Right-wing authoritarianism,fundamentalism and prejudice revisited: Removing suppression and statistical artefact

This paper challenges a finding reported by several researchers, that fundamentalism could be associated with a reduction in racial prejudice after controlling for authoritarianism (RWA). We argue that the presence of fundamentalism in the construct definition of the conventionalism cluster of RWA leads to higher associations between fundamentalism and conventionalism than with other aspects of RWA. This creates a statistical artefact that distorts the results of multiple regression analyses that include both fundamentalism and RWA as independent variables. To test this hypothesis, 299 participants completed measures of prejudice as well as fundamentalism and the three RWA clusters (conventionalism, authoritarian aggression, and submission). In regression analyses using fundamentalism and the combined RWA scale we replicate previous findings that when RWA is controlled, higher fundamentalism leads to lower prejudice. After removing the overlapping method variance in the scales, this pattern is eliminated and the commonly observed positive relationship between fundamentalism and prejudice is found. We describe the statistical artefact, its antecedents, and its theoretical implications, and outline how investigations in this important area should proceed.     

The Dimensionality of Right-Wing Authoritarianism: Lessons from the Dilemma between Theory and Measurement

The RWA Scale ( Altemeyer, 1981 , 1988 , 1996 ) is commonly regarded as the best measure of right-wing authoritarianism. The one-dimensional instrument assesses the covariation of three attitudinal clusters: authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism. The incongruence between the implicit conceptual dimensionality on the one hand and methodological operationalization on the other makes room for discussion about whether it would be advantageous to measure the 3 facets of RWA separately. I rely on three arguments: (1) confirmatory factor analyses showing that three-dimensional scales fit the data better than the conventional one-dimensional practice; (2) the dimensions showing a considerable interdimension discrepancy in their capability to explain validation criteria; and (3) the dimensions showing an intradimensional discrepancy which is dependent upon the research question. The argumentation is illustrated by empirical evidence from several Web-based studies among German Internet users.     

Comparison of classical and modern methods for measuring and correcting for acquiescence

Likert-type self-report scales are frequently used in large-scale educational assessment of social-emotional skills. Self-report scales rely on the assumption that their items elicit information only about the trait they are supposed to measure. However, different response biases may threaten this assumption. Specifically, in children, the response style of acquiescence is an important source of systematic error. Balanced scales, including an equal number of positively and negatively keyed items, have been proposed as a solution to control for acquiescence, but the reasons why this design feature worked from the perspective of modern psychometric models have been underexplored. Three methods for controlling for acquiescence are compared: classical method by partialling out the mean; an item response theory method to measure differential person functioning (DPF); and multidimensional item response theory (MIRT) with random intercept. Comparative analyses are conducted on simulated ratings and on self-ratings provided by 40,649 students (aged 11–18) on a fully balanced 30-item scale assessing conscientious self-management. Acquiescence bias was explained as DPF and it was demonstrated that: the acquiescence index is highly related to DPF; balanced scales produce scores controlled for DPF; and MIRT factor scores are highly related to scores controlled for DPF and the random intercept is highly related to DPF.     

Factor Structure of the Illness Intrusiveness Rating Scale in Patients Diagnosed with Anxiety Disorders

The Illness Intrusiveness Rating Scale (IIRS) is a measure designed to assess the impact of illness on various domains of functioning (G. M. Devins, 1994). In anxiety disordered patients, illness intrusiveness ratings are higher than those of chronically ill medical patients, suggesting that the IIRS may have a different underlying structure in a sample of individuals with anxiety disorders. To examine this possibility, IIRS items were submitted to an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis in 2 samples (total N = 294). These solutions were compared to solutions in chronically ill populations from a previous study. In the exploratory analysis, both a one-factor and a three-factor solution were identified, accounting for 42 and 61% of the variance, respectively. Confirmatory analyses showed adequate similarity between the three-factor structure of the IIRS from a medically ill population and the current three-factor structure, suggesting that elevated IIRS scores in anxiety disordered samples cannot be explained simply by a different structure of the instrument.     

A multiple replication of the three-factor solution of the Eysenck personality inventory identified using a two-step confirmation and the factor replication procedure,FACTOREP

For more than 20 yr there has been argument over the precise factor structure of the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI). There has recently been some empirical support for the suggestion that this failure to find the original structure is a result of the discrepancy in size between the Neuroticism and Extraversion scales (24 items each) and the Lie scale with nine items. In a recent study the present authors identified the three-factor structure using a two-step process which involved a two-factor analysis of the Neuroticism and Extraversion items followed by a three-factor analysis of an equal number of items from all three scales. This process was repeated in the present study across the responses from two further independent subjects groups. The factor comparison procedure FACTOREP provided strong evidence of the robust and consistent replications of both the two-factor structure of the Extraversion and Neuroticism items and of the three-factor structure of the nine Extraversion, nine Neuroticism and nine Lie scale items.     

