed, but to our knowledge none of the published measures were subject to invariance testing. We introduce the gender equality collective action intention (GECAI) scale and examine its psychometric isomorphism and measurement invariance, using data from 60 countries (N = 31,686). Our findings indicate that partial scalar measurement invariance of the GECAI scale permits conditional comparisons of latent mean GECAI scores across countries. Moreover, this metric psychometric isomorphism of the GECAI means we can interpret scores at the country-level (i.e., as a group attribute) conceptually similar to individual attributes. Therefore, our findings add to the growing body of literature on gender based collective action by introducing a methodologically sound tool to measure collective action intentions towards gender equality across cultures.info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersio

Measuring collective action intention toward gender equality across cultures

Collective action is a powerful tool for social change and is fundamental to women and girls’ empowerment on a societal level. Collective action towards gender equality could be understood as intentional and conscious civic behaviors focused on social transformation, questioning power relations, and promoting gender equality through collective efforts. Various instruments to measure collective action intentions have been developed, but to our knowledge none of the published measures were subject to invariance testing. We introduce the gender equality collective action intention (GECAI) scale and examine its psychometric isomorphism and measurement invariance, using data from 60 countries (N = 31,686). Our findings indicate that partial scalar measurement invariance of the GECAI scale permits conditional comparisons of latent mean GECAI scores across countries. Moreover, this metric psychometric isomorphism of the GECAI means we can interpret scores at the country-level (i.e., as a group attribute) conceptually similar to individual attributes. Therefore, our findings add to the growing body of literature on gender based collective action by introducing a methodologically sound tool to measure collective action intentions towards gender equality across cultures

Psychometric Properties and Correlates of Precarious Manhood Beliefs in 62 Nations

Precarious manhood beliefs portray manhood, relative to womanhood, as a social status that is hard to earn, easy to lose, and proven via public action. Here, we present cross-cultural data on a brief measure of precarious manhood beliefs (the Precarious Manhood Beliefs scale [PMB]) that covaries meaningfully with other cross-culturally validated gender ideologies and with country-level indices of gender equality and human development. Using data from university samples in 62 countries across 13 world regions (N = 33,417), we demonstrate: (1) the psychometric isomorphism of the PMB (i.e., its comparability in meaning and statistical properties across the individual and country levels); (2) the PMB’s distinctness from, and associations with, ambivalent sexism and ambivalence toward men; and (3) associations of the PMB with nation-level gender equality and human development. Findings are discussed in terms of their statistical and theoretical implications for understanding widely-held beliefs about the precariousness of the male gender role

Recall bias for emotions and pain: Consistency, stability, and predictors

Background When asked to report on their experiences in the past week, patients often recall them as more intense than initially reported. However, until now the cross-domain consistency and temporal stability of recall bias have not been investigated. This study addresses this gap by exploring recall bias for pain, negative affect (NA), and positive affect (PA) in chronic pain patients. Methods Secondary analyses included two ecological momentary assessment studies. Chronic pain patients (Study 1, n=116; Study 2, n=68) rated the intensity of momentary pain, PA, and NA several times a day for two weekly periods, either 3 months apart (Study 1) or administered consecutively (Study 2). Recall ratings were collected at the end of each week. Recall bias was defined as the discrepancy between the 7-day recall and the mean real-time ratings. Findings On average, the 7-day recall was higher than the mean momentary ratings for all measures. The recall bias was moderately stable over time. The correlations between recall bias for pain, PA, and NA were mostly not significant. Variability, peak experience, and state at the moment of recall predicted recall bias for pain and NA. Recall bias for PA and NA was related to trait anxiety and depression in Study 1. Discussion Individual differences in recall bias were not consistent across domains suggesting that it is not a general phenomenon. However, the predictors of recall bias were similar for emotions and symptoms. The current study opens important avenues for future research regarding mechanisms underlying recall bias

A novel measure of self-reported interoception: The Three-dimensional Interoceptive Sensations Questionnaire

