Advertisement

Behaviormetrika

, Volume 44, Issue 2, pp 539–558 | Cite as

Question word-order influences on covariate effects: predicting zero-sum beliefs

  • Michael Smithson
  • Yiyun Shou
  • Alice Yu
Invited Paper

Abstract

Zero-sum-like statements have the form “The more of resource X for consumer A, the less of resource Y for consumer B” and these have four permutations, whereby {X, A} and {B, Y} exchange places, and/or “more” and “less” exchange places. Smithson and Shou (Front Psychol 7:984, 2016) found that these permutations strongly influence the endorsement of such statements. This paper reports two studies investigating personality traits as predictors of zero-sum endorsements, and whether their predictive performance is moderated by statement permutations. Social Dominance Orientation, Competitive World View, the Egocentricity subscale from the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale, and the Interpersonal subscale from the Hare Self-Report Psychopathy Scale are shown to be positively associated with zero-sum endorsement, whereas none of the Big-5 personality factors are. Only the Egocentricity subscale’s effect is moderated by statement permutations, so that for high scores on the subscale, zero-sum endorsement is boosted in such a way that the permutation effects disappear. The paper concludes with a discussion of the methodological implications of attitude statement permutation effects.

Keywords

Questionnaire design Word-order effect Zero-sum Measurement 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by Australian Research Council (Grant No. DP120101095).

References

  1. Bekkers R (2004) Stability, reliability and validity of social value orientation. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2274560
  2. Bobo L, Hutchings VL (1996) Perceptions of racial group competition: extending Blumer’s theory of group position to a multiracial social context. Am Sociol Rev 61:951–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bosson JK, Vandello JA, Michniewicz KS, Lenes JG (2012) American men’s and women’s beliefs about gender discrimination: for men, it’s not quite a zerosum game. Masc Soc Change 1(3):210–239. doi: 10.4471/MCS.2012.14 Google Scholar
  4. Brinkley CA, Diamond PM, Magaletta PR, Heigel CP (2008) Cross-validation of Levenson’s Psychopathy Scale in a sample of federal female inmates. Assessment 15(4):464–482. doi: 10.1177/1073191108319043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Dreu CK, Boles TL (1998) Share and share alike or winner take all?: The influence of social value orientation upon choice and recall of negotiation heuristics. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 76(3):253–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Esses VM, Dovidio JF, Jackson LM, Armstrong TL (2001) The immigration dilemma: the role of perceived group competition, ethnic prejudice, and national identity. J Soc Issues 57:389–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gries PH (2005) Social psychology and the identity-conflict debate: is a “China threat” inevitable? Eur J Int Relat 11:235–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hamilton EJ, Rathbun BC (2013) Scarce differences: toward a material and systemic foundation for offensive and defensive realism. Secur Stud 22(3):436–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hare RD (1991) The hare psychopathy checklist-revised (PCL-R). Multi-Health Syst, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  10. Hare RD, Harpur TJ, Hemphill JD (1989) Scoring pamphlet for the Self-Report Psychopathy scale: SRP-II. Unpublished manuscript, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  11. Ho AK, Sidanius J, Pratto F, Levin S, Thomsen L, Kteily N, Sheehy-Skeffington J (2012) Social dominance orientation: revisiting the structure and function of a variable predicting social and political attitudes. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 38:583–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. John OP, Donahue EM, Kentle RL (1991) The big five inventory—versions 4a and 54. University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  13. Kalgaard R (2006) World’s worst disease. Forbes Business Channel. http://www.forbes.com/global/2006/0109/035A.html
  14. Kehn A, Ruthig JC (2013) Perceptions of gender discrimination across six decades: the moderating roles of gender and age. Sex Roles 69:289–296. doi: 10.1007/s11199-013-0303-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lester WS, Salekin RT, Sellbom M (2012) The SRP-II as a rich source of data on the psychopathic personality. Psychol Assess 25(1):32–46. doi: 10.1037/a0029449 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Levenson MR, Kiehl KA, Fitzpatrick CM (1995) Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. J Personal Soc Psychol 68:151–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McCrae RR, John OP (1992) An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. J Personal 60(2):175–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meegan DV (2010) Zero-sum bias: perceived competition despite unlimited resources. Front Psychol Cognit 1:1–7Google Scholar
  19. Norton MI, Sommers SR (2011) Whites see racism as a zero-sum game that they are now losing. Perspect Psychol Sci 6:215–218. doi: 10.1177/1745691611406922 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Perry R, Sibley C, Duckitt J (2013) Dangerous and competitive worldviews: a meta-analysis of their associations with Social Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism. J Res Personal 47:116–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ross L, Stillinger C (1991) Barriers to conflict resolution. Negoti J 7(4):389–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Różycka-Tran J, Boski P, Wojciszke B (2015) Belief in a zero-sum game as a social axiom: a 37-nation study. J Cross Cult Psychol 46(4):525–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sellbom M, Lilienfeld SO, Fowler KA, McCrary KL (2017) The self-report assessment of psychopathy: challenges, pitfalls, and promises. In: Patrick CJ (ed) Handbook of psychopathy, 2nd edn. Guilford Press, New York (in press) Google Scholar
  24. Shou Y, Sellbom M, Han J (2016) Evaluating the construct validity of the levenson self-report psychopathy scale in China. Assessment. doi: 10.1177/1073191116637421 Google Scholar
  25. Smithson M, Shou Y (2016) Asymmetries in responses to attitude statements: the example of “zero-sum” beliefs. Front Psychol 7:984. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00984 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Smithson M, Sopeña A, Platow MJ (2015) When is group membership zero-sum? Effects of ethnicity, threat, and social identity on dual national identity. PLoS One 10(6):e0130539. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130539 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wiggins JS (ed) (1996) The five-factor model of personality: theoretical perspectives. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Wilkins CL, Wellman JD, Babbitt LG, Toosi NR, Schad KD (2015) You can win but I can’t lose: bias against high-status groups increases their zero-sum beliefs about discrimination. J Exp Soc Psychol 57:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wright R (2000) Nonzero: the logic of human destiny. Vintage Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Yee TW (2010) The VGAM package for categorical data analysis. J Stat Softw 32:1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yu A (2014) Zero sum thinking and individual differences. Unpublished honours thesis, Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  32. Zimprich D, Perren S, Hornung R (2005) A two-level confirmatory factor analysis of a modified Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Educ Psychol Meas 65(3):465–481MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Behaviormetric Society 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research School of PsychologyThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations