A comparison of data produced by different behavioral assessment techniques with implications for models of social-skills inadequacy∗

Nelson, Rosemery O.; Hayes, Steven C.; Felton, Jeffry L.; Jarrett, Robin B.

doi:10.1016/0005-7967(85)90137-8

Cited by 21 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Supporting the divergent validity of the Ideographic Role-Play test, overall ratings of assertiveness showed no significant relationship to a measure of social desirability (Kern, 1991). Contrary to the preceding findings, Nelson, Hayes, Felton, and Jarrett (1985) found no evidence for discriminative validity during a role-played structured dating situation with college students. They reported that college students classified as high and low in assertiveness based on observer ratings during the role-play did not differ on assertiveness ratings obtained from either clinical interview or self-report questionnaire.…”

Section: Other Aspects Of Validity Of Analogue Observation Methodscontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…Several instruction variations have been employed in role-play assessment, including “act as you normally do/would” and “act as you believe the most skilled person would act.” Others (e.g., Kern, 1982) have instructed clients to replicate previously videotaped waiting room interactions involving the client. Individuals adjust their behavior based on the instructions, with better performance being associated with high demand instructions to “act as you believe a very assertive person would act” versus low demand instructions to “act as you normally do” (Nelson et al, 1985; Nietzel & Bernstein, 1976). However, high demand instructions may not bring individuals with poor social skills into the normal range as Nelson and colleagues reported that low assertiveness participants did not achieve the same level of performance as demonstrated by highly assertive participants under either high or low demand conditions.…”

Section: Methodological Considerations In Using Analogue Assessments ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Analogue observational methods in the assessment of social functioning in adults.

Norton

Hope²

2001

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article provides a clinically oriented overview of analogue observational methods used in the assessment of problematic social functioning, specifically skill deficits and social anxiety. This article emphasizes role-play assessment methods, the predominant method used in clinical settings. An examination of the psychometric characteristics of analogue assessment methods is presented, followed by a review of procedural and structural considerations that may impact the quality of assessment data. Of special concern are the potential impacts of instructional variables, structured versus ideographic role-played situations, confederate characteristics and behavior, molar and molecular levels of assessment, self-ratings versus clinician ratings of functioning, and physical attractiveness. Finally, published and empirically evaluated analogue observation tests are critically reviewed with an emphasis on features that may impact their utility in clinical practice.

show abstract

Section: Other Aspects Of Validity Of Analogue Observation Methodscontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodological Considerations In Using Analogue Assessments ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Analogue observational methods in the assessment of social functioning in adults.

Norton

Hope²

2001

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consistent with the first hypothesis and much of the research comparing self and observer ratings of social anxiety and social performance (e.g., Hope, Heimberg, et al, 1995;Nelson et al, 1985;Rapee & Lim, 1992; but see Clark & Arkowitz, 1975), psychologically distressed participants in this study demonstrated a negative bias in their self-ratings, reporting their anxiety as higher and performance as poorer than did independent observers. This result, along with the previous research, may suggest that individuals experiencing psychological difficulties tend to perceive themselves more negatively than do others.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Kernels of truth or distorted perceptions: Self and observer ratings of social anxiety and performance

Norton

Hope

2001

Behavior Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared self and observer ratings of social performance and anxiety among individuals with social anxiety disorder, nonclinical controls, and participants with dysthymia serving as clinical controls. The purpose was to elucidate whether self-perceptions of individuals with social anxiety disorder reflect observable performance and anxiety differences, negative self-perceptions, or an interaction of the two. Participants engaged in three role-played interactions, and self and observer ratings of performance and anxiety were obtained. In general, self-ratings of anxiety and performance were more negative (greater anxiety and poorer performance) than were observer ratings. Interactions of rating source and diagnosis indicated the discrepancy between self and observer ratings of both anxiety and performance was significantly greater among participants with social anxiety disorder. Observers, however, generally noted differences across the groups in both anxiety and performance. The discrepancies between self and observer ratings of anxiety were related to negative evaluation fears and negative thought patterns, while performance discrepancies were related to negative thought patterns. Treatment implications are discussed. Previous research has suggested that impressions of one's own social interactions tend to differ considerably from how others view the interactions. For example, Nelson, Hayes, Felton, and Jarrett (1985) found that college students consistently underrated their social

