American Psychological Association · Web viewMacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., & Fetter, R....

Running Head: SUBJECTIVE OUTCOME INTERDEPENDENCE

Supplemental Materials

How Do People Think About Interdependence? A Multidimensional Model of Subjective

Outcome Interdependence

by F. H. Gerpott et al., 2017, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000166

SUBJECTIVE OUTCOME INTERDEPENDENCE 2

Table of Contents

Item generation and content validation 3

Table 1. Expert rating (N = 10) of the initial item pool (108 items) 6

Table 2. Second expert rating (N = 11) for the Situational Interdependence Scale (30 items)

12

Table 3. SIS items and their corresponding factor loadings across Studies 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7

14

Table 4. Latent factor correlations of the dimensions of interdependence

16

Table 5. Studies included in the Meta-Analysis of the HEXACO and the SIS

18

Table 6. Cronbach Alpha Values for the HEXACO instrument

19

Developing a short 10 item SIS

20

Table 7. Dutch version of the SIS and item parameters for selection of the short SIS-items

21


Table 8. Study 6: Fit measures for the multistate-doubletrait models

23

Table 9. Correlations between the SIS and DIAMONDS dimensions (Study 7)

24


Item Generation and Content Validation

Procedure

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).


Results

We 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.

References

Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale

development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309-319. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309


DeVellis, 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/a0012743

Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations.

Journal of Management, 21, 967–988. doi:10.1177/014920639502100509

Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey

questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104–121.

doi:10.1177/109442819800100106

MacKenzie, 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-T

Michel, 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:10.1080/00223891.2013.832260


Table 1.

Expert rating (N = 10) of the initial item pool (108 items).

Expert ratings (N = 10)

Dimension Item M.D. Con. Coor. Pow. F.I. I.C.

Mutual Dependence High

Both of us are dependent on each other to achieve what we want. 10Each person's outcomes are influenced by the other’s action. 8 2What each of us does in this situation affects the other. 8 2How we behave in this situation affects each person’s satisfaction. 7 3We both need the other to get what we prefer from this situation. 7 1 2We both influence each other’s outcomes. 7 3Each person’s outcomes depend on the behavior of the other. 10Each person’s behavior influences the other. 8 1 1What we get from this situation depends on the other’s actions for both of us. 5 3 2What each of us does has little consequences for the other achieving their desired outcomes. 6 1 2 1

Mutual Dependence Low

Each person’s actions only affect their own outcomes, and not the other’s outcomes. 8 1 1We are completely independent from the other in this situation. 10Each person is responsible for their outcomes, with little or no consequence on the other. 8 2Whatever we both do, it does not influence the other’s outcomes. 8 2We both don’t really need the other to achieve what we want. 8 2We can both achieve what we want without depending on the other. 9 1Our outcomes are independent of the behavior of the other. 10We both determine our own outcomes, with no consequence for the other’s outcomes. 7 3


PowerHigh

The other is more dependent on me than I am dependent on him/her. 1 9

My influence on what happens in this situation is greater than the influence of the other. 2 2 6

The other’s satisfaction is more determined by my actions than my satisfaction is determined by the other’s actions. 1 2 7

I have the power to determine my own and the other’s outcomes, while the other has no power. 10

I have the most control in determining what happens in this situation, while the other has very little control. 1 1 8

The outcomes of this situation are more controlled by my behavior than by the other’s behavior. 1 1 8

I can have a greater influence on the other’s satisfaction than the other has on my satisfaction. 1 9

I possess more influence on the other’s outcomes than the other possesses on my outcomes. 1 9

I can completely determine the other’s outcomes in this situation. 2 7 1

PowerLow

I 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. 10

I depend more on the other than the other depends on me. 1 9

The other affects my outcomes but I do not affect the other’s outcome. 1 9

The other’s influence on my outcomes is greater than my influence on the other’s outcomes. 1 9

The other affects my satisfaction to a greater extent than I affect the other’s satisfaction. 2 8

I need the other more than the other needs me to achieve desirable outcomes. 1 9

My outcomes are influenced by the other but I cannot influence what the other gets. 1 9

The other can determine if I get what I want, but I cannot influence what the other gets. 1 1 8


ConflictHigh

If the other gets what he/she wants, then I cannot get what I want. 1 8 1

My interests are conflicting with the other’s interests in this situation. 1 8 1

I would need to make a large compromise to do something that satisfies the other. 8 1 1

If I get what I want, then the other cannot get what he/she wants. 1 8 1

The other prefers different outcomes than I do in this situation. 9 1

In this situation there is a winner and a loser. 9 1

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. 1 8 1

ConflictLow

When the other does what is best for him/her, the other also does what is best for me. 1 8 1

