The Effect of Propensity Scores on DIF Analysis: Inference on the Potential Cause of DIF

Differential item functioning (DIF) analysis is important in terms of test fairness. While DIF analyses have mainly been conducted with manifest grouping variables, such as gender or race/ethnicity, it has been recently claimed that not only the grouping variables but also contextual variables pertaining to examinees should be considered in DIF analyses. This study adopted propensity scores to incorporate the contextual variables into the gender DIF analysis. In this study, propensity scores were used to control for the contextual variables that potentially affect the gender DIF. Subsequent DIF analyses with the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) procedure and the Logistic Regression (LR) model were run with the propensity score applied reference (males) and focal groups (females) through propensity score matching. The propensity score embedded MH model and LR model detected fewer number of gender DIF than the conventional MH and LR models. The propensity score embedded models, as a confirmatory approach in DIF analysis, could contribute to hypothesizing an inference on the potential cause of DIF. Also, salient advantages of propensity score embedded DIF analysis models are discussed.     

Selective effects of excessive engagement in health-related behaviours on disgust propensity

The present study examined the extent to which engagement in health-related behaviours modulate disgust propensity, a purportedly stable personality trait. Participants were randomised into a health behaviour (n = 30) or control condition (n = 30). After a baseline period, participants in the health behaviour condition spent one week actively engaging in a clinically representative array of health-related behaviours on a daily basis, followed by a second week-long baseline period. Participants in the control condition monitored their normal use of health behaviours. Compared to control participants, those in the health behaviour condition reported significantly greater increases in disgust propensity after the health behaviour manipulation. This effect was most robust for contamination disgust propensity and remained significant when controlling for changes in health anxiety and disease fear. In contrast, self-disgust and anxiety sensitivity did not significantly differ between the two groups as a function of the health behaviour manipulation. Mediational analyses were consistent with the hypothesis that changes in the frequency of health-related behaviours, but not changes in health anxiety and disease fear, mediated the effects of the experimental manipulation on changes in contamination disgust propensity. These findings suggest that the purportedly stable personality trait of disgust propensity can be modulated by excessive engagement in health-related behaviours.     

投资者风险感知与风险倾向对风险决策的影响——基于民间投资者的样本

采用模拟投资任务和问卷测查的方式,考察了投资者的风险感知、风险倾向对其风险决策的影响,并对风险感知与风险倾向的交互作用进行分析。结果发现：①投资者的风险感知对其风险决策有显著的负向作用;②投资者的风险倾向对其风险决策有显著的正向作用;③风险感知对风险决策的影响作用部分通过风险倾向这一中介完成。     

大学生信任倾向与心理健康的关系：个体差异的视角

通过对203名大学生进行人际信任量表（ITS）和新版明尼苏达多相人格问卷（MMPI-2）的施测,从个体差异的角度来考察大学生信任倾向与各心理健康症状之间的关系。结果表明,MMPI-2临庆量表中的抑郁、精神衰弱、精神分裂症和社会内向性,内容量表中的焦虑、恐惧、强迫性、抑郁、怪异思维、愤怒、愤世嫉俗、反社会行为、A型行为、低自尊、社会不适、家庭问题、工作障碍、治疗反感,均与信任倾向呈负相关。此外,四类不同心理健康特征的被试在信任倾向上存在差异,适应良好型被试的信任倾向得分显著高于其他三类,适应不良型的信任倾向显著低于其他三类,精神敏感型和外向冲动型的信任倾向居中．且这两娄之间没有显薯差异。     

Is risk-taking propensity associated with unethical behaviors? An experimental study

Are risk-takers more likely to engage in unethical behaviors? We examined the relationship between risk-taking propensity and cheating in two experimental studies. In Study 1, we examined the relationship between subjects’ risk-taking propensity and their actual self-serving dishonesty using a gambling-like task. The results suggested that risk-taking propensity, measured using a behavioral approach, was positively correlated with actual self-serving dishonest behavior. In Study 2, we measured participants’ performances using a matrices test and found that the positive correlation still held. We found that participants with high risk-taking propensity reported a lower perceived probability of being detected, which might drive their dishonest behavior.     

The Disgust Scale-R: A valid and reliable index to investigate separate disgust domains?

The Disgust Scale (DS; Haidt, McCauley, & Rozin, 1994) is the most widely used instrument for assessing disgust propensity (i.e., individual tendency to experience disgust). Yet, psychometric evaluations of the DS are scarce while the literature shows that the reliability of its subscales are unacceptably low. Recently, it was suggested to reduce the number of subscales (Olatunji, Sawchuk, de Jong, & Lohr, 2007a). This study is a first exploration of this reduced three-factor solution in an independent sample. In study I, we examined whether a three-factor solution improves psychometric properties of the DS. Students from Maastricht University (N = 535) and the University of Groningen (N = 432) completed the DS. In study II, the DS was revised by dropping redundant items and revising its scoring format. The DS-R was administered to students from the University of Groningen (N = 472) and Ghent University (N = 41) to study its psychometric properties. The revisions improved the psychometric features of the DS, and showed that the DS-R is a valid and reliable index to establish core disgust, animal-reminder disgust, and contamination.     

Development and validation of the General Risk Propensity Scale (GRiPS)

Despite the widespread interest in understanding and identifying risk takers by psychologists, clinicians, and economists, the risk literature currently lacks consensus regarding the nature of risk taking and its measurement. Existing measures of risk taking are predominantly domain‐specific despite emerging support for risk taking as a domain‐general disposition. In the present paper, we examine the nature of risk taking as a domain‐general personality disposition and develop a concise measure: the General Risk Propensity Scale (GRiPS). Data from 1,523 participants across five studies provided evidence for its construct validity. The GRiPS converged with other self‐report measures of risk taking and provided incremental prediction of work, academic, and life outcomes over and above the five‐factor model of personality and the Domain‐Specific Risk Taking Scale.     

Effect propensity

In a choice between two options, decision makers can often be roughly divided into three groups: those who strongly prefer the first option, those who strongly prefer the second option, and those whose choices are most sensitive to the specific conditions (Switchers). In any reference state, such as the experimental control, Switchers’ choices are unlikely to be exactly equally divided between the options, which potentially creates a ceiling effect among those most susceptible to influence by the particular conditions or experimental manipulations. The limited growth potential of the option favored by Switchers in the reference state can produce “effect propensity,” whereby any condition or manipulation applied to the reference state is more likely to increase the share of the other option. We test this proposition in a series of studies in the context of choices between safe and risky options and between lower-price/quality and higher-price/quality options. The results indicate that a large majority of conceptually unrelated manipulations tend to increase the choice share of risky and higher-price/quality options. This effect propensity can be reversed when the risky and higher-price/quality options are the status quo alternatives or asymmetrically dominating in the reference state. Alternative explanations for effect propensity are examined. We discuss the implications of effect propensity for the interpretation of research findings, the selection of controls, and theory tests.     

Haybron on Mood Propensity and Happiness

Daniel Haybron has made an original contribution to philosophical discussions of happiness. He has put forward a theory that identifies happiness with moods and the propensity to experience moods. Haybron’s contribution deserves a critical examination. The first section of my paper is interpretive. I show how Haybron uses the concepts of ‘central affective states’ and ‘mood propensity’ to define happiness. The second and third sections of the paper are critical. They focus on the inclusion of mood propensity in Haybron’s theory. In the second section I argue that his theory fails because there is an example that shows a subject can be happy even when that subject does not have a positive mood propensity. In the third section of the paper, I consider Haybron’s objection that the case in question is ‘object-specific’ and that it is not ‘emotionally-based’. I discuss both of these technical terms in detail. Moreover, I argue that a modified version of the counter example accommodates these technical terms while retaining the persuasiveness of the original example.