Does the Beck Anxiety Inventory measure anything beyond panic attack symptoms?

The Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) has become a popular measure in anxiety assessment and the BAI does not overlap in content with measures of depression. There is also some factor analytic evidence to support this distinction. However, an inspection of the BAI's content indicates that many of its items resemble, or are identical to, the symptoms of panic attacks listed in the DSM-IV. Further empirical support for this suspicion is provided from the results of a factor analysis of the BAI items and the individual DSM-IV panic symptoms contained in the Panic Attack Questionnaire, using data from a sample of 157 panic disorder patients. A three-factor model (dizziness related, catastrophic cognitions/fear, cardiorespiratory distress) emerged that replicated a three-factor model of panic symptoms identified in earlier work with another panic disorder sample. All but one of the BAI items loaded highly on the three panic symptom clusters and no separate BAI factor was obtained. The BAI appears to be confounded with, or actually measures, panic attacks rather than anxiety in general. Several implications of this finding are discussed.     

Factor Structure and Construct Validity of the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP): A Replication and Extension in Dutch Nonclinical Participants

Abstract

The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy (LSRP) scale is widely used to assess psychopathic traits in noninstitutionalized samples. Recent studies suggest that a three-factor structure measuring Egocentricity, Callousness, and Antisocial factors outperformed the original two-factor structure of the LSRP. This study replicated and extended these findings by examining the factor structure and construct validity of a Dutch version of the LSRP in a community sample (N?=?856, subsamples ranging between 140 and 572 participants). Confirmatory factor analysis results corroborated the superiority of the three-factor model of the LSRP, using 19 of the 26 LSRP items. Limitations included the need to specify correlated residuals for some indicators, although these were largely in line with prior studies. Across three subsamples, we found evidence for construct validity of the LSRP subscales. Egocentricity and Antisocial showed a pattern of differential associations with external correlates in accordance with theoretical expectations. Callousness shared some correlates with Egocentricity, others with Antisocial, and uniquely predicted low morality and high physical aggression. Few exceptions to the hypothesized associations were observed, mostly concerning Callousness. Overall, the LSRP three-factor model received further support in a Dutch sample, and is thus recommended in future research, possibly adding items to improve the performance of the Callousness factor.     

Acquiescent Responding in Balanced Multidimensional Scales and Exploratory Factor Analysis

Personality tests often consist of a set of dichotomous or Likert items. These response formats are known to be susceptible to an agreeing-response bias called acquiescence. The common assumption in balanced scales is that the sum of appropriately reversed responses should be reasonably free of acquiescence. However, inter-item correlation (or covariance) matrices can still be affected by the presence of variance due to acquiescence. To analyse these correlation matrices, we propose a method that is based on an unrestricted factor analysis and can be applied to multidimensional scales. This method obtains a factor solution in which acquiescence response variance is isolated in an independent factor. It is therefore possible, without the potentially confounding effect of acquiescence, to: (a) examine the dominant factors related to content latent variables; and (b) estimate participants’ factor scores on content latent variables. This method, which is illustrated by two empirical data examples, has proved to be useful for improving the simplicity of the factor structure. This research was partially supported by a grant from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology (SEJ2005-09170-C04-04/PSIC), and a grant from the Catalan Ministry of Universities, the Research and Information Society (2005SGR00017). The authors are obliged to the team of reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.     

Different Ways of Being Authoritarian: The Distinct Effects of Authoritarian Dimensions on Values and Prejudice

The traditional and still dominant approach to authoritarianism measures it as a unidimensional construct. However, in the past few years some studies have assessed the three hypothesized authoritarianism components (i.e., authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism) separately. The aims of this study are to verify that the three‐correlated‐factor structure fits the data better than the one‐factor model and to analyze the distinct effects of the three dimensions of authoritarianism on values and prejudice. A total of 169 Italian citizens responded to a questionnaire. As hypothesized, a structural equation model shows that the dimension of authoritarian submission is mainly related to the openness to change vs. conservation values opposition; the dimension of authoritarian aggression is more characterized on the self‐transcendence vs. self‐enhancement values opposition; conventionalism is mainly linked to traditional values. As concerns prejudice, this variable is predicted just by authoritarian aggression. Theoretical implications as concerns the conceptualization of authoritarianism are discussed.     

