Printer Friendly

Psychometrical properties of the "How I Think" Questionnaire (HIT-Q) in adolescents.

According to social-cognitive theories, people act upon their interpretation of social events, and antisocial behaviour is based on mechanisms of moral disengagement (Bandura, 1991), processing biases that lead to misinterpretation of social information (Dodge, 2010), and cognitive distortions that reduce empathy or guilt aroused by moral judgments or self-definition as a virtuous person (Gibbs, 2003). Cognitive distortions are "non-veridical or inaccurate attitudes, thoughts, and beliefs" (Barriga & Gibbs, 1996). Cognitive distortions associated with antisocial behaviour are drawn from the social information-processing theory (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Dodge & Coie, 1987), where these distortions are characterized as biases in the processing that mediates between incoming stimuli and behavioural responses.

Gibbs, Potter and Goldstein (1995) introduced the term self-serving cognitive distortions to define cognitive distortions that are specifically associated with externalizing behaviours such as aggression and antisocial behaviour. These authors described a four-category typological model of self-serving cognitive distortions: (a) Self-Centred defined as attitudes by which individuals focus on their own opinions, expectations, needs, and rights to such an extent that the opinions or needs of others are never or hardly ever considered or respected; (b) Blaming Others, which involves cognitive schemas of misattributing the blame for one's own behaviour to sources outside the individual; (c) Minimizing/ Mislabelling, defined as distortions in which antisocial behaviour is seen as an acceptable way to achieve certain goals as well as a belittling and dehumanizing way of referring to others, and, finally, (d) Assuming the Worst, in which the individual attributes hostile intentions to others, considers the worst-case scenario as inevitable, or sees his or her own behaviour as beyond improvement.

Barriga and Gibbs (1996) divided self-serving cognitive distortions into two types: primary cognitive distortions, which are represented by the Self-Centred category and secondary cognitive distortions, represented by the categories Blaming Others, Minimizing/Mislabelling and Assuming the Worst. The primary cognitive distortions stem from the egocentric bias most prominently found among young children, reflecting more immature moral judgment stages (Barriga, Gibbs, Potter, & Liau, 2001). Secondary cognitive distortions are pre-transgression or post-transgression rationalizations that serve to neutralize conscience, potential empathy, and guilt, thereby preventing damage to the self-image when an individual engages in antisocial behaviour.

The line of theorizing within the aggression and antisocial behaviour domain has developed independently from theories that have incorporated the concept of self-debasing cognitive distortions (Barriga, Hawkins, & Camelia, 2008). Self-debasing distortions, which theoretically increase self-reproach through processes such as misattributing blame to oneself or catastrophizing negative experiences, are specifically predictive of internalizing behaviours such as depression or anxiety (Leitenberg, Yost, & Carroll-Wilson, 1986), whereas self-serving distortions, which theoretically neutralize empathy or guilt though processes such as misattributing blame to others or minimizing the consequences of one's antisocial actions, are specifically predictive of externalizing behaviours such as aggression and antisocial behaviour (Andreu & Pena, 2013; Barriga, Sullivan-Cosetti, & Gibbs, 2009; Capuano, 2011; Plante et al., 2012; Van der Velden, Brugman, Boom, & Koops, 2010). Particularly, within the externalizing domain, it is noteworthy that self-serving distortions seem to be applied only to particular antisocial behaviours of youths and adolescents. Rather than a generic "criminal mind" that distorts experiences regardless of behavioural referent, the tendency to rationalize behaviour or neutralize guilt appears to be reserved only for specific areas of behaviour that are problematic for youths (Barriga, Landau, Stinson, Liau, & Gibbs, 2000; Barriga et al., 2008).

