Subjects: Other Disciplines >> Synthetic discipline submitted time 2023-10-09 Cooperative journals: 《心理学报》
Abstract： Latent growth models (LGMs) are a powerful tool for analyzing longitudinal data, and have attracted the attention of scholars in psychology and other social science disciplines. For a latent variable measured by multiple indicators, we can establish both a univariate LGM (also called first-order LGM) based on composite scores and a latent variable LGM (also called second-order LGM) based on indicators. The two model types are special cases of the first-order and second-order factor models respectively. In either case, we need to scale the factors, that is, to specify their origin and unit. Under the condition of strong measurement invariance across time, the estimation of growth parameters in second-order LGMs depends on the scaling method of factors/latent variables. There are three scaling methods: the scaled-indicator method (also called the marker-variable identification method), the effect-coding method (also called the effect-coding identification method), and the latent-standardization method. The existing latent-standardization method depends on the reliability of the scaled-indicator or the composite scores at the first time point. In this paper, we propose an operable latent-standardization method with two steps. In the first step, a CFA with strong measurement invariance is conducted by fixing the mean and variance of the latent variable at the first time point to 0 and 1 respectively. In the second step, estimated loadings in the first step are employed to establish the second-order LGM. If the standardization is based on the scaled-indicator method, the loading of the scaled-indicator is fixed to that obtained in the first step, and the intercept of the scaled-indicator is fixed to the sample mean of the scaled-indicator at the first time point. If the standardization is based on the effect-coding method, the sum of loadings is constrained to the sum of loadings obtained in the first step, and the sum of intercepts is constrained to the sum of the sample mean of all indicators at the first time point. We also propose a first-order LGM standardization procedure based on the composite scores. First, we standardize the composite scores at the first time point, and make the same linear transformation of the composite scores at the other time points. Then we establish the first-order LGM, which is comparable with the second-order LGM scaled by the latent-standardization method. The scaling methods of second-order LGMs and their comparable first-order LGMs are systematically summarized. The comparability is illustrated by modeling the empirical data of a Moral Evasion Questionnaire. For the scaled-indicator method, second-order LGMs and their comparable first-order LGMs are rather different in parameter estimates (especially when the reliability of the scale-indicator is low). For the effect-coding method, second-order LGMs and their comparable first-order LGMs are relatively close in parameter estimates. When the latent variable at the first time point is standardized, the mean of the intercept-factor of the first-order LGM is close to 0 and not statistically significant; so is the mean of the intercept-factor of the second-order LGM through the effect-coding method, but those through two scaled-indicator methods are statistically significant and different from each other. According to our research results, the effect-coding method is recommended to scale and standardize the second-order LGMs, then comparable first-order LGMs are those based on the composite scores and their standardized models. For either the first-order or second-order LGM, the standardized results obtained by modeling composite total scores and composite mean scores are identical.
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-28 Cooperative journals: 《心理科学进展》
Abstract： Scholars have approached social psychology from two perspectives: a sociological one and a psychological one. Although two perspectives have mostly developed in a parallel way, both has paid much attention into a common area: societal changes and their psychological impacts. Past sociological research on Chinese societal changes has focused on two aspects: changes in society or social structure, and changes in people. The former mainly involves urbanization, social class, social mobility, and family structure; the latter mainly involves Chinese experience, social mentality, group psychology, and organizational psychology. Research suggests that while modern individualism has been on the rise, traditional collectivism has been declining. Compared with psychological approach, sociological approach tends to adopt more emic concepts and qualitative analyses, pays more attention to group psychology as well as the influences of politics and policy, and employs more macro-historical perspective. In future research, Chinese social psychologists from the two perspectives need to learn from and collaborate with each other, ultimately achieving a better understanding of the change of Chinese people and Chinese society.
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-28 Cooperative journals: 《心理科学进展》
Abstract： Social perceptions of faces refer to the process in which people perceive others' social characteristics (e.g., personality) based on their face information. Facial expression plays a key role in social perceptions of faces. The local features and structural information are the main factors affecting social perceptions of faces. Facial expression can also impact social perceptions of faces by eliciting the perceivers' emotion and their behavioral tendency. In daily life, facial expressions are very complicated. For example, there might be mixture of multiple expressions, as well as fake expressions; on the other hand, social perceptions of faces are of great subjectivity. Further studies should expand the types of facial expression, and take the perceivers' characteristics into account.
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-28 Cooperative journals: 《心理科学进展》
Abstract： I3 model, which is also known as “I-cubed model”, has shaped a theoretical framework for explaining individual behavior, which argues that all behaviors emerge from a combination of instigation, impellance and inhibition. Each factor can change independently of the other two. The structure of I3 model is a comprehensive model of 12 paths consisting of three factors (instigation, impellance, and inhibition), a mediator (behavioral proclivity), and an outcome (behavior). The 12 paths predict the individual behavior mechanism in specific contexts by describing 18 problems, such as aggressive behaviors, eating behaviors, etc. As a theoretical framework for behavior research, Finkel and other researchers verified and supported the theory with empirical studies on a large number of studies over the past 10 years, which suggests that the theory is consistent with the data. In addition, in terms of the self-consistent nature of the model system, the I3 model has certain rationality, compatibility, and unique value compared with other classical theories and behavior models. First, the I3 model is compatible with the Planned Behavior Theory and Dual-Process Theory. In this sense, Finkel demonstrates the rationality of constructing I3 model by referring to the behavioral tendency of the Planned Behavior Theory and the behavior reaction of the Dual-Process Theory. Second, the I3 model has its own peculiarities as well as its superficial similarities with general behavioral models such as the "S-O-R'' model. Overall, Finkel tries to combine the research results and theoretical viewpoints under various mediating and regulating research paradigms to establish a grand theoretical system of human behavior. Third, in the same way, Finkel specifically analyzes the similarities and differences of I3 model with General Aggression Model and Goal Conflict Model in explaining the attack behavior and feeding behavior, thus revealing the uniqueness of I3 model. However, this model has the following problems: (1) From the perspective of the entire research system, this model is only a scientific theory and has not yet reached the level of a metatheory. (2) From the perspective of theoretical guidance, the model does not clearly explain the boundary conditions and scope of the theory, and does not consider the sources of other research questions. Although various main effects and interaction tests have been examined, it is still a data-driven test, and it does not reveal the actual interaction mechanism of these three forces; (3) From the practical application, the I3 model only focuses the individual behaviors, such as eating behaviors and aggressive behaviors, few researchers explore other individual behaviors and social behaviors, such as prosocial behaviors, learning behaviors, etc. There are also certain flaws in the interpretation of some specific behaviors and the explanation of some specific behaviors also has certain defects. Consequently, it is necessary to broaden the field of behavioral research on the I3 model in the future, not only to analyze the subtypes of the behavior and the types of behavior in different scenarios but also to explore the tendency and intention of the individual behavior; Secondly, we should apply the I3 model according to local condition, which needs to determine the type and quantity of factors combined with specific research problems, so as to achieve the results we want; Last but not least, we should integrate I3 model with other theories, and further explore the boundary conditions of I3 model. In summary, I3 model improves explanatory power of behavior theory to various behavior types and meets the current concern regarding behavioral research, such as behavior nudge and network behavior, and enriches theoretical support and theoretical framework for behavioral analysis.
Hits
YES
Hits
Downloads
Comment