A Method Factor Measure of Self-concept

.

Paper presented at the 26th annual meeting of The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Model

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of individual items of the Big Five items as shown in Figure 1. Models with and without a general method factor were applied using Mplus.

M was indicated by all items.

M was estimated uncorrelated with Big Five factors.

Factor scores generated using the regression method by Mplus were imported into SPSS.

Method Factors as Measures of Faking

There is an emerging trend to use method factors estimated in confirmatory factor analyses to assess faking. Such a model is shown in Figure 1.

Several studies have found that method factors

1)correlate with F-H difference scores when participants were instructed to fake, 2)correlate with difference scores when participants were given incentives to fake and 3)correlate with social desirability scores in “respond honestly” conditions and in conditions in which there were incentives to fake (Biderman & Nguyen, 2004; Clark & Biderman, 2005; Biderman & Nguyen, 2009; Bäckström, Björklund, & Larsson (2009).

Because of its relationship to traditional measures of faking, the method factor, M, in Figure 1 might be conceptualized as measuring self-enhancement.

Method Factors as Measures of Self-Concept

Some studies of the general factor of personality (GFP) have suggested that an unrotated first order factor of Big Five items may be related to differences in self-esteem or one’s own view of oneself. (Erdle, Irwing, Rushton, & Park, 2010; Loehlin & Martin, 2011; van der Linden, Scholte, Cillessen, Nejenhuis, & Segers, 2010; ).

Since M is indicated by all items of the Big Five measures, the above observations suggest that it may be M that is related to self-concept.

This study investigated the relationship of M to self-esteem and depression. It also investigated the effect of removal of the influence of M on relationships of the Big Five dimensions to these measures.

Method

Participants. 206 undergraduate students at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.

Design. Repeated Measures.

Measures. The measures in this study included the following:•IPIP Big Five 50-item sample questionnaire.•Costello & Comrey (1967) Depression scale.•Rosenberg (1965) Self Esteem Scale.•Factor scores from application of models described below.

Procedure. Participants were administered the IPIP Big Five questionnaire followed by the Depression scale and the Self-esteem scale. No instructions or incentives to fake were given.

Correlations of Self-esteem and Depression with M

M

Self-esteem .401c

Depression -.412c

Correlations of Self-Esteem and Depression with Big Five Scale scores

Ext Agr Con Sta Opn

Self-esteem .285c .188a .381c .242c .359c

Depression -.202b -.309c -.330c -.284c -.192b

Effect of removing influence of M on Big Five correlations

Correlations with Big 5 Factor scores from method factor model.

Ext Agr Con Sta Opn

Self-esteem .074 .010 .314c .002 .318c

Depression .063 -.095 -.260c .007 -.121

Effect of alternative way of removing influence of M

Partial Correlations with Big 5 scale scores partialling out M

Ext Agr Con Sta Opn

Self-esteem -.003 -.081 .323c .005 .276c

Depression .145a -.077 -.264c -.055 -.082

a p < .05 b p < .01 c p < .001

Discussion

• M correlates positively with self-esteem and negatively with depression.

• M is not correlated with the Big Five factors, suggesting that it represents a personality characteristic separate from the Big Five.

• Removing the influence of M, either by using Big 5 factor scores from Model M or by partialling out M factor scores, changes considerably correlations involing Big 5 dimensions.

Conclusion

• M is both a measure of amount of dissimulation and a measure of self-concept.

• When faking instructions or incentives are present, individual differences in M reflect the differences in respondent reactions to those faking conditions.

• But when faking instructions are not present, individual differences in M reflect differences in respondent self concept or affective states.

Goodness-of-fitWith M Without M

Chi-square 1968.5 2225.6df 1115 1165CFI .777 .723RMSEA .062 .066

DifferenceChi-square 256.1df 50p < .001

The chi-square difference test suggests that the CFA with a single method factor fits significantly better than the CFA without the method factor.

Michael D. BidermanThe University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

Nhung T. NguyenTowson University

Christopher J.L. CunninghamThe University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

E1E2E3E4E5E6E7E8E9

E10

A1A2A3A4A5A6A7A8A9

A10

C1C2C3C4C5C6C7C8C9

C10

S1S2S3S4S5S6S7S8S9

S10

O1O2O3O4O5O6O7O8O9

O10

E

A

C

S

O

M

Figure 1.