Supp.apa.org



Supplemental MaterialsHow Do People Think About Interdependence? A Multidimensional Model of Subjective Outcome Interdependenceby F. H. Gerpott et al., 2017, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology of ContentsItem generation and content validation3Table 1. Expert rating (N = 10) of the initial item pool (108 items)6Table 2. Second expert rating (N = 11) for the Situational Interdependence Scale (30 items)12Table 3. SIS items and their corresponding factor loadings across Studies 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 14Table 4. Latent factor correlations of the dimensions of interdependence 16Table 5. Studies included in the Meta-Analysis of the HEXACO and the SIS 18Table 6. Cronbach Alpha Values for the HEXACO instrument19Developing a short 10 item SIS 20Table 7. Dutch version of the SIS and item parameters for selection of the short SIS-items 21Table 8. Study 6: Fit measures for the multistate-doubletrait models 23Table 9. Correlations between the SIS and DIAMONDS dimensions (Study 7) 24Item Generation and Content ValidationProcedure We created items that reflected each of the six dimensions of interdependence theory. We used a deductive procedure to develop a theory-based item pool for each of the two extreme poles (low versus high) of the six dimensions of interdependent situations (mutual dependence, power, conflict, coordination, future interdependence, information certainty). Our initial item pool comprised 242 items. We discussed, modified, and rewrote the items with three experts on interdependence theory. As a result of this process, we agreed on a list of 108 items. Each of the six dimensions was represented with 18 items, with an equal number of items describing situations low or high on each dimension. This number of items is in line with recommendations to develop an initial item pool including three or four times as many items used in the final scale (DeVellis, 2012; Hinkin, 1995). In the next step, we sent an e-mail to 15 experts on interdependence theory with a link to a survey. Ten experts agreed to participate, which is considered an appropriate sample size for the initial item evaluation (Hinkin, 1995; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1991). We had the experts read the definitions of the six dimensions of interdependence, and then read each of the 108 items and assign each item to one of the six dimensions (an item-sort task). This procedure is recommended in the early stages of scale development to discover which items best capture a construct of interest (Hinkin, 1995; 1998). We calculated the proportion of substantive agreement (PSA) for each item by dividing nc / N (nc = number of participants who assigned an item to the correct SIS dimension; N = total number of participants). Initially, we aimed to retain only those items that were classified correctly by at least 80% of the judges (nc ≥ 0.8). This cut-off value is consistent with previous research (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008; Michel, Pace, Edun, Sawhney, & Thomas, 2014). ResultsWe found that experts did not reach this standard of agreement for items developed to measure coordination (PSA values ranged from 0.2 to 0.9). The experts often indicated that these items measured mutual dependence. Nonetheless, because we had theory to suggest that people may differentiate situations according to each of these dimensions, we decided to retain the best items of this construct despite the fact that they had low PSA values. We selected ten items for coordination with PSA values from 0.4 to 0.9. Furthermore, after reviewing the selected items for the remaining five dimensions, we decided to include six items (two mutual dependence, two conflict, and two power items) with PSA values of 0.7 because they captured additional aspects of the constructs not reflected in the other selected items. This procedure is in line with the recommendation to err on the side of overinclusiveness in the initial scale development stages (Clark & Watson, 1995). We obtained desirable average PSA values for the selected items measuring