Tuesday, October 9, 2018

Dark Triad Scale (Dirty Dozen)




The toxic triad is commonly known as the Dark Triad. The triad consists of three sets of personality traits representing features of Narcissistic, Psychopathic, and Machiavellian personality clusters.









The Dirty Dozen Scale

Psychological Scientists Peter Jonason and Gregory Webster developed a scale known as the Dirty Dozen (2010), which uses 12-items to identify key features of this “Dark” or Toxic Triad.

Here’s the 12 items

1.      I tend to manipulate others to get my way.
2.      I tend to lack remorse.
3.      I tend to want others to admire me.
4.      I tend to be unconcerned with the morality of my actions.
5.      I have used deceit or lied to get my way.
6.      I tend to be callous or insensitive.
7.      I have used flattery to get my way.
8.      I tend to seek prestige or status.
9.      I tend to be cynical.
10.  I tend to exploit others toward my own end.
11.  I tend to expect special favors from others.
12.  I want others to pay attention to me.

Each item is rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale based how much it applies to a person. Here’s the subscales:

Narcissism = 3, 8, 11, 12
Psychopathy = 2, 4, 6, 9
Machiavellianism = 1, 5, 7, 10

As you can see, scores could range from 12 to 84. Webster & Jonason (2013) examined the scale in samples totaling 1,014 college students. The second sample used the 7-point rating scale, which resulted in an overall item mean of 2.92 and SD of 1.07.

Overall alpha was .87. See Table 3 of their article for more details. Note that this is a general population college sample thus we would expect higher scores in clinical samples.

For a more recent meta-analytic review of various measures of the Dark Triad, see Muris et al., 2017 (reference below).


Consider buying Creating Surveys to help with your survey projects or students you teach.

 

Buy Creating Surveys on AMAZON available in multiple countries








References

Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 420-432. doi:10.1037/a0019265 [See Table 8 on page 429 for the list of the 12 items.]

Muris, P.,  Merckelback, H., Otgaar, H. & Meijer, E. (2017). The Malevolent Side of Human Nature: A Meta-Analysis and Critical Review of the Literature on the Dark Triad (Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12 (2), 183-204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616666070

Webster, G. D., & Jonason, P. K. (2013). Putting the 'irt' in 'dirty': Item response theory analyses of the dark triad dirty dozen—an efficient measure of narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(2), 302-306. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.08.027


Related Posts



Learn more about test statistics for counselors and psychologists with the handy Applied Statistics book. Available on Amazon 





Connections

My Page    www.suttong.com

My Books  
 AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE

FACEBOOK  
 Geoff W. Sutton

TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

LinkedIN Geoffrey Sutton  PhD

Publications (many free downloads)
     
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)
     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)



Friday, September 28, 2018

The Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ)

The Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ) is available online and as a download. You can take the test online and get your scores. The MFQ is designed to measure the five core moral foundations derived from Moral Foundations Theory developed by Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues. (See references at the end of this post).


The MFQ evaluates moral foundations based on answers to questions. There are five moral foundations in the MFQ:

Care-Harm
Equality-Fairness; aka fairness/cheating
Loyalty-Betrayal
Authority-Respect; aka Authority/subversion
Purity-Sanctity aka Sanctity/degradation

I added the aka because you will find somewhat different words in some articles.

See this page for a description of the five core foundations https://www.moralfoundations.org/

Researchers can use the MFQ items to create their own surveys.

The current version (2018) is a 30-item version known as the MFQ30. There is also a shorter version known as the MFQ20, which has 20 items, 4-items for each of the 5 core moral foundations.

The MFQ is available in multiple languages.

Where to get the MFQ: https://www.moralfoundations.org/questionnaires

Haidt and his colleagues have added a sixth foundation to assess liberty. There are two subscales to this foundation.

Where to get the Liberty Scale Items: 

See the Appendix at the end of the Iyer et al., article on Plos

One: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042366#s5


My ad
Consider buying Creating Surveys to help with your projects.