In order to evaluate self-serving cognitive distortions, researchers have developed a number of instruments. However, these instruments have shown various limitations (see Barriga et al., 2001). To counter this problem, the How I Think Questionnaire (HIT-Q) was developed based on the four main categories of cognitive distortions (Barriga & Gibbs, 1996). The HIT-Q was validated by Barriga et al. (2001) in the midwest region of the USA. In the formulation of its items, the HIT applies four behavioural dimensions. For the "covert" dimension, the HIT items were developed on the basis of cognitive distortions related to stealing and lying. For the "overt" dimension, the items were developed on the basis of cognitive distortions related to oppositional and aggressive behaviour. In its preliminary English-language version, the HIT-Q showed strong test-retest reliability, with a statistically significant correlation of .91; and it also showed internal consistency across its cognitive and behavioural scales ranging from .78 to .90 (Barriga & Gibbs, 1996). Validation studies of the HIT-Q have revealed an association between self-serving cognitive distortions and specific externalizing behaviours--aggression and antisocial behaviour (Barriga et al., 2008; Barriga et al., 2000). Furthermore, comparable psychometric properties were obtained in the course of validating the instrument with different samples of English- and French-speaking adolescents (Barriga et al., 2001; Nas, Brugman, & Koops, 2008; Plante et al., 2012).

To the authors' knowledge, no Spanish-language instrument is available to assessing self-serving cognitive distortions in samples of Spanish adolescents. Given that the HIT-Q has a theoretical basis that has been empirically tested with promising results (Nas et al., 2008), and has also been used for evaluating treatment for adolescents (Gibbs, Potter, DiBiase, & Devlin, 2009), it would be really useful to extend the use of the HIT-Q in Spain to measure self-serving cognitive distortions and to evaluate change following participation in psychological programs for adolescents with externalizing behaviours. Therefore, the present study was designed to test the validity, including the dimensionality and reliability, of the HIT-Q using samples of Spanish adolescents. On the basis of the study carried out by Barriga et al. (2001), we investigated the factor-analytic validity of the HIT-Q, and its convergent validity using different measures of aggression.

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 1.490 Spanish-speaking adolescents recruited from twenty public and private schools in Madrid (Spain). The adolescents belonged to all types of regular education (Primary and Secondary Education, High-School Education and Professional Training). Their schools were located in large or medium-sized cities of the same part of Madrid. Researchers contacted with the schools and, after obtaining permission from the director and the orientation team, the classrooms were randomly selected from each school that participated at the study. All the participants chose to participate at the study.

Out of the participants, 5.6% were enrolled in Primary Education, 63% in Secondary Education, 1.4% in Professional Training and, finally, 3% in other studies (Social Guarantee Program). The participants had a mean age of 15.37 years (SD = 1.67), 50.9% were between 14 to 16 years (51% males and 49% females), 32.2% between 17 and 19 years (48.6% males and 51.4% females), and 16.9% between 11 and 13 years (54.4% males and 45.6% females). Concerning country of origin, 87.9% of participants were born in Spain and 12.1% belonged to non-European countries. The adolescents' participation in this study was voluntary and their responses were confidential and anonymous.

Measures

HIT-Q. The How I Think Questionnaire (Barriga et al., 2001) is a 54-item self-report questionnaire designed to measure self-serving cognitive distortions. Participants respond on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1(strongly agree) to 6 (strongly disagree), with higher scores reflecting higher levels of cognitive distortions. The HIT-Q contains 39 items addressing self-serving cognitive distortions (Self-Centred, Blaming Others, Minimizing/ Mislabelling, and Assuming the Worst), and one of the four antisocial behavioural categories of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994). These categories are: opposition-defiance, physical aggression, lying and stealing. Of the remaining 15 items, 8 items control for anomalous responses (AR) that measure social desirability (e.g., "Sometimes I get bored"), and 7 items act as positive fillers (PF); that is, they camouflage items with a prosocial meaning (e.g., "When friends need you, you should be there for them"). Table 1 presents the items of the HIT-Q, Spanish version.

RPQ. Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (Raine et al., 2006). The RPQ was applied to the sample in order to analyse the convergent validity of the HIT-Q scores. The RPQ consists of 23 items rated on a 3-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (never) to 2 (always) assessing reactive aggression (RA; e.g., "reacted angrily when provoked by others"), and proactive aggression (PA; e.g., "vandalized something for fun"). The Spanish version of the RPQ (Andreu, Pena, & Ramirez, 2009) was used in this research. According to this adaptation, coefficient alphas for the reactive-proactive scales were.84 and.87, respectively. Internal consistency for the total RPQ score was.91. The means for the RA and PA scales were.83 (SD =.24) and.31 (SD =.17).