conflict (M = 0.85, SD = 0.11), power (M = 0.82, SD = 0.13), future interdependence (M = 1.00, SD = 0.00), and information certainty (M = 0.96, SD = 0.07).This procedure resulted in a reduced item pool of 72 items. Each of these sub-scales had a balance of items describing a situation that was either low or high on that dimension. Mutual dependence, future interdependence, and power each had 12 items (6 low/6 high). Conflict and information certainty were represented with 13 items (7 low/6 high and 6 low/7 high, respectively). Coordination included 10 items (4 low/6 high). These 72 items were used in our initial studies designed to test the factor structure and to select the best items for each sub-scale.ReferencesClark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309-319. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Berry, J. W., & Lian, H. (2008). The development and validation of the workplace ostracism scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1348–1366. doi:10.1037/a0012743Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21, 967–988. doi:10.1177/014920639502100509Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104–121. doi:10.1177/109442819800100106MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons' performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 5. 123-150. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90037-TMichel, J. S., Pace, V. L., Edun, A., Sawhney, E., & Thomas, J. (2014). Development and validation of an explicit aggressive beliefs and attitudes scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 327-338. doi:10.1080/00223891.2013.832260Table 1.Expert rating (N = 10) of the initial item pool (108 items).Expert ratings (N = 10)DimensionItemM.D.Con.Coor.Pow.F.I.I.C.Mutual Dependence HighBoth of us are dependent on each other to achieve what we want.10Each person's outcomes are influenced by the other’s action.82What each of us does in this situation affects the other.82How we behave in this situation affects each person’s satisfaction.73We both need the other to get what we prefer from this situation.712We both influence each other’s outcomes.73Each person’s outcomes depend on the behavior of the other.10Each person’s behavior influences the other.811What we get from this situation depends on the other’s actions for both of us.532What each of us does has little consequences for the other achieving their desired outcomes.6121Mutual Dependence LowEach person’s actions only affect their own outcomes, and not the other’s outcomes.811We are completely independent from the other in this situation.10Each person is responsible for their outcomes, with little or no consequence on the other.82Whatever we both do, it does not influence the other’s outcomes.82We both don’t really need the other to achieve what we want.82We can both achieve what we want without depending on the other.91Our outcomes are independent of the behavior of the other.10We both determine our own outcomes, with no consequence for the other’s outcomes.73PowerHighThe other is more dependent on me than I am dependent on him/her.19My influence on what happens in this situation is greater than the influence of the other.226The other’s satisfaction is more determined by my actions than my satisfaction is determined by the other’s actions.127I have the power to determine my own and the other’s outcomes, while the other has no power.10I have the most control in determining what happens in this situation, while the other has very little control.118The outcomes of this situation are more controlled by my behavior than by the other’s behavior.118I can have a greater influence on the other’s satisfaction than the other has on my satisfaction.19I possess more influence on the other’s outcomes than the other possesses on my outcomes.19I can completely determine the other’s outcomes in this situation.271PowerLowI am dependent on the other to get what I most desire, while the other is not dependent on me.The other has the most control in determining what happens to me.10I depend more on the other than the other depends on me.19The other affects my outcomes