Available on AMAZON in multiple countries


References

Graham, J., & Haidt, J. (2010). Beyond beliefs: Religions bind individuals into moral communities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 140–150. doi: 10.1177/1088868309353415
Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009).  Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029-1046. doi:10.1037/a0015141
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., & Haidt, J. (2012). The moral stereotypes of liberals and conservatives: Exaggeration of differences across the political spectrum. PLoS ONE7(12), e50092. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050092

Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366-385. doi:10.1037/a0021847
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834. doi:10.1037//0033-295x.108.4.814
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Pantheon.
Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007).  When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98-116. doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z
Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus: Special Issue on Human Nature133(4), 55–66. doi:10.1162/0011526042365555
Iyer, R., Koleva, S., Graham, J., Ditto, P., & Haidt, J. (2012). Understanding Libertarian morality: The psychological dispositions of self-identified Libertarians. Plos One, 7(8): e42366. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042366
Johnson, K. A., Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., Sandage, S. J., & Crabtree, S. A. (2016). Moral foundation priorities reflect U.S. Christians’ individual differences in religiosity. Personality and Individual Differences. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.037.


Wednesday, September 5, 2018

Four Types of Measurement



Behavioral scientists commonly refer to four types of measurement or scales. Understanding the types of measurement or scales is important because some numbers have limited applications and they are misused.


The four types of measurement scales are as follows: Nominal, Ordinal, Interval, and Ratio.


This information is taken from Chapter 5 of Applied Statistics: Concepts for Counselors





Nominal Scale

This is often called the naming scale. The numbers allow researchers to classify people as belonging in a group. The numbers cannot be added or ranked.

If we were studying treatment of people with depression we might form two groups simply numbers 1 and 2 for those getting treatment and those on a waiting list for treatment. All people in the study have a number but the number is just a classification.

Numbers on sports team players may represent positions.

Ordinal Scale

The ordinal scale is a ranking scale. Performance can be ranked in order of high to low. You can rate projects, products, and many other human characteristics. Sporting events include rating scales when judging an atheletes performance. For example, you could rate gymnastic performance on a scale from 1 to 10 or even 1 to 100.

Interval Scale

Interval scales are common in the behavioral sciences. Many test scores are interval scores. Scientists argue about the properties of the intervals but for general purposes, these scores are routinely used in education, counseling, psychology, social work, sociology, and other disciplines.

Scores on tests of intelligence, achievement, and personality are often interval scale scores. Test administrators can calculate an arithmetic average (M, Mean) and standard deviation (SD). It is possible to compare how individuals score on a test compared to the average for their group. It is also possible to determine if group averages are different from each other.

Caution is needed with test scores. For example, a person with an IQ of 50 is NOT half as intelligent as someone with an IQ of 100. It is not correct to compare scores on tests measured on an interval scale as if the scores represented a ratio. Again, a standard score of 130 on a reading test does not mean the person is twice as good at reading as a person who score a 65.


Ratio Scale

The ratio scale is like the interval scale but the numbers can have a true zero point and we can meaningful speak about ratios.

A person who weighs 200 pounds is twice as heavy as a person who weighs 100 pounds.

Measures of height and weight are examples of ratio scales.


Read more about statistics and basic projects in
Creating Surveys on AMAZON












Connections

My Page    www.suttong.com

My Books  
 AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE

FACEBOOK  
 Geoff W. Sutton

TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

LinkedIN Geoffrey Sutton  PhD

Publications (many free downloads)
     
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)
     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)








Tuesday, August 21, 2018

ADULT ATTACHMENT SCALE

The Adult Attachment Scale or AAS was developed by Professor Nancy Collins at UCSB. The scale was revised in 1996. Attachment theory developed from obsrvations and experiments with children and primates. Many have focused on two dimensions of anxiety and avoidance (or closeness). In the AAS, professor Collins includes a subscale to measure the dependability of a friend.




The full scale has 18 items rated on a 1-5 scale ranging from Not at all (1) to very (5) characteristic of me.

Following are sample items:


1)         I find it relatively easy to get close to people.                                                     ________
2)         I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on others.                                         ________
3)         I often worry that other people don't really love me.                                            ________



The coefficient alpha values range from .78 to .85 for the scales in three studies.

The full scale along with scoring guidelines and useful references are available for download from professor Collins at this link: https://labs.psych.ucsb.edu/collins/nancy/UCSB_Close_Relationships_Lab/Resources.html




Creating Surveys

Create better surveys for work and school



DOWNLOAD today AMAZON





References

Collins, N. L. (1996).  Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and behavior.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 810-832.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990).  Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 644-663.