We can both get what we want in this situation. 6 4

This is a win-win situation. 2 7 1

If both of us do what is best for us, we both get what we want. 1 7 2

Both of us can achieve our most desired outcome in this situation. 1 8 1

We can both obtain our preferred outcomes. 8 2

When I do what is best for me, this is also beneficial for the other. 9 1

What satisfies me also satisfies the other. 10

Our interests are completely aligned. 10

CoordinationHigh

We need to coordinate to both get our preferred outcomes. 9 1

How I behave affects what the other has to do to achieve satisfying outcomes. 2 1 7

If one of us fails to coordinate, it will have negative consequences for both of us. 1 1 8


Both my and the other’s outcomes depend on how we act together. 4 6

Without coordinating our actions, it is impossible to achieve the best outcomes. 1 1 7 1

It is necessary to coordinate in this situation to get desirable outcomes. 2 8

How the other behaves influences what I have to do to achieve good outcomes. 2 7 1

What I do affects what the other needs to do, and the other’s behavior affects what I need to do. 4 2 4

Each person’s outcomes rest on coordination with the partner’s actions. 1 9

CoordinationLow

Each person achieves their most desired outcome by depending on the other’s behavior. 2 3 4 1

The other’s behavior determines my satisfaction, and there is nothing I can do about it. 5 5

The other cannot change the effect my behavior has on him/her. 1 6 3

My behavior cannot influence how the other’s behavior affects my outcomes. 4 2 4

My choice between satisfying the other or not does not affect my own outcomes. 3 1 3 3

I can influence the other’s satisfaction without any consequences to me. 2 3 5

There is nothing I can do to influence how the other’s actions affect me. 1 3 6

The other can benefit or hurt me without consequences for his/her own outcomes. 1 4 5

What each person gets is completely determined by the other. 5 2 2

FutureInterdepen-dence High

How I behave in this situation influences how the other behaves towards me in the future. 10

We both expect to interact with each other again. 10

This situation leads to many other opportunities for interaction with the other. 10

Whatever happens in this situation will affect future interactions I have with the other. 10

The other expects to interact with me in the future. 10

We will interact in the future. 10


I can count on a lot of future opportunities to interact with the other. 10

How we act in this situation influences our future interactions. 1 9

I do not expect to meet the other again. 10

Future Interdepen-dence Low

We both believe that it is unlikely that we will ever interact again. 10

How we behave now will have consequences for future outcomes. 10

The outcome of this situation does not affect my future interactions with the other. 10

I don’t think this interaction will be followed by any future interactions. 10

How each of us behaves will not influence our behaviors in future interactions. 10

This situation will not be followed by future interactions with the other. 10

It is unlikely that an interaction with the other will ever occur again. 10

This situation will not affect my future relationship with the other. 10

My behavior does not influence the possibility of future interactions with the other. 9 1

Information CertaintyHigh

I know which behavior the other prefers in this situation. 10

I know which consequences my behavior has for the other. 2 1 7

I understand the other’s preferred outcomes. 1 9

The other knows how his/her behavior affects me. 1 9

We both know each person’s preferences in this situation. 1 9

Each person is informed about the other’s preferred outcomes. 10

The other is aware of my preferred outcomes. 1 9

We both know what the other wants. 10

We both know how our behavior affects each other’s outcomes. 1 1 8


Information 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. 1 9

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. 10

Notes. 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)

Dimension Item M.D. Con. Pow. F.I. I.C.

Mutual Dependence

Each person’s outcomes depend on the behavior of the other. 10 1

We need each other to get our best outcome in this situation. 10 1

What each of us does in this situation affects the other. 11

Each person's outcomes are not influenced by what the other does.(r) 11

Whatever each of us does in this situation, our actions will not affect the other's outcomes.(r) 11

Each person’s actions only affect their own outcomes, and not the other’s outcomes.(r) 9 1 1

Power

Who has the most impact on what happens in this situation? 1 10

Who do you feel had more power to determine their own outcome in this situation? 11

Who do you feel was most in control of what happens in the situation? 11

Who has the least control to determine their own outcomes in this situation?(r) 2 9

Who has the least amount of influence on the outcomes of this situation?(r) 1 10

Who do you feel had the weakest influence on the outcomes of this situation?(r) 10 1Conflict The other prefers different outcomes than I do in this situation. 11

Our preferred outcomes in this situation are conflicting. 11

It is difficult to make us both happy with the outcomes of this situation. 11

Both of us can achieve our most desired outcomes in this situation.(r) 1 10


We can both obtain our preferred outcomes.(r) 1 10

What satisfies me also satisfies the other.(r) 11

Future Interdepen-dence

My behavior in this situation affects how the other will behave in future situations. 11

How we behave now will have consequences for future outcomes. 11

Whatever happens in this situation will affect future interactions I have with the other. 11

Our future interactions are not affected by the outcomes of this situation.(r) 11

Our interaction has no effect on future behavior in interactions with each other.(r) 11