Procedure

The HIT-Q was translated according to the following method. First, the English version was translated into Spanish by a professional translator. Then, this Spanish version was back-translated into English by another translator. Each step was validated by the research team, which made sure that the meaning of the items was conveyed faithfully from version to version and the language was adapted to the adolescents.

Thirty public and private schools were initially contacted, twenty of which agreed to participate in the study. Pupils were informed about the study by their teachers. Data collection was conducted by Psychology students from the Complutense University of Madrid. After parental informed consent was given, the questionnaire was administered to an entire class during school hours. Data collection lasted from October 2011 to September 2012. All participants filled out the questionnaires in a quiet room and their participation in the study was voluntary. They were informed that the information provided would only be used for research purposes, and that all their data would remain confidential and anonymous. They were also informed that the research was to determine what adolescents of their age think about certain aspects of life and that there were no right or wrong answers. This study was approved by the ethics review board of the responsible institution.

Data analysis

To test the theoretical structure of the HIT-Q, confirmatory factor analysis was applied using AMOS 7.0 (Arbuckle, 2006), and a maximum likelihood procedure as the technique for parameter estimation. The present study used multiple statistical tests and indexes designed to assess the goodness of fit of the data to the proposed models, following the recommendations of Hu and Bentler (1999). Values [greater than or equal to].90 in the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) have been accepted as indicators of a good fit. In the case of the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), values [greater than or equal to].05 have been considered indicators of a good and acceptable fit. Satorra-Bentler chi-square and Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) are presented as well.

Gender differences were analysed using Student's t-test, determining the effect size with the partial square eta coefficient ([[eta].sub.p.sup.2]). Pearson correlations were used to investigate the convergent validity of the HIT-Q with reactive and proactive aggression as measured by the RPQ. Finally, the internal consistency of the questionnaire was examined with Cronbach's alpha. Analyses were performed with the SPSS (version 19) computer program.

Results

Factor-analytic validity

Following Barriga et al.'s (2001) study, we tested a six-factor solution (four cognitive factors plus one AR and one PF factor) against a three-factor solution (one cognitive distortion factor, one AR, and one PF factor), and a four-factor solution (one primary and one secondary cognitive distortion factor, one AR, and one PF factor), and a higher-order seven-factor solution (including a cognitive distortion factor underlying the four cognitive distortions).

Table 2 shows the fit indexes corresponding to the four-factor model proposed by the original authors. Comparing these models, the six-factor model obtained better fit indexes (GFI =.96, RMSEA =.05, AIC = 8328.16). The solution of the other models tested showed a poor fit to the data (GFI <.90, RMSEA >.05), with an AIC higher than that of the six-factor solution. Table 3 presents the square multiple correlations for each sub-scale of the HIT-Q and the standardized factor loading of each item.

Gender differences

Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics of the HIT-Q for the study of gender differences in the Spanish sample. When the total scores of male and female subgroups were compared, males showed more self-serving cognitive distortions than females (t = 10.62, p < .001). This was also true for all the cognitive subscales of the HIT-Q and for the AR subscale (Table 4). However, the PF subscale differed from this pattern in that females scored higher than males (t = -7.23, p < .001). Nevertheless, the effect size of these gender differences, estimated by the [[eta].sub.p.sup.2 coefficient, was very low ([[eta].sub.p.sup.2] < .10). Finally, age was positively correlated with the scores of the male sample (r =.10, p < .01), but no significant correlations were found between age and total scores in the female sample (r =.01, p =.87).

Correlations among the Subscales of the Spanish Version of the HIT-Q

Table 5 shows that all pairs of associations among the subscales of the HIT-Q were significant (p <. 001) except for PF and AR (r =.02, ns). The strongest correlations were found between Assuming the Worst and Blaming Others (r =.82, p < .001), and between Minimizing/Mislabelling and Blaming Others (r =.80, p < .001). Interestingly, the PF subscale showed significant and negative correlations with the self-serving cognitive distortion subscales.

