Evidence for a relationship between trait gratitude and prosocial behaviour

Prosocial behaviour towards unrelated others is communally beneficial but can be individually costly. The emotion of gratitude mitigates this cost by encouraging direct as well as “upstream” reciprocity, thereby facilitating cooperation. A widely used method for measuring trait gratitude is the Gratitude Questionnaire (GQ6) [McCullough, M., Emmons, R., &; Tsang, J. (2002). The grateful disposition: A conceptual and empirical topography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 112–127. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.112]. Here we undertake an assessment of the external validity of the GQ6 by examining its relationship with two incentivized economic games that serve as face valid indices of generosity and reciprocity. In two studies (total N?=?501) we find that trait gratitude as measured by the GQ6 predicts greater donations in a charity donation task as well as greater transfers and returns in an incentivized trust game. These results support the hypothesis that individuals with higher trait gratitude are more generous and trusting on average, and provide initial evidence as to the predictive validity of the GQ6.     

The Construct Validity of the Work-Related Flow Inventory in a Sample of Australian Workers

The purpose of this study was to examine the construct validity of the WOrk-reLated Flow inventory (WOLF; Bakker, 2008). This instrument was administered to 711 men and women who were working in Queensland, Australia. The results from the confirmatory factor analysis showed that the WOLF has moderately acceptable construct validity, with the three-factor model being a borderline fit to the data. Tests of the convergent validity of the WOLF yielded satisfactory results. However, the analysis of the discriminant validity of the WOLF showed that the instrument poorly discriminated between work enjoyment and intrinsic work motivation. Follow-up exploratory factor analysis, using recommended procedures for determining the number of factors to extract, revealed a two-factor solution, with the work enjoyment and intrinsic work motivation items loading on the same factor. Drawing on literature on psychological flow and motivation, as well as the findings of the present study, questions are raised over the adequacy of the conceptual basis of the three-factor model of work-related flow, the discriminant validity of the WOLF subscales, and the appropriateness of the wording of several of this measure's items. Using alternative methods and measures to investigate flow in work settings is recommended.     

The TRAMS: The Team-Referent Attributions Measure in Sport

ObjectivesTo provide initial evidence for the construct, concurrent, and predictive validity of the Team-Referent Attributions Measure in Sport (the TRAMS).DesignCross-sectional in Studies 1 and 2, and multiple time points in Study 3.MethodStudy 1 required participants (N = 500) to complete the TRAMS for their “least successful” and “most successful” performances in the preceding three months. In Study 2, after performance, participants (N = 515) completed the TRAMS and the Causal Dimension Scale for Teams (CDS-T; Greenlees et al., 2005). Study 3 required participants (N = 165) to complete a measure of pre-competition collective-efficacy prior to performance (Day 1, Time 1), the TRAMS following performance (Day 1, Time 2), and a measure of subsequent collective-efficacy prior to subsequent performance (Day 7–9, Time 3).ResultsStudy 1 supported the factor structure of the TRAMS across least successful and most successful conditions. Study 2 provided further support for the factor structure of the TRAMS, together with evidence of concurrent validity with subscales of the CDS-T. Study 3 revealed, following team defeat, interactions between controllability and generalisability dimensions: Controllability had a significant effect upon subsequent collective-efficacy when causes of team defeat were also perceived to generalise across situations and/or across teams. Following team victory, stable attributions were positively associated with subsequent collective-efficacy.ConclusionsThis article provides initial evidence for the validity of the TRAMS and demonstrates for team-referent attributions the theoretical advantages of examining a broader conceptualisation of generalisability attributions and interactive effects of attributions.     

The translation and validation of the Mini‐K scale in Japanese

The purpose of this study was to validate the 20‐item Mini‐K scale, which is the short form of the Arizona Life History Battery, as translated into Japanese. Two samples of Japanese adults (N = 2000; 50.0% men; Mage = 40.9 for the first survey; N = 400; 50.0% men; Mage = 42.2 for the second survey) completed a web‐based questionnaire, including the Japanese translation of the Mini‐K. The results showed that the psychometric properties of the Japanese Mini‐K scale were comparable to those of the original English version. The scale had good reliability based on Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω. Convergent validity was demonstrated by the correlation between the Mini‐K scores and life history indicators. In addition, the Mini‐K score was related to both personality and psychosomatic health. The translated scale provides a valid and reliable instrument in Japanese that measures human life‐history strategy.     

患者就医伦理责任认知问卷的编制与信效度检验分析

采用文献分析法,结合专家咨询,对患者就医伦理责任进行概念与范畴界定,拟定问卷条目。采用随机抽样调查法对南通市某三级甲等医院的患者进行问卷调查。问卷可划分为责任范畴认知、责任态度信念两个维度,共计18道条目,累计方差贡献率为82.434%。项目分析中各分析项均呈现出显著性差异（P＜0.05）。问卷总体的Cronbach's α系数为0.979,内容效度为0.910,在结构效度分析中,问卷因子分析KMO值为0.971,聚敛效度和区分效度皆达到标准。本问卷具有良好的信效度,可为日后进一步的研究分析提供科学可靠的依据。

     

简式元认知问卷中文版的心理计量学特性

以大学生为被试,考察简式元认知问卷(BQM)在中国文化背景下的心理计量学特性。采用探索性和验证性因素分析方法对BQM的结构效度进行交叉检验,结果支持了元记忆和元注意的双因子结构;问卷及其因子的内部一致性和重测信度良好;项目分析的结果显示,问卷的条目具有良好的分数分布、区分度和内部一致性;BQM分数与负性情绪、执行功能和睡眠质量的关联性也为效标关联效度提供了支持性证据。上述结果表明BQM中文版具有良好的心理计量学特性,可作为青年群体元认知水平的测量工具。     

Revisiting an Analysis of Threats to Internal Validity in Multiple Baseline Designs

In our previous article on threats to internal validity of multiple baseline design variations (Slocum et al., 2022), we argued that nonconcurrent multiple baseline designs (NCMB) are capable of rigorously demonstrating experimental control and should be considered equivalent to concurrent multiple baselines (CMB) in terms of internal validity. We were fortunate to receive five excellent commentaries on our article from experts in single-subject research design—four of whom endorsed the conclusion that NCMBs should be considered strong experimental designs capable of demonstrating experimental control. In the current article, we address the most salient points made in the five commentaries by further elaborating and clarifying the logic described in our original article. We address arguments related to classic threats including maturation, testing and session experience, and coincidental events (history). We rebut the notion that although NCMBs are strong, CMBs provide an increment of additional control and discuss the application of probability-based analysis of the likelihood of threats to internal validity. We conclude by emphasizing our agreement with many of the commentaries that selection of single-case experimental designs should be based on the myriad subtleties of research priorities and contextual factors rather than on a decontextualized hierarchy of designs.