A Tripartite Approach to Right‐Wing Authoritarianism: The Authoritarianism‐Conservatism‐Traditionalism Model

Right‐Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) has been conceptualized and measured as a unidimensional personality construct comprising the covariation of the three traits of authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism. However, new approaches have criticized this conceptualization and instead viewed these three “traits” as three distinct, though related, social attitude dimensions. Here we extend this approach providing clear definitions of these three dimensions as ideological attitude constructs of Authoritarianism, Conservatism, and Traditionalism. These dimensions are seen as attitudinal expressions of basic social values or motivational goals that represent different, though related, strategies for attaining collective security at the expense of individual autonomy. We report data from five samples and three different countries showing that these three dimensions could be reliably measured and were factorially distinct. The three dimensions also differentially predicted interpersonal behaviour, social policy support, and political party support. It is argued that conceptualizing and measuring RWA as a set of three related ideological attitude dimensions may better explain complex sociopolitical phenomena than the currently dominant unidimensional personality based model.     

The Presence of Left-Wing Authoritarianism in Western Europe and Its Relationship with Conservative Ideology

The presence of left-wing authoritarianism (LWA) as well as its relationship with right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and conservative ideology was tested in three Flemish samples. In the first study conducted on a sample of ordinary voters ( N =  208), a newly developed LWA scale was found to be internally consistent and to show high construct validity. In the second study, another voter sample ( N =  264) and a sample of political activists ( N =  69) were tested. In the two samples of ordinary voters, only a few people obtained high LWA scores. Moreover, the aggression and submission items did not load on distinct components and LWA was positively related to RWA and cultural conservatism and negatively to economic conservatism. Conversely, in the political activist sample high LWA scores were common among left-wing extremists and evidence was found for a two-dimensional LWA aggression-submission structure. LWA was negatively related to RWA, cultural conservatism, and economic conservatism. The concept of LWA and its theoretical underpinnings are discussed.     

Psychometric properties of beliefs about relationship violence against women and gender stereotypes scale

This article describes psychometric properties of the Gender-Based Relationship Violence Beliefs Scale (BEREVIWOS) and the Gender Stereotypes and Beliefs (GESTABE) scale in a Nigerian setting. Analysis was based on a convenience sample of 202 respondents. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to determine construct validity of the three-factor structure of each scale and measurement invariance procedures were utilised to determine whether the factor structure was equivalent across gender. Convergent and discriminant validity of the scales, and predictive and incremental validity were examined for consistency with theory on gender beliefs/stereotypes and violence in patriarchal society. A single-factor CFA model approach was used to examine common method bias. Results suggest the BEREVIWOS and GESTABE are multidimensional scales with an intercorrelated three-factor structure. The fit of the models and composite reliability were adequate. Scores from the BEREVIWOS and GESTABE appear reliable and valid measures of underlying beliefs and stereotypes associated with violence against women in Nigeria.     

A three-factor model of trait anger: dimensions of affect, behavior, and cognition

The structure of trait anger was tested in a study of 24 self-report scales. Exploratory factor analyses in an undergraduate sample (N = 457) yielded a two-factor model (comprising cynicism and aggression) and a three-factor model (representing angry emotions, aggressive behaviors, and cynicism). Subsequent evaluations, including confirmatory factor analyses, indicated that the three-factor model provided the best characterization of the trait anger domain. The three-factor solution was consistent with an "ABC" conceptualization of trait anger, consisting of the dimensions of affect, behavior, and cognition. The three factors showed strikingly different associations with the Big Five personality traits. Angry Affect was most strongly related to Neuroticism, whereas Behavioral Aggression was associated with low Agreeableness. Cynical Cognition represented a blend of neurotic and disagreeable characteristics. Modest mean-level differences were observed between the genders for each factor.     

Psychometric properties and factor structure of the Greek version of the Cardiac Anxiety Questionnaire (CAQ)

The present study assesses the psychometric properties and factor structure of the Greek version of the Cardiac Anxiety Questionnaire (CAQ). The questionnaire was administered to 598 healthy individuals from 15 different regions of Greece with a measure of socioeconomic characteristics and the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R). The sample was split into two random halves, and exploratory factor analysis indicated a three-factor solution. This solution was tested using a confirmatory factor analysis on the second half of the sample. In terms of latent dimensions, the Greek version retains the three-factor structure as proposed by the initial authors. However, adequate fit was achieved only after omitting eight items. The shorter (10-item) version was submitted to further analysis. The shorter version provided satisfactory internal reliability and evidence indicating the validity of the scale with respect to SCL-90-R subscales. The stability of the questionnaire was verified by a high test-retest reliability over a 3-mo. period (r = .86). Sex and age differences were assessed. The 10-item version appears to be a practical, brief tool for clinical use.     

