Cultural differences in how people deal with ridicule and laughterdifferential item functioning between the taiwanese chinese and canadian english versions of the PhoPhiKat-45

  1. Chloe Lau
  2. Taylor Swindall 1
  3. Francesca Chiesi 2
  4. Lena C. Quilty
  5. Hsueh-Chih Chen 3
  6. Yu-Chen Chan 4
  7. Willibald Ruch 5
  8. René Proyer 6
  9. Francesco Bruno
  10. Donald H. Saklofske 1
  11. Jorge Torres Marín 7
  1. 1 University of Western Ontario
    info

    University of Western Ontario

    London, Canadá

    ROR https://ror.org/02grkyz14

  2. 2 University of Florence
    info

    University of Florence

    Florencia, Italia

    ROR https://ror.org/04jr1s763

  3. 3 National Taiwan Normal University
    info

    National Taiwan Normal University

    Taipéi, Taiwán

    ROR https://ror.org/059dkdx38

  4. 4 National Tsing Hua University
    info

    National Tsing Hua University

    Hsinchu, Taiwán

    ROR https://ror.org/00zdnkx70

  5. 5 University of Zurich
    info

    University of Zurich

    Zúrich, Suiza

    ROR https://ror.org/02crff812

  6. 6 Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg
    info

    Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg

    Halle, Alemania

    ROR https://ror.org/05gqaka33

  7. 7 Universitat de Barcelona
    info

    Universitat de Barcelona

    Barcelona, España

    ROR https://ror.org/021018s57

Mostrar afiliaciones +
Revista:
EJIHPE: European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education

ISSN: 2174-8144,  2254-9625

Año de publicación: 2023

Volumen: 13

Número: 2

Páginas: 238-258

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.3390/EJIHPE13020019 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: EJIHPE: European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education

