为什么自陈式测量和行为测量相关性较弱？
Why Are Self-Report and Behavioral Measures Weakly Correlated?
机构信息
Department of Neuroscience, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
出版信息
Trends Cogn Sci. 2020 Apr;24(4):267-269. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2020.01.007. Epub 2020 Feb 17.
Abstract
Accumulating evidence indicates weak correlations between self-report and behavioral measures of the same construct. We suggest that these weak correlations result from the poor reliability of many behavioral measures and the distinct response processes involved in the two measurement types. We also describe how researchers can benefit from appropriate use of these measures.
摘要
越来越多的证据表明，同一结构的自我报告和行为测量之间存在微弱的相关性。我们认为，这些微弱的相关性是由于许多行为测量的可靠性较差，以及两种测量类型所涉及的不同反应过程造成的。我们还描述了研究人员如何从这些测量方法的适当使用中受益。
相似文献
1
Why Are Self-Report and Behavioral Measures Weakly Correlated?为什么自陈式测量和行为测量相关性较弱？
Trends Cogn Sci. 2020 Apr;24(4):267-269. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2020.01.007. Epub 2020 Feb 17.
2
Extrinsic Convergent Validity Evidence to Prevent Jingle and Jangle Fallacies.外在聚合效度证据可预防叮当谬误和混杂谬误。
Multivariate Behav Res. 2021 Jan-Feb;56(1):3-19. doi: 10.1080/00273171.2019.1707061. Epub 2020 Jan 20.
3
The jingle-jangle of work-nonwork balance: A comprehensive and meta-analytic review of its meaning and measurement.工作与非工作平衡的叮当声：其意义和测量的综合和元分析综述。
J Appl Psychol. 2018 Feb;103(2):182-214. doi: 10.1037/apl0000259. Epub 2017 Oct 9.
4
Detecting jingle and jangle fallacies by identifying consistencies and variabilities in study specifications - a call for research.通过识别研究规范中的一致性和可变性来检测叮当声和刺耳声谬误——一项研究呼吁。
Front Psychol. 2024 Aug 30;15:1404060. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1404060. eCollection 2024.
5
Understanding Speech Amid the Jingle and Jangle: Recommendations for Improving Measurement Practices in Listening Effort Research.在叮当声和嘈杂声中理解言语：改善听力努力研究中测量方法的建议。
Audit Percept Cogn. 2020;3(4):169-188. doi: 10.1080/25742442.2021.1903293. Epub 2021 Mar 23.
6
The jingle and jangle of emotion assessment: Imprecise measurement, casual scale usage, and conceptual fuzziness in emotion research.情感评估的混乱与模糊：情感研究中测量不精确、量表使用随意及概念模糊
Emotion. 2017 Mar;17(2):267-295. doi: 10.1037/emo0000226. Epub 2016 Sep 19.
7
Methodological factors as a potential source of discordance between self-report and behavioral measures of impulsivity and related constructs.方法学因素是自我报告和行为测量冲动性及相关结构之间差异的潜在来源。
Addict Behav. 2018 Sep;84:126-130. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.04.005. Epub 2018 Apr 9.
8
Sibling Constructs: What Are They, Why Do They Matter, and How Should You Handle Them?兄弟姐妹关系：它们是什么，为什么重要，以及你应该如何处理它们？
Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2021 Nov;25(4):344-366. doi: 10.1177/10888683211047101. Epub 2021 Oct 18.
9
Empathy, an important but problematic concept.同理心，一个重要但有问题的概念。
J Soc Psychol. 2022 Jan 2;162(1):1-6. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2021.2004670. Epub 2022 Jan 3.
10
The push-off test: development of a simple, reliable test of upper extremity weight-bearing capability.推离试验：一种简单、可靠的上肢负重能力测试方法的开发。
J Hand Ther. 2014 Jul-Sep;27(3):185-90; quiz 191. doi: 10.1016/j.jht.2014.03.002. Epub 2014 Mar 12.
引用本文的文献
1
Development and validation of a new yearning induction task: a cross-cultural study of Chinese and Swiss bereaved.一种新的渴望诱导任务的开发与验证：中国和瑞士丧亲者的跨文化研究
Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2025 Dec;16(1):2545660. doi: 10.1080/20008066.2025.2545660. Epub 2025 Sep 3.
2
Exploring semantic and executive flexibility interplay in task switching.探索任务切换中语义和执行灵活性的相互作用。
Sci Rep. 2025 Aug 27;15(1):31609. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-09639-y.
3
Real-world effectiveness of a widely available digital health program in adults reporting a lifetime diagnosis of ADHD.一项广泛应用的数字健康项目在报告有终身多动症诊断的成年人中的真实世界有效性。
Npj Ment Health Res. 2025 Aug 22;4(1):38. doi: 10.1038/s44184-025-00157-3.