Convergent validity

To determine the convergent validity, the HIT-Q scores (total and subscales) were correlated with the RPQ scores (total and subscales). As expected, given the specific relationship between self-serving cognitive distortions and antisocial behaviour in adolescents (Barriga et al., 2008), significant positive correlations emerged between the HIT-Q total score and the RPQ total score (r =.72, p < .001). In addition, as shown in Table 6, all the HIT-Q subscales were positively correlated with the RPQ subscales. Interestingly, Assuming the Worst was the self-serving cognitive distortion that was most strongly correlated to RA (r =.59, p < .001) and PA (r =.63, p < .001).

Reliability

The internal consistency of the HIT-Q, estimated though the Cronbach's alpha coefficient, was.92 for the total score. Regarding the cognitive distortions of the HIT-Q, internal consistency ranged from. 75 to .81. Cronbach's alpha for Self-Centred was .75, for Blaming Others .81, for Minimizing/Mislabelling .81, and for Assuming the Worst .81. Finally, Cronbach's alpha for the AR subscale was .76, and for the PF subscale, it was .69.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to examine a Spanish-language version of the How I Think Questionnaire (Barriga et al., 2001), evaluating its psychometric properties. The HIT-Q was translated and validated by investigating its factor structure, convergent validity, and reliability.

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFAs) provided information on the structure of the Spanish version of the HIT-Q. Our results showed that the original six-factor structure (four self-serving cognitive distortions plus one AR factor and one PF) is also justified for the Spanish version. The factor loadings of nearly all items were satisfactory, and fit indexes were similar to those of the North American version (Barriga & Gibbs, 1996; Barriga et al., 2001). Furthermore, these results are consistent with other studies in different populations of adolescent English-speaking Americans, Canadians and Dutch (Barriga et al., 2001; Nas et al., 2008; Plante et al., 2012; Wallinius, Johansson, Larden, & Dernevik, 2011).

The mean scores obtained in this study were also similar to those obtained in the original study of adolescent students (Barriga et al., 2001). The differences between males and females were statistically significant and in the expected direction: males scored higher than females on all self-serving cognitive distortions. These results are similar to the differences found in the study of Larden, Melin, Holst and Langstrom (2006). However, the differences obtained in the present study had a very small effect size, therefore, they are lacking in any practical applications. More research is needed on gender differences in self-serving cognitive distortions in adolescents, taking into account the moderator effect of age.

The correlation coefficients among the six subscales of the Spanish version of the HIT-Q were similar to those obtained by Barriga et al. (2001). The strongest correlations were found between Assuming the Worst and Blaming Others, and between Minimizing/Mislabelling and Blaming Others. Interestingly, the PF subscale showed a significant and negative correlation with all the self-serving cognitive distortion subscales. Correlations among the self-serving cognitive distortion scales were high, indicating that these constructs are closely related. Other studies also have reported moderate to high correlations between the HIT-Q scales both in community samples of adolescents and young offenders (Nas et al., 2008).

Concerning reliability, these properties seem satisfactory. The levels of internal consistency for the total HIT-Q score and its subscales were satisfactory and similar to those reported in the original version (Barriga et al., 2001), supporting the reliability of the Spanish version of the HIT-Q.

Convergent validity was also satisfactory. The relationship between the self-serving cognitive distortion scales and reactive-proactive aggression was in all cases in the expected direction. Particularly, when the different types of self-serving cognitive distortions are examined, Assuming the Worst obtained the highest correlation both with RA and PA. Interestingly, the relationship found in this study between self-serving cognitive distortions and different measures of functional aggression is consistent with previous findings (Andreu & Pena, 2012; Barriga et al., 2000; Calvete & Orue, 2010; Koolen, Poorthuis, & van Aken, 2012).

Notwithstanding these satisfactory psychometric properties, this Spanish version of the HIT-Q presents a few limitations. A potential limitation of this study concerns the characteristics of the sample recruited, given that all the participants were students. In order to consolidate the instrument and generalize its use, it would be of interest to replicate the results of this research in other samples of adolescents with antisocial behaviour, delinquency, or psychopathological problems, especially, conduct disorders.