Resumen

The PhoPhiKat-45 measures three dispositions toward ridicule and laughter, including gelotophobia (i.e., the fear of being laughed at), gelotophilia (i.e., the joy of being laughed at), and katagelasticism (i.e., the joy of laughing at others). Despite numerous cultural adaptations, there is a paucity of cross-cultural studies investigating measurement invariance of this measure. Undergraduate students from a Canadian university (N = 1467; 71.4% females) and 14 universities in Taiwan (N = 1274; 64.6% females) completed the English and Chinese PhoPhiKat-45 measures, respectively. Item response theory and differential item functioning analyses demonstrated that most items were well-distributed across the latent continuum. Five of 45 items were flagged for DIF, but all values had negligible effect sizes (McFadden’s pseudo R 2 < 0.13). The Canadian sample was further subdivided into subsamples who identified as European White born in Canada (n = 567) and Chinese born in China, Hong Kong, or Taiwan (n = 180). In the subgroup analyses, no evidence of DIF was found. Findings support the utility of this measure across these languages and samples.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Allison, P.D. Event History and Survival Analysis, 2nd ed.; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014.
  • Baker, F.B.; Kim, S.H. Item Response Theory: Parameter Estimation Techniques, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2004.
  • Berk, R.; Berk, R.A. (Eds.) Handbook of Methods for Detecting Test Bias; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1982.
  • Bock, R.D.; Aitkin, M. Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algorithm. Psychometrika 1981, 46, 443–459.
  • Brauer, K.; Proyer, R.T. Analyzing a German-language Expanded form of the PhoPhiKat-45: Psychometric properties, factorial structure, measurement invariance with the Likert-version, and self-peer convergence. J. Pers. Assess. 2021, 103, 267–277.
  • Carretero-Dios, H.; Benítez, I.; Delgado-Rico, E.; Ruch, W.; López-Benítez, R. Temperamental basis of sense of humour: The Spanish long form of the trait version of the State-Trait-Cheerfulness Inventory. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2014, 68, 77–82.
  • Chalmers, R.P. mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. J. Stat. Softw. 2012, 48, 1–29.
  • Chen, G.; Liao, C.; Proyer, R.T.; Ruch, W. A summary on research in gelotophobia. Chin. J. Health Psychol. 2009, 17, 893–895.
  • Chen, H.; Chan, Y.; Ruch, W.; Proyer, R. Evaluating the reliability and validity of a traditional Chinese version of the PhoPhiKat-45. Psychol. Test. 2011, 58, 119–145.
  • Chen, H.; Chan, Y.; Ruch, W.; Proyer, R.T. Laughing at others and being laughed at in Taiwan and Switzerland: A cross-cultural perspective. In Humour in Chinese Life and Culture: Resistance and Control in Modern Times; Davis, J.M., Chey, J., Eds.; Scholarship Online: Hong Kong, China, 2013.
  • Chen, W.H.; Revicki, D. Differential Item Functioning (DIF). In Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research; Michalos, A.C., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014.
  • Cheung, C.K.; Yue, X.D. Sojourn students’ humor styles as buffers to achieve resilience. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 2012, 36, 353–364.
  • Choi, S.W.; Gibbons, L.E.; Crane, P.K. lordif: An R Package for Detecting Differential Item Functioning Using Iterative Hybrid Ordinal Logistic Regression/Item Response Theory and Monte Carlo Simulations. J. Stat. Softw. 2011, 39, 1–30.
  • Christensen, K.B.; Makransky, G.; Horton, M. Critical Values for Yen’s Q3: Identification of Local Dependence in the Rasch Model Using Residual Correlations. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 2017, 41, 178–194.
  • Clauser, B.E.; Nungester, R.J.; Mazor, K.; Ripkey, D. A comparison of alternative matching strategies for DIF detection in tests that are multidimensional. J. Educ. Meas. 1996, 33, 202–214.
  • Crane, P.K.; Gibbons, L.E.; Jolley, L.; van Belle, G. Differential Item Functioning Analysis with Ordinal Logistic Regression Techniques: DIFdetect and difwithpar. Med. Care 2006, 44, S115–S123.
  • Crane, P.K.; Gibbons, L.E.; Ocepek-Welikson, K.; Cook, K.; Cella, D.; Narasimhalu, K.; Hays, R.D.; Teresi, J.A. A comparison of three sets of criteria for determining the presence of differential item functioning using ordinal logistic regression. Qual. Life Res. 2007, 16, 69–84.
  • Crane, P.K.; van Belle, G.; Larson, E.B. Test bias in a cognitive test: Differential item functioning in the CASI. Stat. Med. 2004, 23, 241–256.
  • Davies, C. Humour theory and the fear of being laughed at. Humor Int. J. Humor Res. 2009, 22, 49–62.
  • Dursun, P.; Dal ˘gar, I.; Brauer, K.; Ercüment, Y.; Proyer, R.T. Assessing dispositions towards ridicule and being laughed at: Development and initial validation of the Turkish PhoPhiKat-45. Curr. Psychol. Res. Rev. 2020, 39, 101–114.
  • Embretson, S.E. Item Response Theory Models and Spurious Interaction Effects in Factorial ANOVA Designs. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 1996, 20, 201–212.
  • Embretson, S.E.; Hershberger, S. (Eds.) The New Rules of Measurement: What Every Psychologist and Educator Should Know; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999.
  • Embretson, S.E.; Reise, S.P. Item Response Theory for Psychologists; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2000.
  • Hambleton, R.K.; Swaninathan, H. Item Response Theory: Principles and Applications; Springer Science + Business Media, LLC: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1985.
  • Hambleton, R.K.; Swaminathan, H.; Rogers, H.J. Fundamentals of Item Response Theory; Sage Publications, Inc.: London, UK, 1991.
  • Hanson, B.A. Uniform DIF and DIF defined by differences in item response functions. J. Educ. Behav. Stat. 1998, 23, 244–253.
  • Harrison, D.A. Robustness of IRT parameter estimation to violations of the unidimensionality assumption. J. Educ. Stat. 1986, 11, 91–115.
  • Hiranandani, N.A.; Yue, X.D. Humor styles, gelotophobia and self-esteem among Chinese and Indian university students. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 2014, 17, 319–324.
