The concept of dispositional resistance to change has been introduced in a series of exploratory and confirmatory analyses through which the validity of the Resistance to Change (RTC) Scale has been established (S. Oreg, 2003). However, the vast majority of participants with whom the scale was validated were from the United States. The purpose of the present work was to examine the meaningfulness of the construct and the validity of the scale across nations. Measurement equivalence analyses of data from 17 countries, representing 13 languages and 4 continents, confirmed the cross-national validity of the scale. Equivalent patterns of relationships between personal values and RTC across samples extend the nomological net of the construct and provide further evidence that dispositional resistance to change holds equivalent meanings across nations.
Altogether, 1448 individuals from six neighbouring countries of Russia in the Baltic Sea region (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Belarus) described a 'typical' member of their own nation and a 'typical' Russian, as well as rated their own personality, using the National Character Survey (NCS). Results suggest that national character stereotypes are widely shared, temporally stable and moderately related to assessed personality traits, if all assessments are made using the same measurement instrument. In all studied countries, agreement between national auto-stereotypes and assessed personality was positive and in half of the samples statistically significant. Although members of the six nations studied had a relatively similar view of the Russian national character, this view was not related with self-rated personality traits of Russians but moderately with the Russian auto-stereotype.
Rankings of countries on mean levels of self-reported Conscientiousness continue to puzzle researchers. Based on the hypothesis that cross-cultural differences in the tendency to prefer extreme response categories of ordinal rating scales over moderate categories can influence the comparability of self-reports, this study investigated possible effects of response style on the mean levels of self-reported Conscientiousness in 22 samples from 20 countries. Extreme and neutral responding were estimated based on respondents' ratings of 30 hypothetical people described in short vignettes. In the vignette ratings, clear cross-sample differences in extreme and neutral responding emerged. These responding style differences were correlated with mean self-reported Conscientiousness scores. Correcting self-reports for extreme and neutral responding changed sample rankings of Conscientiousness, as well as the predictive validities of these rankings for external criteria. The findings suggest that the puzzling country rankings of self-reported Conscientiousness may to some extent result from differences in response styles.
In cross‐national studies, mean levels of self‐reported phenomena are often not congruent with more objective criteria. One prominent explanation for such findings is that people make self‐report judgements in relation to culture‐specific standards (often called the reference group effect), thereby undermining the cross‐cultural comparability of the judgements. We employed a simple method called anchoring vignettes in order to test whether people from 21 different countries have varying standards for Conscientiousness, a Big Five personality trait that has repeatedly shown unexpected nation‐level relationships with external criteria. Participants rated their own Conscientiousness and that of 30 hypothetical persons portrayed in short vignettes. The latter type of ratings was expected to reveal individual differences in standards of Conscientiousness. The vignettes were rated relatively similarly in all countries, suggesting no substantial culture‐related differences in standards for Conscientiousness. Controlling for the small differences in standards did not substantially change the rankings of countries on mean self‐ratings or the predictive validities of these rankings for objective criteria. These findings are not consistent with mean self‐rated Conscientiousness scores being influenced by culture‐specific standards. The technique of anchoring vignettes can be used in various types of studies to assess the potentially confounding effects of reference levels. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Background Research on personality pathology in adolescence has accelerated during the last decade. Among all of the personality disorders, there is strong support for the validity of borderline personality disorder (BPD) diagnosis in adolescence with comparable stability as seen in adulthood. Researchers have put much effort in the analysis of the developmental pathways and etiology of the disorder and currently are relocating their attention to the identification of the possible risk factors associated with the course of BPD symptoms during adolescence. The risk profile provided in previous systematic reviews did not address the possible development and course of BPD features across time. Having this in mind, the purpose of this systematic review is to identify the factors that are associated with the course of BPD symptoms during adolescence. Methods Electronic databases were systematically searched for prospective longitudinal studies with at least two assessments of BPD as an outcome of the examined risk factors. A total number of 14 articles from the period of almost 40 years were identified as fitting the eligibility criteria. Conclusions Factors associated with the course of BPD symptoms include childhood temperament, comorbid psychopathology, and current interpersonal experiences. The current review adds up to the knowledge base about factors that are associated with the persistence or worsening of BPD symptoms in adolescence, describing the factors congruent to different developmental periods.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.