but I do not affect the other’s outcome.19The other’s influence on my outcomes is greater than my influence on the other’s outcomes.19The other affects my satisfaction to a greater extent than I affect the other’s satisfaction.28I need the other more than the other needs me to achieve desirable outcomes.19My outcomes are influenced by the other but I cannot influence what the other gets.19The other can determine if I get what I want, but I cannot influence what the other gets.118ConflictHigh If the other gets what he/she wants, then I cannot get what I want.181 My interests are conflicting with the other’s interests in this situation.181 I would need to make a large compromise to do something that satisfies the other.811 If I get what I want, then the other cannot get what he/she wants.181 The other prefers different outcomes than I do in this situation.91 In this situation there is a winner and a loser.91 Our preferred outcomes in this situation are conflicting.10 It is impossible to satisfy both of us in this situation.10 It is difficult to make us both happy with the outcomes in this situation.181ConflictLow When the other does what is best for him/her, the other also does what is best for me.181 We can both get what we want in this situation.64 This is a win-win situation.271 If both of us do what is best for us, we both get what we want.172 Both of us can achieve our most desired outcome in this situation.181 We can both obtain our preferred outcomes.82 When I do what is best for me, this is also beneficial for the other.91 What satisfies me also satisfies the other.10 Our interests are completely aligned.10CoordinationHighWe need to coordinate to both get our preferred outcomes.91How I behave affects what the other has to do to achieve satisfying outcomes.217If one of us fails to coordinate, it will have negative consequences for both of us.118Both my and the other’s outcomes depend on how we act together.46Without coordinating our actions, it is impossible to achieve the best outcomes.1171It is necessary to coordinate in this situation to get desirable outcomes.28How the other behaves influences what I have to do to achieve good outcomes.271What I do affects what the other needs to do, and the other’s behavior affects what I need to do.424 Each person’s outcomes rest on coordination with the partner’s actions.19CoordinationLowEach person achieves their most desired outcome by depending on the other’s behavior.2341The other’s behavior determines my satisfaction, and there is nothing I can do about it.55The other cannot change the effect my behavior has on him/her.163My behavior cannot influence how the other’s behavior affects my outcomes.424My choice between satisfying the other or not does not affect my own outcomes.3133I can influence the other’s satisfaction without any consequences to me.235There is nothing I can do to influence how the other’s actions affect me.136The other can benefit or hurt me without consequences for his/her own outcomes.145What each person gets is completely determined by the other.522FutureInterdepen-dence HighHow I behave in this situation influences how the other behaves towards me in the future.10We both expect to interact with each other again.10This situation leads to many other opportunities for interaction with the other.10Whatever happens in this situation will affect future interactions I have with the other.10The other expects to interact with me in the future.10We will interact in the future.10I can count on a lot of future opportunities to interact with the other.10How we act in this situation influences our future interactions.19I do not expect to meet the other again.10Future Interdepen-dence LowWe both believe that it is unlikely that we will ever interact again.10How we behave now will have consequences for future outcomes.10The outcome of this situation does not affect my future interactions with the other.10I don’t think this interaction will be followed by any future interactions.10How each of us behaves will not influence our behaviors in future interactions.10This situation will not be followed by future interactions