Advertisement

Validation and Intermediate Discussion

  • Patrick EhrenbrinkEmail author
Chapter
Part of the T-Labs Series in Telecommunication Services book series (TLABS)

Abstract

After development of the Reactance Scale for Human–Computer Interaction (RSHCI) was finished, its validity in terms of whether it really measures state reactance and perceived freedom threat was investigated. To this end, a number of criteria to assess criterion validity and inner criterion validity was formulated. Validation was performed on the basis of data collected in the online study that was also used to select the items which were suitable for the questionnaire. Also, a small laboratory experiment was conducted, in which participants interacted with intelligent personal assistants. The gathered data was used to correlate the state reactance dimensions of the RSHCI with another, established state reactance metric and a trait reactance metric. The results show that the state reactance part of the RSHCI correlates highly with the state reactance measurement of the established method. Therefore, inner criterion validity can be assumed. Also, the results regarding freedom threat indicate that the freedom threat dimension of the RSHCI really measures the level of perceived freedom threat.

References

  1. 1.
    Apple Inc.: Siri (2011). Retrieved December 23, 2016 from http://www.apple.com/ios/siri/
  2. 2.
    Dillard, J.P., Shen, L.: On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Commun. Monogr. 72(2), 144–168 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750500111815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ehrenbrink, P., Osman, S., Möller, S.: Google Now is for the Extraverted, Cortana for the introverted: Investigating the influence of personality on IPA preference. In: Proceedings of the 29th Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 1–9. ACM, New York, NY (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3152771.3152799. Electronic, online
  4. 4.
    Google Inc.: Google now (2012). Retrieved December 23, 2016 from https://www.google.com/landing/now/
  5. 5.
    Hong, S.M., Faedda, S.: Refinement of the hong psychological reactance scale. Educ. Psychol. Measurement 56(1), 173–182 (1996).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164496056001014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hong, S.M., Page, S.: A psychological reactance scale: Development, factor structure and reliability. Psychol. Reports 64(3\(\_\)suppl), 1323–1326 (1989).  https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1989.64.3c.1323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hong, S.M.: Hong’s psychological reactance scale: a further factor analytic validation. Psychol. Reports 70(2), 512–514 (1992).  https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1992.70.2.512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Microsoft: Cortana (2014). Retrieved December 23, 2016 from https://www.microsoft.com/windows/cortana/
  9. 9.
    Sedlmeier, P., Renkewitz, F.: Forschungsmethoden und Statistik in der Psychologie. Pearson Studium (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yost, A.B., Behrend, T.S., Howardson, G., Badger Darrow, J., Jensen, J.M.: Reactance to electronic surveillance: a test of antecedents and outcomes. J. Bus. Psychol. (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9532-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Werder (Havel)Germany

Personalised recommendations