Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Wissenschaftlicher Artikel (3) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Ambivalence (1)
- Change (1)
- Continuity (1)
- Dissonance (1)
- Intelligence profiles (1)
- Intelligenztest (1)
- Meat Consumption (1)
- Meat Paradox (1)
- Reliabilität (1)
- Stability (1)
Institut
- Psychologie (2)
- Fachbereich 1 (1)
People are increasingly concerned about how meat affects the environment, human health, and animal welfare, yet eating and enjoying meat remains a norm. Unsurprisingly, many people are ambivalent about meat—evaluating it as both positive and negative. Here, we propose that meat-related conflict is multidimensional and depends on people’s dietary group: Omnivores’ felt ambivalence relates to multiple negative associations that oppose a predominantly positive attitude towards meat, and veg*ans’ ambivalence relates to various positive associations that oppose a predominantly negative attitude. A qualitative study (N = 235; German) revealed that omnivores and veg*ans experience meat-related ambivalence due to associations with animals, sociability, sustainability, health, and sensory experiences. To quantify felt ambivalence in these domains, we developed the Meat Ambivalence Questionnaire (MAQ). We validated the MAQ in four pre-registered studies using self-report and behavioral data (N = 3,485; German, UK, representative US). Both omnivores and veg*ans reported meat-related ambivalence, but with differences across domains and their consequences for meat consumption. Specifically, ambivalence was associated with less meat consumption in omnivores (especially sensory-/animal-based ambivalence) and more meat consumption in veg*ans (especially sensory-/socially-based ambivalence). Network analyses shed further light on the nomological net of the MAQ while controlling for a comprehensive set of determinants of meat consumption. By introducing the MAQ, we hope to provide researchers with a tool to better understand how ambivalence accompanies behavior change and maintenance.
The temporal stability of psychological test scores is one prerequisite for their practical usability. This is especially true for intelligence test scores. In educational contexts, high stakes decisions with long-term consequences, such as placement in special education programs, are often based on intelligence test results. There are four different types of temporal stability: mean-level change, individual-level change, differential continuity, and ipsative continuity. We present statistical methods for investigating each type of stability. Where necessary, the methods were adapted for the specific challenges posed by intelligence research (e.g., controlling for general intelligence in lower order test scores). We provide step-by-step guidance for the application of the statistical methods and apply them to a real data set of 114 gifted students tested twice with a test-retest interval of 6 months.
• Four different types of stability need to be investigated for a full picture of temporal stability in psychological research
• Selection and adaption of the methods for the use in intelligence research
• Complete protocol of the implementation
The COVID-19 pandemic has affected schooling worldwide. In many places, schools closed for weeks or months, only part of the student body could be educated at any one time, or students were taught online. Previous research discloses the relevance of schooling for the development of cognitive abilities. We therefore compared the intelligence test performance of 424 German secondary school students in Grades 7 to 9 (42% female) tested after the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic (i.e., 2020 sample) to the results of two highly comparable student samples tested in 2002 (n = 1506) and 2012 (n = 197). The results revealed substantially and significantly lower intelligence test scores in the 2020 sample than in both the 2002 and 2012 samples. We retested the 2020 sample after another full school year of COVID-19-affected schooling in 2021. We found mean-level changes of typical magnitude, with no signs of catching up to previous cohorts or further declines in cognitive performance. Perceived stress during the pandemic did not affect changes in intelligence test results between the two measurements.