with the other.10It is unlikely that an interaction with the other will ever occur again.10This situation will not affect my future relationship with the other.10My behavior does not influence the possibility of future interactions with the other.91Information CertaintyHigh I know which behavior the other prefers in this situation.10 I know which consequences my behavior has for the other.217 I understand the other’s preferred outcomes.19 The other knows how his/her behavior affects me.19 We both know each person’s preferences in this situation.19 Each person is informed about the other’s preferred outcomes.10 The other is aware of my preferred outcomes.19 We both know what the other wants.10 We both know how our behavior affects each other’s outcomes.118Information CertaintyLow I don’t know how my actions will affect the other.10 I don’t think the other knows what I want.10 Nobody knows what anybody wants in this situation.10 We both lack knowledge about what the other wants.10 It is not clear to me what the other wants in this situation.10 The other is unaware about my preferences in this situation.10 I am not sure how my behavior influences the other’s satisfaction.19 The other does not understand how his/her actions affect me.10 Each of us does not know how his/her behavior influences the outcomes of the other.10Notes. Experts had to assign the items to one of the six SIS dimensions (item-sort task). M.D. = Mutual Dependence; Con. = Conflict; Coor. = Coordination. Pow. = Power; F. I. = Future Interdependence; I. C. = Information Certainty.Table 2.Second expert rating (N = 11) for the Situational Interdependence Scale (30 items). Expert ratings (N = 11)DimensionItemM.D.Con.Pow.F.I.I.C.Mutual DependenceEach person’s outcomes depend on the behavior of the other.101We need each other to get our best outcome in this situation.101What each of us does in this situation affects the other.11Each person's outcomes are not influenced by what the other does.(r)11Whatever each of us does in this situation, our actions will not affect the other's outcomes.(r)11Each person’s actions only affect their own outcomes, and not the other’s outcomes.(r)911PowerWho has the most impact on what happens in this situation?110Who do you feel had more power to determine their own outcome in this situation?11Who do you feel was most in control of what happens in the situation?11Who has the least control to determine their own outcomes in this situation?(r)29Who has the least amount of influence on the outcomes of this situation?(r)110Who do you feel had the weakest influence on the outcomes of this situation?(r)101ConflictThe other prefers different outcomes than I do in this situation.11Our preferred outcomes in this situation are conflicting.11It is difficult to make us both happy with the outcomes of this situation.11Both of us can achieve our most desired outcomes in this situation.(r)110We can both obtain our preferred outcomes.(r)110What satisfies me also satisfies the other.(r)11Future Interdepen-denceMy behavior in this situation affects how the other will behave in future situations.11How we behave now will have consequences for future outcomes.11Whatever happens in this situation will affect future interactions I have with the other.11Our future interactions are not affected by the outcomes of this situation.(r)11Our interaction has no effect on future behavior in interactions with each other.(r)11The outcome of this situation does not affect my future interactions with the other.(r)11Information CertaintyWe both know how our behavior affects each other’s outcomes.29Each person is informed about the other’s preferred outcomes.11We both know what the other wants.11We both lack knowledge about what the other wants.11I don’t think the other knows what I want.11The other does not understand how his/her actions affect me.119Notes. Experts had to assign the items to one of the six SIS dimensions (item-sort task). M.D. = Mutual Dependence; Con. = Conflict; Pow. = Power; F. I. = Future Interdependence; I. C. = Information Certainty.Table 3.SIS items and their corresponding factor loadings (CFA) across Studies 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7. Factor loadingDimensionItem2346W16W27Mutual DependenceEach person’s outcomes depend on the behavior of the other..65.54.38.33.57.75We need each other to get our best outcome in this situation..55.37.25.34.54.67What each of us does in this situation affects the other..72.59.56.48.66.77Each person's outcomes are not influenced by what the other does.