Response surface analysis (RSA) enables researchers to test complex psychological effects, for example, whether the congruence of two psychological constructs is associated with higher values in an outcome variable. RSA is increasingly applied in the personality and social psychological literature, but the validity of published results has been challenged by some persistent oversimplifications and misconceptions. Here, we describe the mathematical fundamentals required to interpret RSA results, and we provide a checklist for correctly identifying congruence effects. We clarify two prominent fallacies by showing that the test of a single RSA parameter cannot indicate a congruence effect, and when there is a congruence effect, RSA cannot indicate whether a predictor mismatch in one direction (e.g., overestimation of one’s intelligence) is better or worse than a mismatch in the other direction (underestimation). We hope that this contribution will further enhance the validity and strength of empirical studies that apply this powerful approach.
Dyadic similarity effect hypotheses state that the (dis)similarity between dyad members (e.g. the similarity on a personality dimension) is related to a dyadic outcome variable (e.g. the relationship satisfaction of both partners). Typically, these hypotheses have been investigated by using difference scores or other profile similarity indices as predictors of the outcome variables. These approaches, however, have been vigorously criticized for their conceptual and statistical shortcomings. Here, we introduce a statistical method that is based on polynomial regression and addresses most of these shortcomings: dyadic response surface analysis. This model is tailored for similarity effect hypotheses and fully accounts for the dyadic nature of relationship data. Furthermore, we provide a tutorial with an illustrative example and reproducible R and Mplus scripts that should assist substantive researchers in precisely formulating, testing, and interpreting their dyadic similarity effect hypotheses. © 2018 European Association of Personality Psychology
Response surface analysis (RSA) is a statistical approach that enables researchers to test congruence hypotheses; the proposition that the degree of congruence between people’s values in 2 psychological constructs should be positively or negatively related to their value in an outcome variable. This is done by estimating a polynomial regression model and using the graph of the model and several parameters as a guide to interpret the resulting regression coefficients in terms of the congruence hypothesis. One problem with using RSA in applied research is that the model and the interpretation of the model’s parameters in terms of congruence effects have only been thoroughly developed for single-level data. Here, we present an extension of RSA to multilevel data. Among other things we show how the standard errors can be computed and how researchers can decide whether the occurrence of a congruence effect depends on a Level 2 covariate. We illustrate the suggested extension with 2 examples that guide readers through the test of congruence effects in the case of multilevel data. We also provide R scripts that researchers can adopt to conduct multilevel RSA.
Despite a large body of literature and ongoing refinements of analytical techniques, research on the consequences of self-enhancement (SE) is still vague about how to define SE effects, and empirical results are inconsistent. In this paper, we point out that part of this confusion is due to a lack of conceptual and methodological differentiation between effects of individual differences in how much people enhance themselves (SE) and in how positively they view themselves (positivity of self-view; PSV). We show that methods commonly used to analyze SE effects are biased because they cannot differentiate between the effects of PSV and the effects of SE. We provide a new condition-based regression analysis (CRA) that unequivocally identifies effects of SE by testing intuitive and mathematically derived conditions on the coefficients in a bivariate linear regression. Using data from 3 studies on intellectual SE (total N = 566), we then illustrate that the CRA provides novel results as compared with traditional methods. Results suggest that many previously identified SE effects are in fact effects of PSV alone. The new CRA approach thus provides a clear and unbiased understanding of the consequences of SE. It can be applied to all conceptualizations of SE and, more generally, to every context in which the effects of the discrepancy between 2 variables on a third variable are examined. (PsycINFO Database Record
Empirical research on the (mal-)adaptiveness of favorable self-perceptions, self-enhancement, and self-knowledge has typically applied a classical null-hypothesis testing approach and provided mixed and even contradictory findings. Using data from 5 studies (laboratory and field, total N = 2,823), we used an information-theoretic approach combined with Response Surface Analysis to provide the first competitive test of 6 popular hypotheses: that more favorable self-perceptions are adaptive versus maladaptive (Hypotheses 1 and 2: Positivity of self-view hypotheses), that higher levels of self-enhancement (i.e., a higher discrepancy of self-viewed and objectively assessed ability) are adaptive versus maladaptive (Hypotheses 3 and 4: Self-enhancement hypotheses), that accurate self-perceptions are adaptive (Hypothesis 5: Self-knowledge hypothesis), and that a slight degree of self-enhancement is adaptive (Hypothesis 6: Optimal margin hypothesis). We considered self-perceptions and objective ability measures in two content domains (reasoning ability, vocabulary knowledge) and investigated 6 indicators of intra- and interpersonal psychological adjustment. Results showed that most adjustment indicators were best predicted by the positivity of self-perceptions. There were some specific self-enhancement effects, and evidence generally spoke against the self-knowledge and optimal margin hypotheses. Our results highlight the need for comprehensive and simultaneous tests of competing hypotheses. Implications for the understanding of underlying processes are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.