4
The efficacy of resting-state fMRI denoising pipelines for motion correction and behavioural prediction.静息态功能磁共振成像去噪管道在运动校正和行为预测方面的功效。
Imaging Neurosci (Camb). 2025 Aug 7;3. doi: 10.1162/IMAG.a.97. eCollection 2025.
5
Systematic review on the technology's role in supporting lung cancer patients in the treatment journey.关于该技术在肺癌患者治疗过程中支持作用的系统评价。
NPJ Digit Med. 2025 Aug 13;8(1):516. doi: 10.1038/s41746-025-01913-7.
6
Model-based exploration is measurable across tasks but not linked to personality and psychiatric assessments.基于模型的探索在各项任务中是可测量的，但与人格和精神评估无关。
Sci Rep. 2025 Jul 28;15(1):27479. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-09152-2.
7
Conflation between self-report and neurocognitive assessments of cognitive flexibility: a critical review of the Jingle Fallacy.认知灵活性的自我报告与神经认知评估之间的混淆：对叮当谬误的批判性综述。
Aust J Psychol. 2023 Feb 19;75(1):2174684. doi: 10.1080/00049530.2023.2174684. eCollection 2023.
8
Social aloofness is associated with non-social explore-exploit decisions.社交冷漠与非社交性的探索-利用决策有关。
Commun Psychol. 2025 Jul 15;3(1):106. doi: 10.1038/s44271-025-00278-7.
9
Interactions between anxiety and impulsive dimensions are differentially associated with experiential avoidance.焦虑与冲动维度之间的相互作用与经验性回避存在不同程度的关联。
J Mood Anxiety Disord. 2024 Mar 30;6:100067. doi: 10.1016/j.xjmad.2024.100067. eCollection 2024 Jun.
10
Links Between Emotion Word, Usage, Understanding, Accuracy, and Emotion Dysregulation: An Integrative Analysis.情绪词汇、使用、理解、准确性与情绪失调之间的联系：一项综合分析。
Affect Sci. 2024 Nov 14;6(2):224-235. doi: 10.1007/s42761-024-00284-8. eCollection 2025 Jun.
本文引用的文献
1
The Implicit Association Test: A Method in Search of a Construct.内隐联想测验：一种寻求构念的方法。
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2021 Mar;16(2):396-414. doi: 10.1177/1745691619863798. Epub 2019 Oct 24.
2
A decade of test-retest reliability of functional connectivity: A systematic review and meta-analysis.一项关于功能连接的测试-重测信度的十年研究：系统回顾和荟萃分析。
Neuroimage. 2019 Dec;203:116157. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116157. Epub 2019 Sep 5.
3
Uncovering the structure of self-regulation through data-driven ontology discovery.通过数据驱动的本体发现揭示自我调节的结构。
Nat Commun. 2019 May 24;10(1):2319. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-10301-1.
4
Are self-report cognitive empathy ratings valid proxies for cognitive empathy ability? Negligible meta-analytic relations with behavioral task performance.自我报告的认知同理心评分是否可以作为认知同理心能力的有效代理？与行为任务表现的元分析关系微不足道。
Psychol Assess. 2019 Aug;31(8):1062-1072. doi: 10.1037/pas0000732. Epub 2019 May 23.
5
Executive function and dietary intake in youth: A systematic review of the literature.青少年的执行功能与饮食摄入：文献系统综述。
Appetite. 2019 Aug 1;139:197-212. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.04.013. Epub 2019 Apr 20.
6
A psychometrics of individual differences in experimental tasks.实验任务中的个体差异的心理测量学。
Psychon Bull Rev. 2019 Apr;26(2):452-467. doi: 10.3758/s13423-018-1558-y.
7
The unity and diversity of executive functions: A systematic review and re-analysis of latent variable studies.执行功能的统一性和多样性：系统综述和潜在变量研究的再分析。
Psychol Bull. 2018 Nov;144(11):1147-1185. doi: 10.1037/bul0000160. Epub 2018 Aug 6.
8
Risk preference shares the psychometric structure of major psychological traits.风险偏好与主要心理特征具有心理计量学结构。
Sci Adv. 2017 Oct 4;3(10):e1701381. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1701381. eCollection 2017 Oct.
9
The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences.可靠性悖论：为何稳健的认知任务不能产生可靠的个体差异。
Behav Res Methods. 2018 Jun;50(3):1166-1186. doi: 10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1.
10
Does real time variability in inhibitory control drive snacking behavior? An intensive longitudinal study.抑制控制的实时变异性是否会驱动零食行为？一项密集纵向研究。
Health Psychol. 2017 Apr;36(4):356-364. doi: 10.1037/hea0000471. Epub 2017 Feb 13.
Zotero 插件