To sum up, after examining its psychometric properties, it can be concluded that the Spanish version of the HIT-Q is a reliable and valid measure of self-serving cognitive distortion in Spanish adolescents. Regarding practical considerations, this version of the Spanish HIT-Q could be useful for individual assessment, particularly when the possibility of adolescents committing aggressive acts is limited. In fact, this questionnaire could also lead to better planning of psychological interventions for Spanish-speaking adolescents in order to determine their self-serving cognitive style.

doi: 10.7334/psicothema2013.38

References

American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Andreu, J.M., & Pena, M.E. (2012). Identifying psychometrically different types of non-direct aggression in a Spanish Population. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1, 1-7.

Andreu, J.M., & Pena, M.E. (2013). Propiedades psicometricas de la Escala de Conducta Antisocial y Delictiva en Adolescentes [Psychometric properties of the Antisocial and Criminal Behaviour Scale in Adolescents]. Anales de Psicologia, 2, 516-522.

Andreu, J.M., Pena, M.E., & Ramirez, J.M. (2009). Cuestionario de Agresion Reactiva y Proactiva: un instrumento de medida de la agresion en adolescentes [Reactive and Proactive Aggression Questionnaire: An instrument for measuring aggression in adolescents]. Revista de Psicopatologia y Psicologi'a Clinica, 14, 37-49.

Arbuckle, J. (2006). Amos 7.0 User's guide. Spring House, PA: Amos Development Corporation.

Bandura, A. (1991). Social-cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In W.M. Kurtines & Gewirt, J.L. (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (pp. 45-103). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Barriga, A.Q., & Gibbs, J.C. (1996). Measuring cognitive distortion in antisocial youth: Development and preliminary validation of the How I Think Questionnaire. Aggressive Behaviour, 22, 333-343.

Barriga, A.Q., Gibbs, J.C., Potter, G., & Liau, A.K. (2001). The How I Think Questionnaire Manual. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Barriga, A.Q., Hawkins, M., & Camelia, C.R. (2008). Specificity of cognitive distortions to antisocial behaviour. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 18, 104-116.

Barriga, A.Q., Landau, J.R., Stinson, B.L., Liau, A.K., & Gibbs, J.C. (2000). Cognitive distortion and problem behaviours in adolescents. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 27, 36-56.

Barriga, A.Q., Sullivan-Cosetti, M., & Gibbs, J.C. (2009). Moral cognitive correlates of empathy in juvenile delinquents. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 19, 253-264.

Calvete, E., & Orue, I. (2010). Cognitive schemas and aggressive behaviour in adolescents: The mediating role of social information processing. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 1, 189-200.

Capuano, A. (2011). Empathy and cognitive distortion and their relationship with aggression in adolescents. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Bowling Green State University, Ohio.

Crick, N.R., & Dodge, K.A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information processing mechanisms in children's social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74-101.

Dodge, K.A. (2010). Social information processing patterns as mediators of the interaction between genetic factors and life experiences in the development of aggressive behaviour. In M. Mikulncer & P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Understanding and reducing aggression, violence, and their consequences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Dodge, K.A., & Coie, J.D. (1987). Social-information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children's peer groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1146-1158.

Gibbs, J.C. (2003). Moral development and reality. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gibbs, J.C., Potter, G.B., & Goldstein, A.P. (1995). The EQUIP Program: Teaching youth to think and act responsibly through a peer helping approach. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Gibbs, J.C., Potter, G.B., DiBiase, A.M., & Devlin, R.S. (2009). The EQUIP program: Social perspective-taking for responsible though and behaviour. In B. Glick (Ed.), Cognitive behavioural interventions for at-risk youth (pp. 1-47). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis. Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

Koolen, S., Poorthuis, A., & van Aken, M. (2012). Cognitive distortions and self-regulatory personality traits associated with proactive and reactive aggression in early adolescence. Therapy and Research, 36, 776-787.

Larden, M., Melin, L., Holst, U., & Langstrom, N. (2006). Moral judgment, cognitive distortions and empathy in incarcerated delinquent and community control adolescents. Psychology, Crime and Law, 12, 453-462.

