Direct versus indirect measures of mixed emotions in predictive models: a comparison of predictive validity, multicollinearity, and the influence of confounding variables

Author:

Oh Vincent Y. S.

Abstract

Mixed emotions have been assessed using both direct measures that utilize self-report questionnaires as well as indirect measures that are computed from scores of positive and negative emotions. This study provides a pre-registered methodological examination on the use of direct and indirect measures of mixed emotions in predictive models. Two samples (N = 749) were collected, and path analyses were performed to compare direct measures and indirect measures in predicting psychological conflict, receptivity, and well-being, controlling for demographics, positive emotions, and negative emotions. We also tested whether trait dialecticism, need for cognition, social desirability, or acquiescence could account for these associations. In both samples, results suggest that indirect measures may be more susceptible to multicollinearity when controlling for positive and negative emotions. Specifically, variance inflation factors (VIF) were consistently higher for indirect measures calculated using the minimum index (MIN; VIFSample-1 = 3.53; VIFSample-2 = 9.46) than direct measures (VIFSample-1 = 2.52; VIFSample-2 = 1.68). Direct measures remained consistently associated with increased conflict and reduced coherence upon controlling for positive and negative emotions, while indirect measures remained consistently associated only with increased conflict. We found little evidence that response biases explained associations between direct measures or indirect measures with each of the outcomes. Specifically, associations between mixed emotions with psychological conflict, receptivity, and well-being largely remained unchanged in models that controlled for trait dialecticism, need for cognition, social desirability, or acquiescence. Implications and recommendations based on our findings are discussed.

Publisher

Frontiers Media SA

Subject

General Psychology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3