Julian Schulze, Manuel Heinrich, Jan-Philipp Freudenstein, Philipp Schäpers, Stefan Krumm
{"title":"Uncovering Hidden Framings in Dark Triad Self-Ratings: What Frames-of-Reference Do People Use When Responding to Generic Dark Triad Items?","authors":"Julian Schulze, Manuel Heinrich, Jan-Philipp Freudenstein, Philipp Schäpers, Stefan Krumm","doi":"10.1177/10731911231220357","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In typical Dark Triad (DT) questionnaires, generic items oftentimes refer to \"others\" or \"people\" in general. Hence, respondents have to mentally aggregate their behavior across several kinds of \"others\" (e.g., work colleagues, family members, and friends). It remains unknown if individuals consider different kinds of interaction partners equally or if their self-reports contain \"hidden\" interaction partner-specific tendencies. To shed light on this issue, we assessed generic and contextualized DT items (referring to family, friends, work, and strangers; <i>N</i> = 814 from the general population). The correlated trait-correlated (method - 1) model was used to investigate preregistered research questions. On average, generic DT items showed the strongest association with work-contextualized DT items and the weakest association with family-contextualized DT items. However, the associations varied considerably across DT items and traits. In sum, our results suggest that hidden framings exist in some DT items, which may impact their ability to predict relevant criteria due to contextual (a)symmetries. The generalizability of the findings to other DT instruments, items, and participant groups should be examined in future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":8577,"journal":{"name":"Assessment","volume":" ","pages":"1472-1492"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11411850/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911231220357","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In typical Dark Triad (DT) questionnaires, generic items oftentimes refer to "others" or "people" in general. Hence, respondents have to mentally aggregate their behavior across several kinds of "others" (e.g., work colleagues, family members, and friends). It remains unknown if individuals consider different kinds of interaction partners equally or if their self-reports contain "hidden" interaction partner-specific tendencies. To shed light on this issue, we assessed generic and contextualized DT items (referring to family, friends, work, and strangers; N = 814 from the general population). The correlated trait-correlated (method - 1) model was used to investigate preregistered research questions. On average, generic DT items showed the strongest association with work-contextualized DT items and the weakest association with family-contextualized DT items. However, the associations varied considerably across DT items and traits. In sum, our results suggest that hidden framings exist in some DT items, which may impact their ability to predict relevant criteria due to contextual (a)symmetries. The generalizability of the findings to other DT instruments, items, and participant groups should be examined in future research.
期刊介绍:
Assessment publishes articles in the domain of applied clinical assessment. The emphasis of this journal is on publication of information of relevance to the use of assessment measures, including test development, validation, and interpretation practices. The scope of the journal includes research that can inform assessment practices in mental health, forensic, medical, and other applied settings. Papers that focus on the assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological functioning, personality, and psychopathology are invited. Most papers published in Assessment report the results of original empirical research, however integrative review articles and scholarly case studies will also be considered.