Leitenberg, H., Yost, L., & Carroll-Wilson, M. (1986). Negative cognitive errors in children: Questionnaire development, normative data, and comparison between children with and without self-reported symptoms of depression, low self-esteem and evaluation anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 528-536.

Nas, C.N., Brugman, D., & Koops, W. (2008). Measuring self-serving cognitive distortions with the How I Think Questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24, 181-189.

Plante, N., Daigle, M.S., Gaumont, C., Charbonneau, L., Gibbs, J., & Barriga, A. (2012). Validation of the How I Think Questionnaire in a population of French-speaking adolescents with externalizing behaviours. Behavioural Sciences and the Law, 30, 196-212.

Raine, A., Dodge, K., Loeber, R., Gatzke-Kopp, L., Lynam, D., Reynolds, C., et al. (2006). The Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire: Differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent boys. Aggressive Behaviour, 32, 159-171.

Van der Velden, F., Brugman, D., Boom, J., & Koops, W. (2010). Moral cognitive processes explaining antisocial behaviour in young adolescents. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 34, 292-301.

Wallinius, M., Johansson, P., Larden, M., & Dernevik, M. (2011). Self-serving cognitive distortions and antisocial behaviour among adults and adolescents. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 38, 286-301.

Maria Elena Pena Fernandez (1), Jose Manuel Andreu Rodriguez (1), Alvaro Barriga (2) and John Gibbs (3)

(1) Universidad Complutense de Madrid, (2) Seton Hill University and (3) Ohio State University

Received: February 7, 2013 * Accepted: June 27, 2013

Corresponding author: Maria Elena Pena Fernandez

Facultad de Psicologia Universidad Complutense de Madrid 28223 Madrid (Spain)

e-mail: elenapf@psi.ucm.es
Table 1

Items of the How I Think Questionnaire-Spanish Version

1. Las personas deberian intentar trabajar para solucionar sus
problemas [People should try to work on their problems].

2. Por mas que lo intento pierdo el control con frecuencia [I can't
help losing my temper a lot].

3. A veces hay que mentir para conseguir lo que uno quiere
[Sometimes you have to lie get what you want].

4. A veces me aburro [Sometimes I get bored].

5. Las personas necesitan que las maltraten de vez en cuando
[People need to be roughed up once in a while].

6. Si cometo un error es porque me he juntado con la gente
equivocada [If I made a mistake, it's because I got mixed up with
the wrong crowd].

7. Si algo me gusta lo cojo [If I see something I like, I take it].

8. No se puede confiar en los demas porque siempre te mentiran [You
can't trust people because they will always lie to you].

9. Soy generoso con mis amigos [I am generous with my friends].

10. Cuando me enfado no me importa a quien estoy haciendo dano
[When I get mad, I don't care who gets hurt].

11. Si alguien se deja el coche abierto esta pidiendo que se lo
roben [If someone leaves a car unlocked, they are asking to have it
stolen].

12. Uno debe vengarse de la gente que no le respeta [You have to
get even with people who don't show you respect].

13. A veces levanto rumores infundados sobre otras personas
[Sometimes I gossip about other people].

14. Mentir no es tan malo, todo el mundo lo hace [Everybody lies,
it's no big deal].

15. Es inutil tratar de mantenerse al margen de las peleas [It's no
use trying to stay out of fights].

16. Todo el mundo tiene derecho a ser feliz [Everyone has the right
to be happy].

17. Si sabes que puedes salirte con la tuya, solo un tonto no
robaria [If you know you can get away with it, only a fool wouldn't
steal].

18. No importa cuanto lo intente, no puedo dejar de meterme en
problemas [No matter how hard I try, I can't help getting in
trouble].

19. Solo un cobarde huiria de una pelea [Only a coward would ever
walk away from a fight].

20. Alguna vez he dicho algo malo de un amigo [I have sometimes
said something bad about a friend].

21. No esta tan mal mentir si alguien es tan tonto como para
creerselo [It's OK to tell a lie if someone is dumb enough to fall
for it].

22. Si realmente quiero algo no me importa como conseguirlo [If I
really want something, if doesn't matter how I get it].

