Reconsidering “Best Practices” for Testing the Ideal Standards Model: A Response to Eastwick, Finkel, and Simpson (2018)
Reconsidering “Best Practices” for Testing the Ideal Standards Model: A Response to Eastwick, Finkel, and Simpson (2018)
复制标题
重新考虑测试理想标准模型的“最佳实践”：对 Eastwick、Finkel 和 Simpson 的回应 (2018)
DOI：
10.1177/0146167220910323
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
L. Campbell
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
G. Fletcher;N. Overall;L. Campbell
Eastwick，Finkel和Simpson（2018）提出了“最佳实践”的建议，以测试对伴侣的感知与理想标准（理想伴侣匹配）匹配程度的个体差异的预测有效性。我们回应他们的文章，评估不同测试的优点和缺点，对现有数据进行新的分析，并得出与Eastwick等人不同的结论。我们（a）认为，伴侣属性的理想标准与相应的伴侣感知之间的相关性与理想标准模型（ISM）有关，（B）表明重要方法和统计问题使他们对先前研究的解释符合要求，（c）说明在准确性文献中使用的一种新的分析方法，用于测试（和控制）Eastwick等人强调的混淆，和（d）提供证据表明，理想伴侣匹配的直接估计测量是一种有效和有用的方法。最后，我们要对最佳做法的概念提出一点告诫。
Eastwick, Finkel, and Simpson (2018) advanced recommendations for “best practices” in testing the predictive validity of individual differences in the extent to which perceptions of partners match ideal standards (ideal-partner matching). We respond to their article evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of different tests, presenting new analyses of existing data, and setting out conclusions that differ from Eastwick et al. We (a) argue that correlations between ideal standards for attributes in partners and corresponding partner perceptions are relevant to the ideal standards model (ISM), (b) show that important methodological and statistical issues qualify their interpretations of prior research, (c) illustrate a new analytic approach used in the accuracy literature that tests (and controls for) confounds highlighted by Eastwick et al., and (d) provide evidence that the direct-estimation measure of ideal-partner matching is a valid and useful method. We conclude with a cautionary note on the concept of best practices.
影响因子：
22.4
作者：
MCCLELLAND, GH;JUDD, CM
通讯作者：
JUDD, CM