构建层次概念:基于综合模型和系统文献综述评估权力、地位、支配和声望的措施。

IF 17.3 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY
Robert Körner, Jennifer R Overbeck, Astrid Schütz
{"title":"构建层次概念:基于综合模型和系统文献综述评估权力、地位、支配和声望的措施。","authors":"Robert Körner, Jennifer R Overbeck, Astrid Schütz","doi":"10.1037/bul0000470","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research on social hierarchy is flourishing. Often, researchers employ self- or peer-report measures to assess variables such as power or dominance. One drawback of studies in this line of research is that researchers use different scales to measure the same constructs and different researchers use the same scale but aim to measure different constructs. Moreover, hierarchy concepts have been used interchangeably and terms have been used for a specific variable but operationalized with a measure that taps into another construct. This practice leads to problems such as the jingle-jangle fallacy. As these fallacies occur at the construct and the measurement levels, we first delineate an Integrative Model of Social Hierarchy Concepts and provide definitions of different hierarchy concepts (power, status, dominance, prestige, motives regarding these variables) to establish conceptual consensus. Based on a systematic literature search, we then present 67 validated scales that aim to measure these constructs. Additionally, we discuss other measurement approaches beyond self-reports (e.g., indirect tests, language features). For a selected subset of scales, we conducted an empirical study to provide additional analyses on reliability, model fit, and exploratory factor analyses to detect similarities and differences between scales. Eventually, we derive recommendations on which scales and measures to use for assessing which hierarchy variable and how to advance measurement practices in this domain. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":"151 3","pages":"322-364"},"PeriodicalIF":17.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Structuring hierarchy concepts: Evaluating measures of power, status, dominance, and prestige on the basis of an integrative model and systematic literature review.\",\"authors\":\"Robert Körner, Jennifer R Overbeck, Astrid Schütz\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/bul0000470\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Research on social hierarchy is flourishing. Often, researchers employ self- or peer-report measures to assess variables such as power or dominance. One drawback of studies in this line of research is that researchers use different scales to measure the same constructs and different researchers use the same scale but aim to measure different constructs. Moreover, hierarchy concepts have been used interchangeably and terms have been used for a specific variable but operationalized with a measure that taps into another construct. This practice leads to problems such as the jingle-jangle fallacy. As these fallacies occur at the construct and the measurement levels, we first delineate an Integrative Model of Social Hierarchy Concepts and provide definitions of different hierarchy concepts (power, status, dominance, prestige, motives regarding these variables) to establish conceptual consensus. Based on a systematic literature search, we then present 67 validated scales that aim to measure these constructs. Additionally, we discuss other measurement approaches beyond self-reports (e.g., indirect tests, language features). For a selected subset of scales, we conducted an empirical study to provide additional analyses on reliability, model fit, and exploratory factor analyses to detect similarities and differences between scales. Eventually, we derive recommendations on which scales and measures to use for assessing which hierarchy variable and how to advance measurement practices in this domain. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20854,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological bulletin\",\"volume\":\"151 3\",\"pages\":\"322-364\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":17.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000470\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000470","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

关于社会等级的研究正在蓬勃发展。通常,研究人员采用自我或同伴报告的方法来评估诸如权力或支配地位之类的变量。这方面研究的一个缺点是研究人员使用不同的量表来测量相同的构念,不同的研究人员使用相同的量表,但旨在测量不同的构念。此外,层次结构概念可以互换使用,术语可以用于特定变量,但可以使用进入另一个结构的度量进行操作。这种做法导致了诸如叮当声谬误之类的问题。由于这些谬误发生在结构和测量层面,我们首先描绘了一个社会等级概念的综合模型,并提供了不同等级概念的定义(权力,地位,支配地位,声望,关于这些变量的动机),以建立概念共识。基于系统的文献检索,我们提出了67个有效的量表,旨在测量这些结构。此外,我们还讨论了自我报告之外的其他测量方法(例如,间接测试、语言特征)。对于选定的量表子集,我们进行了实证研究,对可靠性、模型拟合和探索性因子分析进行了额外的分析,以检测量表之间的相似性和差异性。最后,我们推导出关于使用哪个尺度和度量来评估哪个层次变量以及如何在这个领域推进度量实践的建议。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Structuring hierarchy concepts: Evaluating measures of power, status, dominance, and prestige on the basis of an integrative model and systematic literature review.

Research on social hierarchy is flourishing. Often, researchers employ self- or peer-report measures to assess variables such as power or dominance. One drawback of studies in this line of research is that researchers use different scales to measure the same constructs and different researchers use the same scale but aim to measure different constructs. Moreover, hierarchy concepts have been used interchangeably and terms have been used for a specific variable but operationalized with a measure that taps into another construct. This practice leads to problems such as the jingle-jangle fallacy. As these fallacies occur at the construct and the measurement levels, we first delineate an Integrative Model of Social Hierarchy Concepts and provide definitions of different hierarchy concepts (power, status, dominance, prestige, motives regarding these variables) to establish conceptual consensus. Based on a systematic literature search, we then present 67 validated scales that aim to measure these constructs. Additionally, we discuss other measurement approaches beyond self-reports (e.g., indirect tests, language features). For a selected subset of scales, we conducted an empirical study to provide additional analyses on reliability, model fit, and exploratory factor analyses to detect similarities and differences between scales. Eventually, we derive recommendations on which scales and measures to use for assessing which hierarchy variable and how to advance measurement practices in this domain. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological bulletin
Psychological bulletin 医学-心理学
CiteScore
33.60
自引率
0.90%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Psychological Bulletin publishes syntheses of research in scientific psychology. Research syntheses seek to summarize past research by drawing overall conclusions from many separate investigations that address related or identical hypotheses. A research synthesis typically presents the authors' assessments: -of the state of knowledge concerning the relations of interest; -of critical assessments of the strengths and weaknesses in past research; -of important issues that research has left unresolved, thereby directing future research so it can yield a maximum amount of new information.
×
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