Interoception refers to the ability to perceive internal bodily sensations such as breathing, heartbeats, and the movement of the viscera. This multidimensional construct can be measured using both performance-based methods (e.g., heartbeat counting task) and self-report. Surprisingly, research so far has failed to show strong associations between different measures of interoception. This could be caused by the choice of self-report measures, which often use different operationalizations of interoception and frequently include both non-neutral sensations (e.g., responses to affective states or somatic symptoms) and neutral bodily sensations in different organ systems. To overcome those limitations, we propose a novel measure of interoception, the Three-dimensional Interoceptive Sensations Questionnaire (ThIS-Q), which focuses on the perception of neutral sensations in three domains: respiratory, cardiac, and upper gastrointestinal. In Study 1, a pool of 28 items was presented to a sample of 357 undergraduate students. Exploratory factor analysis with oblique factor rotation performed on this dataset suggested a 3-factor solution with the following interpretation of factors: cardiorespiratory activation, cardiorespiratory deactivation, and gastroesophageal. Items with a primary factor loading >.40 were retained for confirmatory factor analysis which was performed in Study 2 in a sample of 374 adults recruited through Prolific Academic. The analyses supported the 3-factor solution of the 21-item ThIS-Q. All subscale and composite scores had acceptable to good internal consistency reliability. We have also examined construct validity, showing that ThIS-Q scores were positively related to other general measures of interoception, including the Body Awareness Questionnaire. Divergent validity was supported with nonsignificant associations with measures of negative affectivity, anxiety, worry, and symptom-related fear. Taken together, our findings suggest that the ThIS-Q is a valid and reliable measure of interoceptive sensibility. It consists of three scales assessing self-reported perception of neutral sensations from the cardiac, respiratory, and gastroesophageal system. This questionnaire could advance our understanding of interoceptive processes by allowing for the measurement of interoception within as well as between different bodily domains

Is recall bias similar for emotions and pain? Evidence from studies among patients with chronic pain.

Background When asked to report on their pain in the past week, patients often recall it as more intense than they experienced it. This recall bias also appears for other domains assessed in clinical settings: positive (PA) and negative affect (NA). However, until now the cross-domain consistency and temporal stability of recall bias have not been investigated. This study addresses this gap by exploring recall bias for pain, NA, and PA in patients with chronic pain. Methods This study reports secondary analyses of two ecological momentary assessment studies. Chronic pain patients (Study 1, n=116; Study 2, n=68) rated the intensity of momentary pain, PA, and NA several times a day for two weekly periods, either 3 months apart (S1) or administered consecutively (S2). Recall ratings were collected at the end of each week. Recall bias was defined as the discrepancy between the 7-day recall and the mean real-time ratings. The cross-domain consistency and temporal stability were tested with correlations. Mixed ANOVAs explored the magnitude of recall bias in relation to personality traits (anxiety, depression, neuroticism). Results On average, the 7-day recall was higher than the average momentary ratings for pain, PA, and NA. The recall bias was moderately stable over time, with test-retest reliabilities over 3 months of .53 (pain), .53 (PA) and .31 (NA). The correlations between recall bias for pain, PA, and NA were mostly not significant. Individual differences in recall bias for PA and NA were related to personality traits (S1), such that higher levels of anxiety/depression/neuroticism were related to greater overreporting of NA and less overreporting of PA. However, this was not replicated in S2. Patients who were more anxious and depressed reported higher momentary and recalled pain, but recall bias for pain was not related to personality traits. Conclusions This study provides evidence of recall bias for both pain and affect ratings in chronic pain patients. Individual differences in recall bias were not consistent across domains suggesting that recall bias is not a general phenomenon. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that patients who retrospectively overreport pain will also overreport other experiences. The current study opens important avenues for future research regarding mechanisms underlying recall bias

Recall bias for pain and emotions: Consistency, stability, and predictors

Background When asked to report on their experiences in the past week, patients often recall them as more intense than initially reported. However, until now the cross-domain consistency and temporal stability of recall bias have not been investigated. This study addresses this gap by exploring recall bias for pain, negative affect (NA), and positive affect (PA) in chronic pain patients. Methods Secondary analyses included two ecological momentary assessment studies. Chronic pain patients (Study 1, n=116; Study 2, n=68) rated the intensity of momentary pain, PA, and NA several times a day for two weekly periods. Recall ratings were collected at the end of each week. Recall bias was defined as the discrepancy between the 7-day recall and the mean real-time ratings. Results On average, the 7-day recall was higher than the mean momentary ratings for pain, PA, and NA. The recall bias was moderately stable over time, with test-retest reliabilities over 3 months of .53 (pain), .53 (PA) and .31 (NA). The correlations between recall bias for pain, PA, and NA were mostly not significant. Variability, peak experience, and state at the moment of recall predicted recall bias for pain and NA. Recall bias for PA and NA, but not for pain, was related to trait anxiety and depression in Study 1. Conclusions This study provides evidence for recall bias for both pain and affect ratings in chronic pain patients. Individual differences in recall bias were not consistent across domains suggesting that recall bias is not a general phenomenon. Thus, it cannot be assumed that patients who retrospectively overreport pain will also overreport other experiences. The current study opens important avenues for future research regarding mechanisms underlying recall bias