Matters arising from Gabay, R., Hameiri, B., Rubel-Lifschitz, R., & Nadler, A. (2020). The tendency for interpersonal victimhood: The personality construct and its consequences. Personality and Individual Differences, 165, 110134
Matters arising from Gabay, R., Hameiri, B., Rubel-Lifschitz, R., & Nadler, A. (2020). The tendency for interpersonal victimhood: The personality construct and its consequences. Personality and Individual Differences, 165, 110134
复制标题
Gabay, R 、Hameiri, B 、Rubel-Lifschitz, R 引起的问题，
DOI：
10.1016/j.paid.2020.110294
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
Gollwitzer
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gollwitzer
吵架谬误”,…使用两个独立的单词或表达来覆盖实际上相同的基本情况”（Kelley, 1927, p. 64），这一问题困扰了人格科学几十年。Gabay、Hameiri、Rubel-Lifschitz和Nadler（2020）提出的概念——人际受害倾向（TIV）——就是这种“摩擦”的典型例子。TIV的孪生兄弟（比他大30岁）已经接受了洗礼，对遭遇的不公正敏感（SBI; Schmitt, Neumann, & Montada, 1995）；后来，它被重新命名为受害者视角的正义敏感性（JS-Victim; Schmitt, Gollwitzer, Maes, & Arbach, 2005），绰号受害者敏感性（VS; Gollwitzer, Rothmund, & ssenbach, 2013）。通过比较Gabay等人的概念化（“人际受害倾向较高的人更经常、更强烈、持续时间更长……”；第1页）和定义正义敏感性的四个指标（即观察到不公正的频率、观察到不公正的情感强度和精神侵入性、恢复正义的动机；见Baumert & Schmitt， 2016）， TIV和VS之间的概念兄弟关系变得明显。通过比较22项的TIV量表和10项的VS量表（Schmitt, Baumert, Gollwitzer, & Maes, 2010），操作兄弟关系变得明显。因此，毫不奇怪，TIV和VS相关的一系列心理结构——宽恕意愿、同理心、报复倾向等——以及TIV/VS对反社会行为的潜在影响的心理机制——怀疑归因和合法化认知——在很大程度上是相同的（见Gollwitzer et al., 2013）。自25年前司法敏感性结构被引入文献以来，已经出现了30多篇同行评议的文章（有关评论，请参阅Baumert & Schmitt， 2016）。令人惊讶的是，这方面的研究被Gabay等人（2020）完全忽视了。要证实TIV不是“吵闹”案例的说法，需要进行更有说服力的概念和实证分析。
Jangle fallacies,“... the use of two separate words or expressions covering in fact the same basic situation”(Kelley, 1927, p. 64), have troubled personality science for decades. The construct introduced by Gabay, Hameiri, Rubel-Lifschitz, and Nadler (2020)—Tendency for Interpersonal Victimhood (TIV)—is a prime example for such “jangle”. TIV’s twin (yet 30 years older) brother had been baptized Sensitivity to Befallen Injustice (SBI; Schmitt, Neumann, & Montada, 1995); later, it was re-named to Justice Sensitivity from a Victim’s Perspective (JS-Victim; Schmitt, Gollwitzer, Maes, & Arbach, 2005) and nicknamed Victim Sensitivity (VS; Gollwitzer, Rothmund, & Süssenbach, 2013). The conceptual brotherhood between TIV and VS becomes apparent by comparing the conceptualization by Gabay et al.(“People who have a higher tendency for interpersonal victimhood feel victimized more often, more intensely, and for longer durations...”; p. 1) with the four indicators by which Justice Sensitivity is defined (ie, frequency of observed injustice, emotional intensity and mental intrusiveness of observed injustice, motivation to restore justice; see Baumert & Schmitt, 2016). The operational brotherhood becomes apparent by comparing the 22-item TIV scale with the 10-item VS scale (Schmitt, Baumert, Gollwitzer, & Maes, 2010). Thus, unsurprisingly, the array of psychological constructs that TIV and VS are related to—willingness to forgive, empathy, vengeful inclinations etc.—and the psychological mechanisms underlying effects of TIV/VS on antisocial behaviors—suspicious attributions and legitimizing cognitions—are largely identical (see Gollwitzer et al., 2013).Since the Justice Sensitivity construct has been introduced to the literature 25 years ago, more than 30 peer-reviewed articles have appeared (for a review, see Baumert & Schmitt, 2016). It is surprising that this line of research has been entirely neglected by Gabay et al.(2020). Corroborating the claim that TIV is not a “jangle” case requires a more convincing conceptual and empirical analysis.
DOI：
10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_301426
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences
影响因子：
--
作者：
通讯作者：
--
影响因子：
4.6
作者：
Gollwitzer, Mario;Rothmund, Tobias;Suessenbach, Philipp
通讯作者：
Suessenbach, Philipp
影响因子：
4.3
作者：
Gabay, Rahav;Hameiri, Boaz;Nadler, Arie
通讯作者：
Nadler, Arie