(r).68.68.74.77.69.31Whatever each of us does in this situation, our actions will not affect the other's outcomes.(r).68.62.63.86.85.13Each person’s actions only affect their own outcomes, and not the other’s outcomes.(r).67.68.56.79.80.14PowerWho has the most impact on what happens in this situation?.82.78.76.67.65.90Who do you feel had more power to determine their own outcome in this situation?.82.81.75.68.72.86Who do you feel was most in control of what happens in the situation?.89.86.84.76.79.87Who has the least control to determine their own outcomes in this situation?(r).76.71.82.74.78.84Who has the least amount of influence on the outcomes of this situation?(r).69.46.84.73.74.92Who do you feel had the weakest influence on the outcomes of this situation?(r).79.79.84.73.71.92ConflictThe other prefers different outcomes than I do in this situation..57.53.70.59.79.52Our preferred outcomes in this situation are conflicting..75.70.76.65.81.70It is difficult to make us both happy with the outcomes of this situation..69.65.73.60.81.67Both of us can achieve our most desired outcomes in this situation.(r).83.72.69.88.69.81We can both obtain our preferred outcomes.(r).79.69.69.89.74.78What satisfies me also satisfies the other.(r).73.60.64.67.55.73Future InterdependenceMy behavior in this situation affects how the other will behave in future situations..64.62.44.46.57.59How we behave now will have consequences for future outcomes..57.55.50.48.67.41Whatever happens in this situation will affect future interactions I have with the other..75.61.64.57.71.80Our future interactions are not affected by the outcomes of this situation.(r).77.71.65.88.89.80Our interaction has no effect on future behavior in interactions with each other.(r).75.64.78.87.87.82The outcome of this situation does not affect my future interactions with the other.(r).72.71.51.82.86.72Information CertaintyWe both know how our behavior affects each other’s outcomes..60.59.39.31.34.40Each person is informed about the other’s preferred outcomes..74.54.60.32.54.57We both know what the other wants..83.66.55.56.64.92We both lack knowledge about what the other wants.(r).69.53.60.69.65.73I don’t think the other knows what I want.(r).74.69.77.76.78.79The other does not understand how his/her actions affect me.(r).50.67.69.76.68.29Notes. N2 = 514, N3 = 192, N4 = 177, N6W1 = 330, N6W2 = 330, N7 = 280.Table 4.Latent factor correlations of the dimensions of interdependence. Study 1dStudy 2M (SD)12345M (SD)123451. Mutual Dependence3.38 (0.90)(.85)3.66 (0.95)(.82)2. Power3.26 (0.81).00(.87)2.99 (0.70) -.10*(.91)3. Conflict2.09 (0.79)-.23*.00(.80)2.37 (1.05)-.08-.17*(.87)4. Future Interdependence 3.15 (0.98) .72*-.01-.01(.87)3.12 (1.08) .52*-.09* .10*(.85)5. Information Certainty3.78 (0.77) .36*-.01-.72*.12*(.79)3.76 (0.94) .43* .01-.42*.09*(.84)Notes. N1d = 299, N2 = 514. *p < .05. Cronbach Alpha values in brackets. Study 4Study 6W1M (SD)12345M (SD)123451. Mutual Dependence 3.60 (0.66)(.70)3.60 (0.69)(.79)2. Power3.18 (1.08).06(.92)3.07 (0.63)-.07(.86)3. Conflict2.83 (0.91).02-.26*(.85)2.53 (0.88)-.09.11(.87)4. Future Interdependence 3.49 (0.74) .67*.07 .23*(.76)3.10 (0.82).47*-.01.05(.86)5. Information Certainty3.38 (0.76) .18*.33*-.53*-.04(.77)3.64 (0.64).16*-.02-.36*-.08(.76)Notes. N4 = 177, N6W1 = 330. *p < .05. Cronbach Alpha values in brackets. Study 6W2Study 7M (SD)12345M (SD)123451. Mutual Dependence 3.53 (0.77)(.85)3.97 (0.74)(.69)2. Power3.06 (0.63).04(.87)3.72 (1.04) -.26*(.96)3. Conflict2.42 (0.85)-.09-.01(.88)2.96 (0.97)-.23* .25*(.86)4. Future Interdependence 3.09 (0.90).50*-.02.04(.90)2.81 (1.00) .20*-.27* -.33*(.84)5. Information Certainty3.62 (0.67).17*.00-.38*-.12*(.78)3.23 (0.92) .30* -.21*-.28*.09(.79)Notes. N6W2 = 330, N7 = 280. *p < .05. Cronbach Alpha values in brackets.Table 5Studies included in the Meta-Analysis of the relation between the HEXACO and the SIS.SISStudy 2a (N=514)1Study 3 (N=192)1Study 4 (N=177)2Study 7 (N=280)2HEXACOHEXACOHEXACOHEXACOMutual Dependence.07.12*.07-.03.16*.19*.09.04.03.02-.01.22* .03.11.13.11.21*.24*.17*.00.06.11.29*.09Power.01.04-.09*.04.01.04-.01-.00-.04-.01-.02-.06-.03-.05.18*-.10-.02.08.05-.02-.01.02.12.09Conflict-.08-.05-.10*-.07-.11*-.18*-.24*-.08-.19*-.12-.24*-.26* -.09.15*-.25*-.15*-.15*-.06-.07-.07-.04-.05.04.02Future Interdep. .02.00.03.01.11*.14*-.04-.17*.03.05-.18*.11.05.12.03.01.12.21*.06-.03.01-.04-.02-.02Inform. Cert..22*.11*.12*.07.21*.18*.23*.07.09.09.28*.22*.18*-.13.27*.18*.23*.19*-.06-.05.12-.06.05-.02SISAdditional Study (N=603)2 HEXACOMutual Dependence.14*.13*-.01-.01.13*.10*Power.04-.04.13*.01.08*-.01Conflict-.13*-.01-.20*-.15*-.21*-.13*Future Interdep. .01.10*-.00-.02.08.06Inform. Cert..09*-.00.25*.11*.20*.08Notes. 1) HEXACO 104-item version. 2) HEXACO 60-item version.H = Honesty, E = Emotionality, X = Extraversion, A = Agreeableness, C = Conscientiousness, O = Openness. *p < .05 (two-tailed).Table 6.Cronbach Alpha Values for the HEXACO instrument.Study 2 (N=514)1Study 3 (N=192)1Study 4 (N=177)2Study 7 (N=280)2Additional Study (N=603)2Honesty.84?.81?.77.80.77Emotionality.82?.83 .74?.80.80Extraversion.86?.87?.82.87.83Agreeableness.83?.86?.78.81.81Conscientiousness.83?.81?.79.79.79Openness.80?.82?.78.80.81Notes. 1) HEXACO 104-item version. 2) HEXACO 60-item version.Developing a Short 10 item SISProcedure To select items for a brief, 10-item SIS, we fitted multistate-doubletrait (MSDT) longitudinal CFA models with two uncorrelated states and two correlated traits (positively- and negatively-worded items) to both waves of data for each sub-scale separately (n = 330). We used maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors and a Satorra-Bentler scaled test statistic. Due to non-convergence using robust ML estimation, we used robust WLS estimation for the Power sub-scale. We computed the reliability of each item at each wave following Eid (1996), and selected items based on the average reliability across both waves. For each subscale, we selected the most reliable positively- and negatively-worded item (see Table 7, short SIS-items marked with an asterisk). All subscale models had acceptable fit (CFI ≥ .975, RMSEA < .06; see Table 8). All selected items had at least good single-item reliability (all reliabilities ≥ .493, average reliability = .745; see Table 7). ReferencesEid, M. (1996). Longitudinal confirmatory factor analysis for polytomous item responses: Model definition and model selection on the basis of stochastic measurement theory. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 1(4), 65–85.Table 7.Study 6: Dutch version of the SIS and item parameters derived from multistate-doubletrait models for selection of the short SIS-items.ReliabilityConsis-tencySpecificityDimensionItemW1W2W1W2W1W2Mutual DependenceDe uitkomsten voor elk persoon zijn afhankelijk van het gedrag van de ander..326.492.096.337.230.155Wij hebben elkaar nodig om in deze situatie tot onze beste uitkomst te komen..357.493.078.333.279.160*Wat iedere persoon doet in deze situatie heeft een invloed op de ander..693.695.176.504.517.191De uitkomsten van iedere persoon worden niet be?nvloed door wat de ander doet.(r).576.461.501.148.075.313*Wat ieder van ons ook doet in deze situatie, onze acties zullen de uitkomsten van de ander niet be?nvloeden.(r).725.796.675.284.050.513De acties van elk persoon hebben enkel invloed op zijn/haar eigen uitkomsten, niet op de uitkomsten van de ander.(r).672.702.622.236.049.466PowerWie had er de meeste invloed op wat er in deze situatie gebeurde?.464.536.013.406.451.130*Wie had er voor jouw gevoel meer macht om de eigen uitkomst te bepalen in deze situatie?.493.767.038.634.454.134Wie had er volgens jouw gevoel de meeste controle over wat er gebeurde in de situatie?.582.625.059.176.523.449Wie had er de minste controle over zijn/haar eigen uitkomsten in deze situatie?