show abstract

“…J. Miller, 1987L. C. Miller & Cox, 1982Minahan, 1971Minahan, 1971Mohr, 1932Mohr, 1932Mohr & Lund, 1933Mohr & Lund, 1933Moisan-Thomas, 1980Moisan-Thomas, Conger, Zellinger, & Firth, 1985Moisan-Thomas, 1986Moran & McCullers, 1984Murphy, Nelson, & Cheap, 1981 Murphy etal., 1981Murstein, Chalpin, Heard, & Vyse, 1989Murstein et al, 1989Murstein & Holden, 1979Murstein & Holden, 1979Nancy, 1982 Naficy, 1982Nelson, Hayes, Felton, & Jarrett, 1985Nelson et al, 1985 Nolesetal., 1985O'Grady, 1982O'Grady, 1982O'Grady, 1989O'Grady, 1989Padin, Lerner, & Spiro, 1981Parra, 1989Parra, 1989Paschall, 1973Paschall, 1973Pennington, 1973Pennington, 1973Perry, 1987Pilkonis, 1977a, 1977bPilkonis, 1977a, 1977bPittenger & Baskett, 1984Prisbell, 1982Prisbell, 1986Raskin & Terry, 1988Reis, Nezlek, & Wheeler, 1980Reis et al, 1980…”

Section: Table 3 (Continued)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Good-looking people are not what we think.

Feingold

1992

Psychological Bulletin

941

656

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Meta-analysis was used to examine findings in 2 related areas: experimental research on the physical attractiveness stereotype and correlational studies of characteristics associated with physical attractiveness. The experimental literature found that physically attractive people were perceived as more sociable, dominant, sexually warm, mentally healthy, intelligent, and socially skilled than physically unattractive people. Yet, the correlational literature indicated generally trivial relationships between physical attractiveness and measures of personality and mental ability, although good-looking people were less lonely, less socially anxious, more popular, more socially skilled, and more sexually experienced than unattractive people. Self-ratings of physical attractiveness were positively correlated with a wider range of attributes than was actual physical attractiveness.Do good-looking people differ from unattractive people and, if so, why? Now consider self-perceptions of physical attractiveness. Do people who view themselves as physically appealing different from their counterparts who hold modest opinions of their own physical appearance and, if so, why? This article examines and integrates theories and empirical findings from the physical attractiveness literature to address these interesting questions. Conceptualization and Measurement of AttractivenessWhat is physical attractiveness? Social scientists, like laymen, believe that beauty is denned by social consensus (Berscheid & Walster, 1974;Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986). Accordingly, researchers measure physical attractiveness by use of judges, with each judge asked to provide an independent rating of the physical attractiveness of each subject, a procedure strikingly similar to the notorious 1 -to-10 attractiveness-rating scale often used in the "real world" when people first observe strangers of the opposite sex. These assessments are then averaged over judges by subject to yield physical attractiveness ratings (e.g., Walster, . Since the mid-1960s, scores of studies have correlated such pooled physical attractiveness judgments (sometimes called objective physical attractiveness) with other characteristics, including personality traits, cognitive ability, popularity, social skills, and sexual experience I want to thank Ronald Mazzella for assistance in the preparation of data for meta-analysis, two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on a draft of this article, and the following researchers for providing me with unpublished findings for this review:

show abstract

A comparison of data produced by different behavioral assessment techniques with implications for models of social-skills inadequacy∗

Cited by 21 publications

References 23 publications

Analogue observational methods in the assessment of social functioning in adults.

Analogue observational methods in the assessment of social functioning in adults.

Kernels of truth or distorted perceptions: Self and observer ratings of social anxiety and performance

Good-looking people are not what we think.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About