The outcome of this situation does not affect my future interactions with the other.(r) 11Information Certainty

We both know how our behavior affects each other’s outcomes. 2 9

Each person is informed about the other’s preferred outcomes. 11

We both know what the other wants. 11

We both lack knowledge about what the other wants. 11

I don’t think the other knows what I want. 11

The other does not understand how his/her actions affect me. 1 1 9

Notes. 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 loadingDimension Item 2 3 4 6W1 6W2 7

Mutual Dependence

Each 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 .14

Power

Who 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 .92

Conflict

The 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 .73

Future

My 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 .80


Interdependence Our 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 .72

Information Certainty

We 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 .29

Notes. N2 = 514, N3 = 192, N4 = 177, N6W1 = 330, N6W2 = 330, N7 = 280.


Table 4.

Latent factor correlations of the dimensions of interdependence.

Study 1d Study 2

M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5

1. Mutual Dependence 3.38 (0.90) (.85) 3.66 (0.95) (.82)

2. Power 3.26 (0.81) .00 (.87) 2.99 (0.70) -.10* (.91)

3. Conflict 2.09 (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 Certainty 3.78 (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 4 Study 6W1

M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5


2. Power 3.18 (1.08) .06 (.92) 3.07 (0.63) -.07 (.86)

3. Conflict 2.83 (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 Certainty 3.38 (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 6W2 Study 7

M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5


2. Power 3.06 (0.63) .04 (.87) 3.72 (1.04) -.26* (.96)

3. Conflict 2.42 (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 Certainty 3.62 (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 5

Studies included in the Meta-Analysis of the relation between the HEXACO and the SIS.

SIS Study 2a (N=514)1 Study 3 (N=192)1 Study 4 (N=177)2 Study 7 (N=280)2

H E X A C O H E X A C O H E X A C O H E X A C OMutual 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 -.02

SISAdditional Study (N=603)2

H E X A C OMutual 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* .08

Notes. 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)1

Study 3 (N=192)1

Study 4 (N=177)2

Study 7 (N=280)2

Additional Study (N=603)2

Honesty .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 .81

Notes. 1) HEXACO 104-item version. 2) HEXACO 60-item version.


Developing a Short 10 item SIS

Procedure

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).

References

Eid, 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.

Reliability Consis-tency Specificity

Dimension Item W1 W2 W1 W2 W1 W2

Mutual Dependence

De 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 beïnvloed 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 beïnvloeden.(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 .466

Power

Wie 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 .417

Conflict

De 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 .287


Future Interdepen-dence

Mijn gedrag in deze situatie beïnvloedt 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 beïnvloed 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 .626

Information Certainty

Wij weten allebei hoe ons gedrag elkaars uitkomsten beïnvloedt. .191 .335 .093 .312 .198 .022Iedere persoon is geïnformeerd 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 beïnvloeden.(r) .633 .477 .528 .164 .105 .313

Notes. 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.

X² (Satorra-Bentler) Scaled Indices RMSEA

Dimension AIC BIC X² df p CFI TLI RMSEA 95% CI SRMR

Mutual Dependence1 9611.295 9797.45 52.577 41 0.106 0.990 0.984 0.029 .000-.048 0.044

Power1 9597.974

9784.129 76.023 41 0.001 0.982 0.971 0.051 .035-.067 0.070

Conflict1 9386.277

9572.433 72.307 41 0.002 0.985 0.975 0.048 .031-.064 0.057

Future Dependence2 9643.737

9829.893 64.145 41 0.012 0.975 0.960 0.041 .024-.057 0.053

Information Certainty1 - - 53.838 41 0.086 0.991 0.985 0.031 .000-.065 0.033

Notes. 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).

Dimension M (SD) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)

1. SIS: Mutual Dependence 3.98 (0.74) (.69)

2. SIS: Power 3.72 (1.04) -.26* (.96)

3. SIS: Conflict 2.96 (0.97) -.23* .25* (.86)

4. SIS: Future Interdependence 2.81 (1.00) .20* -.27* -.33* (.84)

5. SIS: Information Certainty 3.23 (0.92) .30* -.21* -.28* .09 (.79)

6. DIAMONDS: Duty 5.00 (1.36) .19* .00 -.01 .22* .08

7. DIAMONDS: Intellect 4.16 (1.62) .21* -.14* -.21* .29* .10 .52*

8. DIAMONDS: Adversity 1.79 (1.19) -.29* -.20 .02 .12 -.00 .03 .24*

9. DIAMONDS: Mating 1.50 (1.08) -.44* -.21* -.02 .09 -.04 -.07 .18 .72*

10. DIAMONDS: pOsitivity 3.49 (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: Deception 4.32 (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.

Date post:	07-Aug-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

American Psychological Association · Web viewMacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., & Fetter, R....

Documents