RELATED POST

Attachment and Attachment Theory


Connections

My Page    www.suttong.com

My Books  
 AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE

FACEBOOK  
 Geoff W. Sutton

TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

LinkedIN Geoffrey Sutton  PhD

Publications (many free downloads)
     
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)
     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)




Friday, August 17, 2018

Attachment to God Inventory



The Attachment to God Inventory (AGI) developed by Richard Beck and Angie McDonald (2004) consists of 28 items divided into two subscales (14 items each for Avoidant and Anxious Attachment).


The scale is based on attachment theory as applied to the study of the relationship between Christians and God commonly portrayed as a parent-child relationship and referred to in the literature as attachment to God (e.g., Kirkpatrick, 2012). Avoidant attachment refers to a sense of distance from God. People close to God view God as protective. Anxious attachment reflects an insecure relationship with God in contrast to a secure relationship.


Participants rate each scale item from 1= disagree strongly to 7 = agree strongly. A sample item from the avoidant subscale is, “I prefer not to depend too much on God.” A sample item from the anxious subscale is, “I worry a lot about my relationship with God.”

Based on two college and one community samples, Beck and McDonald (2004) reported Cronbach alpha values for the subscales: Avoidant, α = .84 and α = .86 and Anxious α = .80 and α = .87.

The AGI in other research

Two studies: Anxious attachment alpha = .80, 92 Avoidant attachment alpha = .88, 89, Sutton et al. (2018).

Anxious attachment alpha = .87 Avoidant attachment alpha = .86, Sutton, Jordan, & Worthington (2014).

The 28 items of the AGI

The full set of 28 items can be found on page 103 of the Beck and McDonald 2004 article referenced below.

Buy Creating Surveys -- for better projects


 

 Available on AMAZON and GOOGLE

References

Beck, R., & McDonald, A. (2004). Attachment to God: The attachment to God inventory, tests of working model correspondence, and an exploration of faith group differences. Journal of Psychology and Theology32, 92–103. (See page 103 for the list of 28 items.)

Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2012). Attachment theory and the evolutionary psychology of religion. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion22(3), 231-241. doi:10.1080/10508619.2012.679556

Sutton, G. W., Jordan, K., & Worthington, E.L., Jr. (2014). Spirituality, hope, compassion, and forgiveness: Contributions of Pentecostal spirituality to godly love. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 33, 212-226. Academia Link     ResearchGate 



Sutton, G. W., McLeland, K. C., Weaks, K. Cogswell, P. E., & Miphouvieng, R. N. (2007). Does gender matter? An exploration of gender, spirituality, forgiveness and restoration following pastor transgressions. Pastoral Psychology. 55, 645-663. doi 10.1007/ s11089-007-0072-3 Online Link http://www.springerlink.com/content/ n11144j1655536l2/ Academia link Research Gate Link


Connections

My Page    www.suttong.com

My Books  
 AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE

FACEBOOK  
 Geoff W. Sutton

TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

LinkedIN Geoffrey Sutton  PhD

Publications (many free downloads)
     
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)
     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)



Tuesday, July 17, 2018

How to Measure Generosity

Giving on a large scale and in a socially responsible manner has been called philanthropy. For obvious reasons, people have studied philanthropy and philanthropists.





Generous givers fund large scale projects like hospitals and disease research. Some give to establish schools and museums. There are many ways wealthy people use their resources to benefit others.

Fortunately, generosity is not restricted to the super wealthy. Everyday people give their time and talents to benefit local charities or support an organization known for helping people in need throughout the world.

Philanthropy is often studied with gratitude and compassion.

The Philanthropy Scale is a 7-item Likert-type scale. Schuyt, Smit, and Bekkers developed the scale  and presented the results at a 2004 conference in Los Angeles, CA.

Each of the 7-items is rated as: 1 = disagree completely, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4 = Agree, 5 = agree completely.

Scoring: Reverse score the items 2,5, and 7 then add the scores.

Items 


1. We have to leave this world a better place for the next generation.

2. Each generation has to solve its own problems.

3. Society is in danger because people are less concerned about each
other nowadays.

4. The world needs responsible citizens.

5. The world community relies on international politics and
corporations, and that is a good thing.

6. I give money to charitable causes, no matter what the government
does.

7. Charity and public benefit should be supported by the government,
and not by citizens and business corporations.





Creating Surveys

Create better surveys for work and school



DOWNLOAD today AMAZON


Reference provided

Schuyt, T., Smit, J., Bekkers, R. (2004). Constructing a philanthropy scale: Social
responsibility and philanthropy. Paper presented at the 33d ARNOVAconference,
Los Angeles, November 2004.

Link to the scale and article abstracts: fetzer.org/sites/default/files/images/.../HELPING_OTHERS-PhilanthropyScale.pdf


Connections and Links to Resources

My Page    www.suttong.com

My Books   AMAZON

FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton

TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

LinkedIN Geoffrey Sutton  PhD

Publications (many free downloads)
     
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)
    


  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)


Thursday, May 31, 2018

How to Measure Compassion




Five survey items describing compassion.

A group of researchers in the Psychology Department of Santa Clara University identified five statements that reflect compassion. Of course, people may disagree with the idea that five sentences describe the concept, compassion. Nevertheless, the researchers did consider 21 statements and found that a set of five captures most of what people considered to be the essential components of compassion in a 2005 study by other researchers.

The short scale is known as the Santa Clara Brief Compassion Scale (SCBCS, Compassion Scale; Hwang, Plante, & Lackey, 2008). It was derived from the longer 21-item Compassionate Love Scale developed by Sprecher and Fehr (2005).

Although the scale has been used in Psychology of Religion research, the items do not limit users to compassion in a religious context.

Sample items

You can find the full scale at the Journal’s website. Following are two items from the scale.



Scoring

The Compassion Scale asks respondents to rate each item on a scale of 1 to 7, which yields a possible range of 5 to 35 points. In research with my colleagues Kayla Jordan and Ev Worthington (2014), we found Christians rated themselves at the high end with a mean of 28.69 (SD = 5.46). Measures of Skew (-1.10) and Kurtosis (1.26) were adequate for analyses but less than ideal.

Educators, researchers, and students may want to add a this brief compassion scale to their survey projects.



Creating Surveys

Create better surveys for work and school



DOWNLOAD today AMAZON


 Reliability

Internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) values were reported as .96 for the longer version and .90 for the new five-item short version. Using the test-retest method, the authors reported values of .80 and .83.
In our 2014 study, we found alpha = .89.

Validity

Validity statistics support the value of the Compassion Scale as a reasonable indicator of the construct and useful for various surveys and other research projects.
For example, in our table of correlations, the total score on the Compassion Scale was significantly positively correlated with, yet distinct from forgiveness (.25), hope (.18), and intrinsic religiosity (.26). See the table of 11 measures for additional correlations (page 218 of Sutton, Jordan, & Worthington, 2014).

Organizational and Clinical Practice

Although the scale has been used in research, the items may also be useful to help clinicians think about the level of compassion in their clients. The scale may also be useful to leaders in social organizations. As can be seen, the language of the scale does not limit its usage to strictly religious studies.


References
Hwang, J., Plante, T., & Lackey, K. (2008). The development of the Santa Clara Brief Compassion Scale: An abbreviation of Sprecher and Fehr's Compassionate Love Scale. Pastoral Psychology, 56, 421-428. doi:10.1007/s11089-008-0117-2
Sprecher, S., & Fehr, B. (2005). Compassionate love for close others and humanity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 629–651.
Sutton, G. W., Jordan, K., & Worthington, E.L., Jr. (2014). Spirituality, hope, compassion, and forgiveness: Contributions of Pentecostal spirituality to godly love. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 33, 212-226. Academia Link     ResearchGate 
Photo credit: Edge images free to use.
Related Posts
Connections and Links to Resources

My Page    www.suttong.com

My Books   AMAZON

FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton

TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

LinkedIN Geoffrey Sutton  PhD

Publications (many free downloads)
     
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)
    
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)




















Dark Triad Scale (Dirty Dozen)

The toxic triad is commonly known as the Dark Triad . The triad consists of three sets of personality traits representing features of...