23. Si no te defiendes de la gente que te rodea te acabaran siempre
molestando [If you don't push people around, you will always get
picked on].

24. Los amigos deben ser sinceros unos con otros [Friends should be
honest with each other].

25. Si una tienda o una casa ha sido robada es culpa de ellos por
no tener mejor seguridad [If a store or home owner gets robbed,
it's a really their fault for not having better security].

26. La gente me fuerza a mentir si me hacen demasiadas preguntas
[People force you to lie if they ask too many questions].

27. Alguna vez he intentado vengarme de alguien [I have tried to
get even with someone].

28. Debes conseguir lo que necesitas aunque alguien salga danado
[You should get what you need, even if it means someone has to get
hurt].

29. La gente siempre esta intentando molestarme [People are always
trying to hassle me].

30. Las tiendas ganan suficiente dinero, por lo que esta bien coger
lo que uno necesita [Stores make enough money that it's OK just
take things you need].

31. En el pasado he mentido para librarme de algun problema [In the
past, I have lied to get myself out of trouble].

32. Uno debe golpear primero antes de que te golpeen [you should
hurt people first, before they hurt you].

33. Una mentira realmente no importa si uno no conoce a esa persona
[A lie doesn't really matter if you don't know that person].

34. Es importante tener en cuenta los sentimientos de otras
personas [It's important to think of other people's feelings].

35. Uno puede siempre robar. Si no lo haces tu, otro lo hara por ti
[You might as well steal. If you don't take it, somebody else
will].

36. La gente siempre esta tratando de iniciar peleas conmigo
[People are always trying to start fights with me].

37. Las normas generalmente estan hechas para otras personas [Rules
are mostly meant for other people].

38. He ocultado cosas que he hecho [I have covered up things that I
have done].

39. Si alguien es tan descuidado como para perder la cartera merece
que se la roben [If someone is careless enough to lose a wallet,
they deserve to have it stolen].

40. Todo el mundo incumple la ley, no es tan malo [Everybody breaks
the law, it's no big deal].

41. Cuando los amigos te necesitan debes estar ahi para ayudarles
[When friends need you, you should be there for them].

42. Conseguir lo que uno necesita es lo mas importante [Getting
what you need is the only important thing].

43. Tu tambien puedes robar. La gente te robaria si tuviera la
oportunidad [You might as well steal. People would steal from you
if they had the chance].

44. Si la gente no coopera conmigo, no es mi culpa que alguien
pueda salir danado [If people don't cooperate with me, it's not my
fault if someone gets hurt].

45. He hecho cosas malas que no le he contado a nadie [I have done
bad things that I haven't told people about].

46. Si pierdo el control es porque la gente intenta enfurecerme
[When I lose my temper, it's because people try to make me mad].

47. Coger un coche no es tan malo si no le ocurre nada al coche y
el dueno lo recupera [Taking a car doesn't really hurt anyone if
nothing happens to the car and the owner gets it back].

48. Todo el mundo necesita ayuda de vez en cuando [Everybody needs
help once in a while].

49. Podria mentir cuando digo la verdad, de todos modos la gente no
me cree [I might as well lie-when I tell the truth, people don't
believe me anyway].

50. A veces tienes que danar a alguien si tienes un problema con el
[Sometimes you have to hurt someone if you have a problem with
them].

51. He cogido cosas sin pedir permiso [I have taken things without
asking].

52. Si miento a alguien es mi problema [If I lied to someone,
that's my business].

53. Como todo el mundo roba, uno deberia conseguir su parte
[Everybody steals-you might as well get your share].

54. Si realmente quiero hacer algo no me importa que sea legal o no
[If I really want to do something, I don't care if it's legal or
not].

