1,720,993 research outputs found
Two-Dimensional Machiavellianism: Conceptualisation, Measurement, and Well-Being
Full text linkIndividuals learn to influence and manipulate others to function
as part of society. Machiavellianism captures one’s willingness
to orchestrate the behaviour of others against their interests,
rights, and well-being. Research focuses primarily on a single
Machiavellianism dimension. This thesis, however, contends that
Machiavellianism comprises two correlated dimensions: a views
dimension that captures one's cynical and distrusting view of
humanity and the world, and a tactics dimension that captures
one’s willingness to endorse exploitative and amoral behaviours
when deemed advantageous. This thesis aimed to develop a stronger
understanding of each dimension, and this required developing
stronger psychometric instruments. The secondary aim was to test
the presupposition of no psychopathological cost to
Machiavellianism.
After an initial foray into Machiavelli and Machiavellianism in
the first two chapters, Chapter 3 identifies a robust
Machiavellianism factor-structure and how each dimension relates
to psychopathological domains in 1478 US and 218 Australian
participants. Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that
Machiavellianism comprises two robust dimensions which could be
reliably captured through a 10-item subset of the Mach-IV scale,
named Two-Dimensional Mach-IV (TDM-IV). Further, Machiavellian
views associated with all major psychological domains, while
Machiavellian tactics related only to the externalising and
thought dysfunction domains. Machiavellianism is two-dimensional,
with each dimension having distinctive psychopathological
implications.
The study in Chapter 4 investigates whether these two dimensions
are universal, or merely measurement artefacts within Study 1. If
universal, this research further aimed to develop a nomological
network to better understand the nature of each dimension.
International collaborators shared 15 datasets, which
comprisedover 17,000 participants. The two-factor structure was
reproducible and structurally equivalent across cultures,
languages, types of respondent, response category length, age,
and gender. Further, each dimension was situated within a
different constellation of broad personality traits,
developmental pathways, emotionality, and behaviour. Therefore,
the two dimensions appear to be core aspects of Machiavellianism
and need to be independently captured in future research.
The TDM-IV derives from the Mach-IV, inheriting many of its
psychometric concerns that reduce the accuracy of its inferences,
such as confusing item wording and not accounting for acquiesces
appropriately. To overcome these weaknesses, Chapter 5 presents
the development and validation of the Two-Dimensional
Machiavellianism Scale (TDMS). The TDMS had excellent
psychometric properties in six independent samples involving over
3800 participants, based on confirmatory factor analysis,
longitudinal structural equation modelling, and item response
theory. The scale provided invariant measurement across all
samples and a test-retest sample, was internally consistent, and
provided most information in the low to high average range. This
study demonstrates confirmatory and discriminatory validity
with existing measures of Machiavellianism, broader personality
taxonomies, socio-political attitudes, psychopathy, narcissism,
and morality vignettes.
Finally, Chapter 6 explicates this two-dimensional
Machiavellianism construct and discusses key areas for future
investigation, including latent profiles, longitudinal modelling
of each dimension’s development, and cross-cultural
equivalence. Together, this research demonstrates that: a)
Machiavellianism comprises two distinct
dimensions, b) the TDMS, as a psychometrically robust measure of
Machiavellianism, should replace current measures of
Machiavellianism, and c) the presupposition of psychopathological
immunity among Machiavellians is false
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
The HEXACO Model: Clinical Extensions and Universality
No full textAshton and Lee propose eloquent arguments in favour of their HEXACO model of personality. We accept most arguments and suggest two relevant issues that require further work. We argue that there is a need for more work on how the HEXACO model could contribute to clinical psychology, especially the area of dimensional conceptualisations of personality disorders. We also have questions regarding the universality of factor structure and argue that research in personality psychology needs to take into account the full variation of humanity across cultures and time periods. © 2020 European Association of Personality Psychology
Ashton and Lee grapple with the fundamental issue in personality psychology: the number of basic factors that underlie all personality differences. They present a compelling defence of and well–articulated arguments in favour of their HEXACO model, thoughtfully engaging with each critique raised by the literature and informal discourse. They argue that their model adds above and beyond the dominant Big Five personality traits and should be adopted as the primary conceptualisation of broad personality variation. We agree with most arguments and here outline two relevant issues that require further investigation
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
Author-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.
No full textAuthor-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.</p
- …
