你介意近一点看吗?关于正念的叮当声谬误观点

IF 3.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Elisa Altgassen, Mattis Geiger, O. Wilhelm
{"title":"你介意近一点看吗?关于正念的叮当声谬误观点","authors":"Elisa Altgassen, Mattis Geiger, O. Wilhelm","doi":"10.1177/08902070231174575","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Mindfulness is defined inconsistently, and its various measures resemble established personality self-report scales. Therefore, jingle and jangle fallacies are likely to undermine the construct’s utility. To address these issues, we conducted two studies to test three hurdles of validity: 1) a sound definition and measurement model, 2) empirical distinctiveness, and 3) incremental criterion validity. We established an overarching and inclusive mindfulness definition covering twelve aspects. Based on this definition, we used an item sampling algorithm to select items from eight mindfulness scales. We established an eclectic bi-factor and a single-factor model, both fitting the data well. Bivariate latent variable correlations between a single mindfulness factor and big-five/six personality factors reached up to .68. Although 50% of mindfulness' variance was unaccounted for by the personality factors, it provided no meaningful incremental criterion validity over personality factors. Our results indicate that mindfulness has little or no incremental utility above established personality factors.","PeriodicalId":51376,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Personality","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do you mind a closer look? A jingle-jangle fallacy perspective on mindfulness\",\"authors\":\"Elisa Altgassen, Mattis Geiger, O. Wilhelm\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08902070231174575\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Mindfulness is defined inconsistently, and its various measures resemble established personality self-report scales. Therefore, jingle and jangle fallacies are likely to undermine the construct’s utility. To address these issues, we conducted two studies to test three hurdles of validity: 1) a sound definition and measurement model, 2) empirical distinctiveness, and 3) incremental criterion validity. We established an overarching and inclusive mindfulness definition covering twelve aspects. Based on this definition, we used an item sampling algorithm to select items from eight mindfulness scales. We established an eclectic bi-factor and a single-factor model, both fitting the data well. Bivariate latent variable correlations between a single mindfulness factor and big-five/six personality factors reached up to .68. Although 50% of mindfulness' variance was unaccounted for by the personality factors, it provided no meaningful incremental criterion validity over personality factors. Our results indicate that mindfulness has little or no incremental utility above established personality factors.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51376,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Personality\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Personality\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070231174575\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Personality","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070231174575","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

正念的定义不一致,其各种衡量标准类似于既定的人格自我报告量表。因此,顺口溜和刺耳的谬论很可能会破坏结构的效用。为了解决这些问题,我们进行了两项研究来测试有效性的三个障碍:1)健全的定义和测量模型,2)经验显著性,以及3)递增标准有效性。我们建立了一个涵盖十二个方面的全面和包容的正念定义。基于这个定义,我们使用项目抽样算法从八个正念量表中选择项目。我们建立了一个折衷的双因素和单因素模型,两者都很好地拟合了数据。单个正念因素与大五/六人格因素之间的双变量潜变量相关性高达.68。尽管50%的正念方差没有被人格因素所解释,但它没有提供比人格因素有意义的递增标准有效性。我们的研究结果表明,正念在既定的人格因素之上几乎没有或根本没有增量效用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Do you mind a closer look? A jingle-jangle fallacy perspective on mindfulness
Mindfulness is defined inconsistently, and its various measures resemble established personality self-report scales. Therefore, jingle and jangle fallacies are likely to undermine the construct’s utility. To address these issues, we conducted two studies to test three hurdles of validity: 1) a sound definition and measurement model, 2) empirical distinctiveness, and 3) incremental criterion validity. We established an overarching and inclusive mindfulness definition covering twelve aspects. Based on this definition, we used an item sampling algorithm to select items from eight mindfulness scales. We established an eclectic bi-factor and a single-factor model, both fitting the data well. Bivariate latent variable correlations between a single mindfulness factor and big-five/six personality factors reached up to .68. Although 50% of mindfulness' variance was unaccounted for by the personality factors, it provided no meaningful incremental criterion validity over personality factors. Our results indicate that mindfulness has little or no incremental utility above established personality factors.
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
European Journal of Personality
European Journal of Personality PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL-
CiteScore
11.90
自引率
8.50%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: It is intended that the journal reflects all areas of current personality psychology. The Journal emphasizes (1) human individuality as manifested in cognitive processes, emotional and motivational functioning, and their physiological and genetic underpinnings, and personal ways of interacting with the environment, (2) individual differences in personality structure and dynamics, (3) studies of intelligence and interindividual differences in cognitive functioning, and (4) development of personality differences as revealed by cross-sectional and longitudinal studies.
×
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