Table 2
Goodness-of-fit indices for each of the models

Model                [chi square]    df      AIC      RMSEA    GFI

Six-factor model      8100.16 *     1371    8328.16    .05     .96
Three-factor model    9514.52 *     1378    9728.52    .06     .78
Four-factor model     1017.68 *     1377   10394.68    .07     .77
Seven-factor model    9948.61 *     1370    8778.59    .06     .81

* p < .01

Table 3
Square multiple correlations and standardized factor loadings for the
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HIT-Q

SCALE

Self-Centred              (.94)

Item 3                     .43
Item 7                     .47
Item 10                    .49
Item 22                    .56
Item 28                    .69
Item 37                    .60
Item 42                    .45
Item 52                    .21
Item 54                    .65

Blaming others            (.99)

Item 6                     .28
Item 11                    .53
Item 21                    .58
Item 25                    .54
Item 26                    .49
Item 36                    .56
Item 39                    .69
Item 44                    .66
Item 46                    .52
Item 50                    .65

Minimizing/Mislabelling   (.99)

Item 5                     .43
Item 12                    .58
Item 14                    .49
Item 17                    .66
Item 19                    .57
Item 30                    .65
Item 33                    .56
Item 40                    .61
Item 47                    .59

Assuming the Worst        (.98)

Item 2                     .47
Item 8                     .41
Item 15                    .51
Item 18                    .53
Item 23                    .41
Item 29                    .39
Item 32                    .59
Item 35                    .68
Item 43                    .74
Item 49                    .45
Item 53                    .68

Anomalous Response        (.28)

Item 4                     .20
Item 13                    .36
Item 20                    .41
Item 27                    .64
Item 31                    .66
Item 38                    .72
Item 45                    .64
Item 51                    .62

Positive Fillers          (.19)

Item 1                     .17
Item 9                     .35
Item 16                   .46
Item 24                    .59
Item 34                    .60
Item 41                    .70
Item 48                    .65

Table 4
Descriptive statistics of the HIT-Q scales for the study of gender
differences

                  Gender    N     M     SD    Student     [[eta].sub.
                                               t-test      p.sup.2]

Self-Centred       Male    757   3.01   .89    9.05 ***       .05
                  Female   733   2.61   .77

Blaming others     Male    757   2.53   .89   12.01 ***       .08
                  Female   733   2.01   .76

Minimizing/        Male    757   2.50   .93    9.37 ***       .05
Mislabelling      Female   733   2.07   .81

Assuming the       Male    757   2.62   .84   11.34 ***       .07
Worst             Female   733   2.14   .77

Anomalous          Male    757   3.93   .92    5.37 ***       .01
responding        Female   733   3.67   .95

Positive fillers   Male    757   5.31   .68   -7.23 ***       .03
                  Female   733   5.52   .46

Total HIT-Q        Male    757   3.19   .63   10.62 ***       .07
                  Female   733   2.85   .58

*** p < .001

Table 5
Correlations among subscales of the Spanish Version of the HIT-Q

      Scale             1          2          3          4        5

1. Self-Centred
2. Blaming others    .71 ***
3. Minimizing/       .74 ***    .80 ***
  Mislabelling
4. Assuming the      .70 **     .82 ***    .79 ***
Worst
5. Anomalous         .53 ***    .45 ***    .44 ***    .47 ***
responding
6. Positive filers   -.23 ***   -.37 ***   -.36 ***   -.35 ***   .02

*** p < .001

Table 6
Zero-order correlations between Reactive and Proactive Aggression
(RPQ) and the HIT-Q

HIT-Q scales              Reactive     Proactive    Total
                          aggression   aggression   RPQ

Self-Centred               .52 ***      .56 ***     .60 ***
Blaming others             .54 ***      .60 ***     .63 ***
Minimizing/Mislabelling    .50 ***      .58 ***     .59 ***
Assuming the Worst         .59 ***      .63 ***     .67 ***
Anomalous responding       .50 ***      .52 ***     .56 ***
Positive fillers           .-15***      .-25 ***    .-21 ***
Total HIT                  .63 ***      .67 ***     .72 ***

*** p < .001
COPYRIGHT 2013 Colegio Oficial De Psicologos Del Principado De Asturias
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2013 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:texto en ingles
Author:Fernandez, Maria Elena Pena; Rodriguez, Jose Manuel Andreu; Barriga,Alvaro; Gibbs, John
Publication:Psicothema
Date:Oct 1, 2013
Words:5525
Previous Article:Psychometric properties of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) in a community sample of couples.
Next Article:Validation of the English version of the Five-Factor Self-Concept Questionnaire.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters