个体对效价预期和风险评估的时程加工机制:来自ERP的证据

采用事件相关电位技术(ERP),通过简单赌博任务,操纵结果预期的效价(输或赢)与风险(高风险与低风险),考察了个体对结果预期阶段的效价和风险评估的脑内时程动态加工过程。脑电结果发现:(1)在N2成分上,结果预期的效价主效应显著,预期输比预期赢能够引起更大的N2波幅;结果预期的风险主效应不显著。(2)在N500成分上,效价与风险之间的交互作用边缘显著,进一步简单效应分析发现,在预期输的条件下,肯定会输的N500波幅显著大于可能会输;而在预期赢的条件下,肯定会赢与可能会赢之间的N500波幅差异不显著。这说明,在不确定决策过程中的结果预期阶段,个体可能先对结果预期的效价进行加工,然后再对风险进行评估。     

Validity evidence for the situational judgment test paradigm in emotional intelligence measurement

To date, various measurement approaches have been proposed to assess emotional intelligence (EI). Recently, two new EI tests have been developed based on the situational judgment test (SJT) paradigm: the Situational Test of Emotional Understanding (STEU) and the Situational Test of Emotion Management (STEM). Initial attempts have been made to examine the construct‐related validity of these new tests; we extend these findings by placing the tests in a broad nomological network. To this end, 850 undergraduate students completed a personality inventory, a cognitive ability test, a self‐report EI test, a performance‐based EI measure, the STEU, and the STEM. The SJT‐based EI tests were not strongly correlated with personality and fluid cognitive ability. Regarding their relation with existing EI measures, the tests did not capture the same construct as self‐report EI measures, but corresponded rather to performance‐based EI measures. Overall, these results lend support for the SJT paradigm for measuring EI as an ability.     

Emotional intelligence: A promise unfulfilled?

Emotional intelligence (EI) is a relatively new construct in differential psychology. Proponents of EI have made strong claims for its importance in basic and applied psychology. This article considers whether the promise of EI has been fulfilled. We examine various fundamental challenges to establishing EI as a major individual differences factor, including cross‐cultural issues. We then examine strategies for assessing EI as a personal quality distinct from general intelligence and personality, and evaluate leading tests and scales for EI. Various sources of validity evidence demonstrate the value of research on EI, but we also identify various weaknesses of existing instruments. It appears that there is no strong, over‐arching general factor of EI that shapes human emotional functioning across a range of diverse contexts. Instead, we advocate a “multipolar” conception of EI that discriminates temperament, information‐processing, emotion‐regulation and acquired skills. Focusing research on more narrowly defined but conceptually coherent research domains may be a more productive strategy than seeking to define an all‐embracing general EI.     

EARLY RESPONSE DISTRIBUTION AND OUTCOMES OF RESPONSE-RESTRICTION ANALYSES

We examined whether the results of a response‐restriction analysis (RRA) could be predicted on the basis of response distribution in early sessions, when these sessions indicated interaction with multiple items. Four preschool‐aged children participated. For 3 of the 4 participants, the results from sessions conducted prior to restriction of the first item corresponded closely with results of the full RRA.     

Using individual differences to predict job performance: correcting for direct and indirect restriction of range

The present study investigates the relationship between individual differences, indicated by personality (FFM) and general mental ability (GMA), and job performance applying two different methods of correction for range restriction. The results, derived by analyzing meta-analytic correlations, show that the more accurate method of correcting for indirect range restriction increased the operational validity of individual differences in predicting job performance and that this increase primarily was due to general mental ability being a stronger predictor than any of the personality traits. The estimates for single traits can be applied in practice to maximize prediction of job performance. Further, differences in the relative importance of general mental ability in relation to overall personality assessment methods was substantive and the estimates provided enables practitioners to perform a correct utility analysis of their overall selection procedure.     

Problems with single interest scales: Implications of the general factor

The presence of the general factor in interest and self-efficacy assessment and its meaning are reviewed. The general factor is found in all interest and self-efficacy assessment and has been viewed as (a) a nuisance factor with little effect on assessment, (b) a variable having substantive meaning and thus worthy of including in interpretation, and (c) as systematic bias that distorts the interpretation of the meaning of assessments. The premise of this article is that each interpretation is correct but only depending upon the context of the assessment. The main implication is that narrow single content interest scales are very subject to contaminating effects of the general factor making interpretation very difficult. Methods of correcting this contamination are presented.     

Assessment of Disgust Sensitivity in Children With an Age-Downward Version of the Disgust Emotion Scale

The present study examined the psychometric properties of the Disgust Emotion Scale for Children (DES-C). Principal components analysis of the DES-C data revealed five factors reflecting disgust toward (a) rotting foods, (b) injection and blood, (c) odors, (d) mutilation and death, and (e) animals, which were largely in keeping with the intended subscales. The DES-C showed good reliability, excellent convergent validity (as established by correlations with an alternative self-report index of disgust), fairly good predictive validity (as assessed by correlations with measures of fear/anxiety and a behavioral index of disgust), and acceptable parent–child agreement (in particular with the mothers). Importantly, the DES-C proved to perform better on some psychometric indicators than an age-downward version of the Disgust Scale. These findings indicate that the DES-C should be regarded as the preferred scale for measuring disgust sensitivity and its role in the etiology and maintenance of anxiety problems in children.     

Methodological implications of the affect revolution: a 35-year review of emotion regulation assessment in children

This investigation analyzed the methods used over the past 35 years to study emotion regulation (ER) in children. Articles published from 1975 through 2010 were identified in 42 child clinical, developmental, and emotion psychology journals. Overall, 61.1% of published ER articles relied on one method and 23.6% used two methods. Analyses revealed (a) 82.8% of published ER research occurring within the past decade; (b) higher rates of observational methods with infant and toddler/preschool samples, but more use of self-report methodology with middle childhood and adolescent samples; (c) a longer history of published ER research with samples of infants to 5-year-olds, including the use of more longitudinal design, compared with older samples; and (d) a positive association between journal impact ratings and the use of physiological and observational measurement. Review of the measurement tools used to capture ER revealed great diversity in how emotion processes are understood and evaluated.     

Evaluating the Evidence for the General Factor of Personality across Multiple Inventories

A general factor of personality (GFP) has been proposed as the apex of a personality trait hierarchy that explains covariance among the lower-order factors measured by various personality inventories. In this study we evaluated the GFP hypothesis across several personality inventories, unlike most previous research in which the GFP has been derived from individual instruments in isolation. Exploratory analyses did not produce substantial evidence for the existence of a single cross-instrument higher-order factor of factors and efforts to specify a range of GFP-inspired models in a confirmatory framework led to significant estimation difficulties and poor fit to the data. Overall these results fail to support a common GFP that is positioned at the top of a personality trait hierarchy.