Does Self-Objectification Entail an Opposition Between Appearance and Competence? The Likert Version of the Self-Objectification Questionnaire (LSOQ).

IF 2.7 4区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Robin Wollast, Olivier Klein, Dawn M VanLeeuwen, Sarah J Gervais, Philippe Bernard
{"title":"Does Self-Objectification Entail an Opposition Between Appearance and Competence? The Likert Version of the Self-Objectification Questionnaire (LSOQ).","authors":"Robin Wollast,&nbsp;Olivier Klein,&nbsp;Dawn M VanLeeuwen,&nbsp;Sarah J Gervais,&nbsp;Philippe Bernard","doi":"10.5334/pb.481","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We propose a new method to test the reliability of Fredrickson et al.'s self-objectification questionnaire (SOQ). This scale being based on a ranking, traditional reliability estimates are inappropriate. Based on generalizability theory, we suggest to compute the reliability of each subset of questions related to physical appearance vs. physical competence separately in order to average them. We applied this method to a sample of female US undergraduates (<i>n</i> = 395) and evidenced that the reliability of the scale is very low (corrected Cronbach's alpha = .31). We also noted that a large proportion of the sample (32%) failed to complete the scale correctly. In a second study (<i>n</i> = 93), we propose a Likert adaptation of the scale and show that the two dimensions of the SOQ are independent. In Study 3 (<i>n</i> = 195), we confirm results of Study 2 and demonstrate that the general structure of the Likert version has satisfactory model fit statistics. These observations lead us to discourage the use of the original version of the SOQ and rely on the Likert version of the Self-Objectification Questionnaire (LSOQ, see appendix).</p>","PeriodicalId":46662,"journal":{"name":"Psychologica Belgica","volume":"61 1","pages":"33-45"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7880009/pdf/","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychologica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.481","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

We propose a new method to test the reliability of Fredrickson et al.'s self-objectification questionnaire (SOQ). This scale being based on a ranking, traditional reliability estimates are inappropriate. Based on generalizability theory, we suggest to compute the reliability of each subset of questions related to physical appearance vs. physical competence separately in order to average them. We applied this method to a sample of female US undergraduates (n = 395) and evidenced that the reliability of the scale is very low (corrected Cronbach's alpha = .31). We also noted that a large proportion of the sample (32%) failed to complete the scale correctly. In a second study (n = 93), we propose a Likert adaptation of the scale and show that the two dimensions of the SOQ are independent. In Study 3 (n = 195), we confirm results of Study 2 and demonstrate that the general structure of the Likert version has satisfactory model fit statistics. These observations lead us to discourage the use of the original version of the SOQ and rely on the Likert version of the Self-Objectification Questionnaire (LSOQ, see appendix).

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

自我物化是否导致了外表与能力的对立?李克特版自我物化问卷(LSOQ)。
本文提出一种新的方法来检验Fredrickson等人的自我客观化问卷(SOQ)的信度。该量表基于排名,传统的可靠性估计是不合适的。基于概化理论,我们建议分别计算与外貌和体能相关的问题的每个子集的可靠性,以便对它们进行平均。我们将该方法应用于美国女大学生样本(n = 395),并证明量表的信度非常低(校正Cronbach's alpha = .31)。我们还注意到,很大一部分样本(32%)未能正确完成量表。在第二项研究中(n = 93),我们提出了对量表的李克特适应,并表明SOQ的两个维度是独立的。在Study 3 (n = 195)中,我们证实了Study 2的结果,并证明了Likert版本的总体结构具有令人满意的模型拟合统计量。这些观察结果使我们不鼓励使用原始版本的自我客观化问卷,而依赖李克特版本的自我客观化问卷(LSOQ,见附录)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Psychologica Belgica
Psychologica Belgica PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
5.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
4 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信