Picture Perfect: The Relationship between Selfie Behaviors,Self-Objectification,and Depressive Symptoms

Sex Roles - Social media use has been linked to depression, although there is evidence that how one uses social media matters. Self-objectification may influence social media-related behaviors,...     

Clarification of Cliff and Caruso (1998)

In response to N. Cliff and J. C. Caruso (1998), the author clarifies that it is the sum of the reliabilities of the components that remains invariant under rotation in reliable component analysis.     

Incarcerated Violent Offenders' Ability to Avoid Revealing Their Potential for Violence on the Rorschach and the MMPI–2

Recently, Hartmann and Hartmann (2014) Hartmann, E., &; Hartmann, T. (2014): The impact of exposure to Internet-based information about the Rorschach and the MMPI–2 on psychiatric outpatients' ability to simulate mentally healthy test performance, Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 432–444. doi:10.1080/00223891.2014.882342.[Taylor &; Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar] found that psychiatric outpatients, both with and without access to Internet-based information about the Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM; Weiner, 2003 Weiner, I. B. (2003). Principles of Rorschach interpretations (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]) and the MMPI–2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, &; Kaemmer, 1989 Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., &; Kaemmer, B. (1989). Manual for the Restandardized Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory: MMPI–2. An administration and interpretive guide. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. [Google Scholar]), were unable to imitate healthy test performance on these tests. We replicated the study by administering the RIM and the MMPI–2 to 63 incarcerated violent offenders using similar testing conditions. As in the previous study, comparisons were made not only among the 3 subgroups of incarcerated offenders, but also between these offender groups and the group of nonpatients examined in the previous study. On the RIM, Internet-coached and uncoached “faking good” offenders produced records with significantly higher F% and X–% and significantly lower M, m, SumC, X+%, P, AG, and COP than nonoffenders under standard instructions (effect sizes between d = 0.24 and d = 2.39). For AgC, AgPot, AgPast, and TCI% there were no significant differences between the faking offenders and the nonoffenders under standard instructions. On the MMPI–2 clinical scales, there were no significant differences between the faking good groups and the nonoffenders under standard instructions, except on Hs, Pd, and Sc. Both faking groups were identifiable by their high L scale scores. Although both faking groups managed to avoid giving responses with aggressive and generally psychopathological content on the RIM, they were unable to produce test profiles demonstrating healthy test performance on any of the tests; nevertheless, Internet-based test information might weaken test validity.     

Do targets of workplace bullying portray a general victim personality profile?

The aim of this study is to examine differences in personality between a group of bullied victims and a non-bullied group. The 144 participants, comprising of 72 victims and a matched contrast group of 72 respondents, completed Goldberg's (1999) International Personality Item Pool (IPIP). Significant differences emerged between victims and non-victims on four out of five personality dimensions. Victims tended to be more neurotic and less agreeable, conscientious and extravert than non-victims. However, a cluster analysis revealed that the victim sample can be divided into two personality groups. One cluster, which comprised 64% of the victim sample, do not differ from non-victims as far as personality is concerned. Hence, the results indicate that there is no such thing as a general victim personality profile. However, a small cluster of victims tended to be less extrovert, less agreeable, less conscientious, and less open to experience but more emotional unstable than victims in the major cluster and the control group. Further, both clusters of victims scored higher than non-victims on emotional instability, indicating that personality should not be neglected as being a factor in understanding the bullying phenomenon.     

The asymptotic bias of minimum trace factor analysis, with applications to the greatest lower bound to reliability

In theory, the greatest lower bound (g.l.b.) to reliability is the best possible lower bound to the reliability based on single test administration. Yet the practical use of the g.l.b. has been severely hindered by sampling bias problems. It is well known that the g.l.b. based on small samples (even a sample of one thousand subjects is not generally enough) may severely overestimate the population value, and statistical treatment of the bias has been badly missing. The only results obtained so far are concerned with the asymptotic variance of the g.l.b. and of its numerator (the maximum possible error variance of a test), based on first order derivatives and the asumption of multivariate normality. The present paper extends these results by offering explicit expressions for the second order derivatives. This yields a closed form expression for the asymptotic bias of both the g.l.b. and its numerator, under the assumptions that the rank of the reduced covariance matrix is at or above the Ledermann bound, and that the nonnegativity constraints on the diagonal elements of the matrix of unique variances are inactive. It is also shown that, when the reduced rank is at its highest possible value (i.e., the number of variables minus one), the numerator of the g.l.b. is asymptotically unbiased, and the asymptotic bias of the g.l.b. is negative. The latter results are contrary to common belief, but apply only to cases where the number of variables is small. The asymptotic results are illustrated by numerical examples.This research was supported by grant DMI-9713878 from the National Science Foundation.     

When competition breeds equality: Effects of appetitive versus aversive competition in negotiation

Competitive motivation is prevalent in negotiation but systematic insight into its effects is missing. We introduce the distinction between appetitive competition, in which negotiators seek relative gain, and aversive competition, in which negotiators seek to prevent relative loss. Two experiments tested the predictions that (i) appetitive competitors are less vigilant and more confident than aversive competitors, and are (ii) therefore more likely to reach an agreement. However, we further hypothesized that (iii) information about one's opponent undermines appetitive competitors' confidence, yet enables trust in aversive competitors. Results supported these predictions. Appetitive competitors more often reached an impasse than aversive competitors when information was provided about the opponent, whereas aversive competitors more often reached an impasse without this information.