J Pers Soc Psychol. 2022 Nov;123(5):1003. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000442.
Reports an error in "Between-person methods provide limited insight about within-person belief systems" by Mark J. Brandt and G. Scott Morgan (, 2022[Sep], Vol 123[3], 621-635). In the article (https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000404), the third sentence in the second paragraph of the Participants and Procedure section should appear instead as follows: Over this period, participants complete two surveys per month (12 waves in total). Each survey is open for approximately 2 weeks. Participants can complete the survey at any point during the 2 week period. The online version of this article has been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2022-19898-001.) Belief systems are individual-level phenomena that describe the interrelationships of the political attitudes of a person. However, the modal study of the structure of political ideologies and beliefs uses cross-sectional survey data to estimate what is central to the belief system or the dimensionality of the belief system, aggregating across many people. Cross-sectional data, however, are ill-suited to the task of studying individual-level phenomena because they contain an unobservable mixture of within-person and between-person variation. In this project, we use longitudinal datasets from the Netherlands (representative) and the United States (convenience), spanning between 6 months and 10 years, to we ask whether between-subjects methods can help us understand the within-person structure of belief systems. First, we use Bayesian STARTS models (Lüdtke et al., 2018) to assess what type of variance cross-sectional studies are likely tapping into. We find that variability in measures of ideology and political beliefs is primarily due to stable between-person differences, with relatively smaller amounts of variation due to within-person differences. Second, we estimate between-person, within-person, and cross-sectional correlations between all items in our study and find that between-person correlations are larger and in some cases differ in their direction from within-person correlations. Furthermore, cross-sectional correlations are most similar to between-person correlations. Taken together, these findings indicate that the modal study may help describe differences between people, but is ill-suited to tell us about the structure of individuals' belief systems. New methods are necessary for a complete understanding of political belief systems that clarify both between- and within-person processes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
马克·J·布兰特和G·斯科特·摩根所著的《个体间方法对个体内信念系统的洞察有限》（《人格与社会心理学杂志》，2022年9月，第123卷第3期，621 - 635页）。在该文章（https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000404）中，“参与者与程序”部分第二段的第三句话应改为：在此期间，参与者每月完成两次调查（共12轮）。每次调查持续约2周。参与者可在这两周内的任何时间完成调查。本文的网络版已作更正。（原始文章的摘要如下，记录于2022 - 19898 - 001）信念系统是描述个体政治态度相互关系的个体层面现象。然而，对政治意识形态和信念结构的典型研究使用横断面调查数据来估计信念系统的核心内容或信念系统的维度，是对许多人的数据进行汇总。然而，横断面数据并不适合用于研究个体层面现象，因为它们包含了个体内和个体间变异的不可观测混合。在本项目中，我们使用来自荷兰（具有代表性）和美国（便利样本）的纵向数据集，时间跨度为6个月至10年，以探讨个体间方法是否能帮助我们理解信念系统的个体内结构。首先，我们使用贝叶斯STARTS模型（吕德克等人，2018年）来评估横断面研究可能涉及的方差类型。我们发现，意识形态和政治信念测量中的变异性主要源于稳定的个体间差异，个体内差异导致的变异相对较小。其次，我们估计了研究中所有项目之间的个体间、个体内和横断面相关性，发现个体间相关性更大，且在某些情况下其方向与个体内相关性不同。此外，横断面相关性与个体间相关性最为相似。综合来看，这些发现表明，典型研究可能有助于描述个体之间的差异，但并不适合告诉我们个体信念系统的结构。要全面理解政治信念系统，阐明个体间和个体内过程，需要新的方法。（《心理学文摘数据库记录》（c）2022美国心理学会，保留所有权利）