Factor analysis of the frontal systems behavior scale (FrSBe)

The Frontal Systems Behavior Scale (FrSBe), formerly called the Frontal Lobe Personality Scale (FLOPS), is a brief behavior rating scale with demonstrated validity for the assessment of behavior disturbances associated with damage to the frontal-subcortical brain circuits. The authors report an exploratory principal factor analysis of the FrSBe-Family Version in a sample including 324 neurological patients and research participants, of which about 63% were diagnosed with neurodegenerative diseases (Huntington's, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's diseases). The three-factor solution accounted for a modest level of variance (41%) and confirmed a factor structure consistent with the three subscales proposed on the theoretical basis of the frontal systems. Most items (83%)from the FrSBe subscales of Apathy, Disinhibition, and Executive Dysfunction loaded saliently on three corresponding factors. The FrSBe factor structure supports its utility for assessing both the severity of the three frontal syndromes in aggregate and separately.     

Ipsative and Normative Scales in Adjectival Measurement of Personality: Problems of Bias and Discrepancy

887 respondents completed ipsative and normative versions of the PAL-TOPAS personality questionnaire. Data were analysed to test for (1) systematic bias in scores associated with the two response formats and (2) predictors of the magnitude of the discrepancy in the individual's ipsative and normative scores. Discrepancy was assessed for both item responses and scale scores. Sources of biases investigated included ipsative scaling artifact, extremeness of scores on the normative scales and response variability. Results showed that systematic bias in scale scores and magnitude of discrepancy were predicted by different factors. One source of systematic bias was associated with ipsative scaling artifact: the ipsative scales measure both the scale itself and rejection of other alternatives. A second source of systematic bias was acquiescence in response to normative items. A confirmatory factor analysis showed that a good but imperfect fit to the data may be obtained by constructing a structural model of the inter-relationship between normative and ipsative scores which accommodates both sources of bias. The strongest influence on discrepancy in scale scores was extremeness of normative scoring, associated with a bias towards either general acceptance or rejection of trait adjectives. It is concluded that both normative and ipsative response formats have limitations, and it may often be desirable to assess both.     

反应风格的测量与统计控制

反应风格是共同方法偏差的主要来源之一。本文首先讨论反应风格的定义和类型,梳理其危害,认为反应风格能使测验分数出现偏差,影响测验信效度分析和变量关系分析,有必要控制其危害。然后介绍了常用的反应风格测量方法,包括计数法和模型法两大类,对测量方法的选择给出了建议,在此基础上,就如何结合反应风格的测量方法与残差回归法、偏相关法来控制反应风格危害给出建议。     

反应风格的测量与统计控制

反应风格是共同方法偏差的主要来源之一。本文首先讨论反应风格的定义和类型,梳理其危害,认为反应风格能使测验分数出现偏差,影响测验信效度分析和变量关系分析,有必要控制其危害。然后介绍了常用的反应风格测量方法,包括计数法和模型法两大类,对测量方法的选择给出了建议,在此基础上,就如何结合反应风格的测量方法与残差回归法、偏相关法来控制反应风格危害给出建议。     

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Childhood Anxiety Sensitivity Index: A Gender Comparison

The Childhood Anxiety Sensitivity Index (CASI) is an 18-item self-report tool designed to measure the construct of anxiety sensitivity (i.e. the belief that anxiety may have harmful consequences such as sickness, embarrassment, or loss of control) in children and adolescents. Previous factor analytic examinations of the CASI have produced varied results. Gender may play a role in this observed variability. In an effort to confirm the factor structure of the measure across gender, CASI items for 671 children and adolescents were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis. Results indicated that for boys two-, three-, and four-factor structures provided a relatively good fit to the data, with the three-factor structure emerging as having the best fit overall. In contrast, for girls only the three-factor structure fitted the data well. Direct comparison of fit of the three-factor model across gender provided evidence to support the notion that childhood anxiety sensitivity is similar in structure across gender.     

Student-teacher concordance on dimensions of student social competence: A multitrait-multimethod analysis

Teacher and self-ratings of social competence were obtained for 669 (341 males, 328 females) grades 3–6 students using the Social Behavior Assessment—Revised (SBA-R) and a self-report scale consisting of the identical items reworded in first person. Factor analysis and multitrait-multimethod matrix analysis were used to validate construct interpretations. The previous four-factor structure of the SBA-R was not replicated. However, the three-factor structure that did emerge was better defined. Although student-teacher concordance was moderate for the Self-Control/Social Convention and Academic Responsibility factors, it was minimal for the Social Participation factor. Evidence of discriminant validity was weak. As with other studies using rating scales, method bias was in evidence. Sex differences were found in terms of variance explained by each factor and convergent validity. Discussion focuses on problems associated with construct validation in general and validation of school-related social competence in particular.