(r).539.637.046.233.494.404*Wie had er de minste hoeveelheid invloed op de uitkomsten van deze situatie?(r).536.648.036.068.500.580Wie had er voor jouw gevoel de zwakste invloed op de uitkomsten van deze situatie?(r).532.543.007.126.526.417ConflictDe ander heeft een voorkeur voor een andere uitkomst dan ik in deze situatie..655.728.087.579.568.149*Onze meest gewenste uitkomsten zijn tegenstrijdig in deze situatie. .756.822.100.660.656.162Het is moeilijk om ons allebei gelukkig te maken met de uitkomsten in deze situatie. .579.614.134.339.445.275In deze situatie kunnen wij allebei onze meest gewenste uitkomsten verkrijgen.(r).775.785.494.074.281.711*Wij kunnen allebei onze voorkeurs uitkomst verkrijgen.(r).903.956.645.064.258.892Wat mij tevreden stelt, stelt ook de ander tevreden.(r).437.360.264.073.173.287Future Interdepen-denceMijn gedrag in deze situatie be?nvloedt hoe de ander zich zal gedragen in toekomstige situaties..543.610.267.514.276.096*Hoe wij ons nu gedragen heeft gevolgen voor toekomstige situaties..756.805.281.638.475.168Wat er ook gebeurt in deze situatie zal een invloed hebben op toekomstige interacties die ik heb met de ander..508.670.250.418.258.252*Onze toekomstige interacties worden niet be?nvloed door de uitkomsten van deze situatie.(r).796.805.740.184.055.621Onze interactie heeft geen effect op toekomstig gedrag binnen interacties met elkaar.(r).761.807.711.173.049.634De uitkomst van deze situatie heeft geen invloed op mijn toekomstige interacties met de ander.(r).691.776.657.150.034.626Information CertaintyWij weten allebei hoe ons gedrag elkaars uitkomsten be?nvloedt. .191.335.093.312.198.022Iedere persoon is ge?nformeerd over de voorkeurs uitkomsten van de ander. .360.604.152.424.208.180*Wij weten allebei wat de ander wilt. .965.619.055.312.910.311Wij missen allebei informatie over wat de ander wilt.(r).454.453.279.098.175.354*Ik denk niet dat de ander weet wat ik wil.(r).612.751.496.129.115.623De ander begrijpt niet hoe zijn/haar acties mij be?nvloeden.(r).633.477.528.164.105.313Notes. nW1 = 330 (Wave 1), nW2 = 330 (Wave 2). (r) = item is reverse coded. Items for the short form of the SIS are marked with an asterisk (*).Table 8.Study 6: Fit measures for the multistate-doubletrait models.X? (Satorra-Bentler)Scaled IndicesRMSEADimensionAICBICX?dfpCFITLIRMSEA95% CISRMRMutual Dependence19611.2959797.4552.577410.1060.9900.9840.029.000-.0480.044Power19597.9749784.12976.023410.0010.9820.9710.051.035-.0670.070Conflict19386.2779572.43372.307410.0020.9850.9750.048.031-.0640.057Future Dependence29643.7379829.89364.145410.0120.9750.9600.041.024-.0570.053Information Certainty1--53.838410.0860.9910.9850.031.000-.0650.033Notes. 1) Estimator: WLSM; 2) Estimator: MLM. nW1 = 330 (Wave 1), nW2 = 330 (Wave 2). Table 9.Correlations between the SIS and DIAMONDS dimensions (Study 7). DimensionM (SD)(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)1. SIS: Mutual Dependence3.98 (0.74) (.69)2. SIS: Power3.72 (1.04)-.26*(.96) 3. SIS: Conflict2.96 (0.97)-.23*.25*(.86)4. SIS: Future Interdependence 2.81 (1.00).20*-.27*-.33*(.84)5. SIS: Information Certainty3.23 (0.92).30*-.21*-.28*.09(.79)6. DIAMONDS: Duty 5.00 (1.36).19*.00-.01.22*.087. DIAMONDS: Intellect 4.16 (1.62).21*-.14*-.21*.29*.10.52*8. DIAMONDS: Adversity1.79 (1.19)-.29*-.20.02.12-.00.03.24*9. DIAMONDS: Mating1.50 (1.08)-.44*-.21*-.02.09-.04-.07.18.72*10. DIAMONDS: pOsitivity3.49 (1.42)-.06-.15*-.19*.16*.07.31*.37*.33*.34*11. DIAMONDS: Negativity 4.51 (1.61).27*-.13*.01.13*.01.35*.44*.13*.02.17*12. DIAMONDS: Deception4.32 (1.79).16*-.16*-.13*.23*.10.30*.30*.25*.08.25*.45*13. DIAMONDS: Sociality 2.87 (1.57)-.00-.39*-.23*.34*.05.24*.43*.38*.45.43*.19*.29*Model R2 .32* .18* .14*.16*.03.09*.12*.19*.32*.07*.10*.07*.24*Notes. N = 280. *p < .05 (two-tailed). Cronbach Alpha values in brackets. Model R2 = the percent of variance explained in the corresponding dimension from the entire set of dimensions from the other model. For example, the eight DIAMONDS dimensions explain 32 percent of the variance in mutual dependence, while the five SIS dimensions explain 24 percent of the variance in Sociality. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download