  • Hofmann, J.; Ruch, W.; Proyer, R.T.; Platt, T.; Gander, F. Assessing dispositions toward ridicule and laughter in the workplace: Adapting and validating the PhoPhiKat-9 questionnaire. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 714.
  • Holland, P.W.; Thayer, D.T. Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In Test Validity; Wainer, H., Braun, H.I., Eds.; LEA: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1988; pp. 129–145.
  • JASP Team. JASP (Version 0.16.3). 2020.
  • Jeong, H.J.; Lee, W.C. Does differential item functioning occur across respondents’ characteristics in safety attitudes questionnaire? Biometics Biostat. Int. J. 2016, 4, 103–111.
  • Jiang, T.; Li, H.; Hou, Y. Cultural differences in humour perception, usage, and implications. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 123.
  • Jodoin, M.G.; Gierl, M.J. Evaluating Type I Error and Power Rates Using an Effect Size Measure with the Logistic Regression Procedure for DIF Detection. Appl. Meas. Educ. 2001, 14, 329–349.
  • Kvalseth, T.O. Cautionary Note about R2. Am. Stat. 1985, 39, 279–285.
  • Lampert, M.D.; Isaacson, K.L.; Lyttle, J. Cross-cultural variation in gelotophobia within the United States. Psychol. Test Assess. Model. 2010, 52, 202–216.
  • Lau, C.; Chiesi, F.; Saklofske, D.H. The state-trait model of cheerfulness: Tests of measurement invariance and latent mean differences in European and Chinese Canadian students. Eur. J. Psychol. 2022, 18, 142–153.
  • Lau, C.; Chiesi, F.; Saklofske, D.H.; Yan, G. What is the temperamental basis of humour like in China? A cross-national examination and validation of the standard version of the State–Trait Cheerfulness Inventory. Int. J. Psychol. 2020, 55, 264–272.
  • Lau, C.; Chiesi, F.; Saklofske, D.H.; Yan, G.; Li, C. How essential is the essential resilience scale? Differential item functioning of Chinese and English versions and criterion validity. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2020, 155, 109666.
  • Li, T.; Saklofske, D.H.; Bowden, S.C.; Yan, G.; Fung, T.S. The Measurement Invariance of the Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS) Across Three Chinese University Student Groups from Canada and China. J. Psychoeduc. Assess. 2012, 30, 439–452.
  • Liu, C.; Chiu, F.; Chen, H.; Lin, C. Helpful but insufficient: Incremental theory on challenge-confronting tendencies for students who fear being laughed at. Motiv. Emot. 2013, 38, 367–377.
  • Marais, I.; Andrich, D. Formalizing dimension and response violations of local independence in the unidimensional Rasch model. J. Appl. Meas. 2008, 9, 200–215.
  • Mellenbergh, G.J. Item bias and item response theory. Int. J. Educ. Res. 1989, 13, 127–143.
  • Meredith, W. Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika 1993, 58, 525–543.
  • Nevo, O.; Nevo, B.; Yin, J.L.S. Singaporean humor: A cross-cultural, cross-gender comparison. J. Gen. Psychol. 2001, 128, 143–156.
  • Orlando, M.; Thissen, D. Further Investigation of the Performance of S-X2: An Item Fit Index for Use with Dichotomous Item Response Theory Models. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 2003, 27, 289–298.
  • Peña, E.D. Lost in translation: Methodological considerations in cross-cultural research. Child Dev. 2007, 78, 1255–1264.
  • Pfadt, J.M.; van den Bergh, D.; Sijtsma, K.; Moshagen, M.; Wagenmakers, E.-J.; Bayesian estimation of single-test reliability coefficients. Multivar. Behav. Res. 2021. in press.
  • Platt, T. Emotional responses to ridicule and teasing: Should gelotophobes react differently? Humor 2008, 21, 105–128.
  • Platt, T.; Ruch, W. The emotions of gelotophobes: Shameful, fearful, and joyless? Humor 2009, 22, 91–110.
  • Proyer, R.T.; Ruch, W.; Ali, N.S.; Al-Olimat, H.S.; Amemiya, T.; Adal, T.A.; Ansari, S.A.; Arhar, Š.; Asem, G.; Baudin, N.; et al. Breaking ground in cross-cultural research on the fear of being laughed at (gelotophobia): A multi-national study involving 73 countries. Humor Int. J. Humor Res. 2009, 22, 253–279.
  • Proyer, R.T.; Ruch, W.; Chen, G. Gelotophobia: Life satisfaction and happiness across cultures. Humor Int. J. Humor Res. 2012, 25, 23–40.
  • Proyer, R.T.; Ruch, W. Editorial: Dispositions towards ridicule and being laughed at: Current research on gelotophobia, gelotophilia, and katagelastism. Psychol. Test Assess. Model. 2010, 52, 49–59.
  • Reckase, M.D. Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor tests: Results and implications. J. Educ. Stat. 1979, 4, 207–230.
  • Reeve, B. Item Response Theory [IRT]. EQOLWR 2014, 3415–3423.
  • Reise, S.P.; Waller, N.G. Item response theory and clinical measurement. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2009, 5, 27–48.
  • Reise, S.P.; Widaman, K.F.; Pugh, R.H. Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychol. Bull. 1993, 114, 552–566.
  • Robitzsch, A. Robust and nonrobust linking of two groups for the Rasch Model with balanced and unbalanced random DIF: A comparative simulation study and the simultaneous assessment of standard errors and linking errors with resampling techniques. Symmetry 2021, 13, 2198.
  • Ruch, W. Psychology of humor. In The Primer of Humor Research; Ruch, W., Raskin, V., Eds.; Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin, Germany; New York, NY, USA, 2008; Volume 8, pp. 17–100.
  • Ruch, W.; Köhler, G.; van Thriel, C. To be in good or bad humor: Construction of the state form of the State-Trait-CheerfulnessInventory—STCI. Personal. Individ. Differ. 1997, 22, 477–491.
  • Ruch, W.; Köhler, G.; van Thriel, C. Assessing the “humorous temperament”: Construction of the facet and standard trait forms of the State-Trait-Cheerfulness Inventory—STCI. Humor Int. J. Humor Res. 1996, 9, 303–340.
  • Ruch, W.; Proyer, R.T. Extending the study of gelotophobia: On gelotophiles and katagelasticists. Humor Int. J. Humor Res. 2009, 22, 183–212.
  • Ruch, W.; Proyer, R.T. PhoPhiKat-45. Open Test Archive. 2014.
  • Ruch, W.; Proyer, R.T. The fear of being laughed at: Individual and group differences in gelotophobia. Humor Int. J. Humor Res. 2008, 21, 47–67.
  • Samejima, F. Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychom. Monogr. Suppl. 1969, 34 Pt 2, 100.
  • Samson, A.C.; Proyer, R.; Ceschi, G.; Pedrini, P.P.; Ruch, W. The fear of being laughed at in Switzerland regional differences and the role of positive psychology. Swiss. J. Psychol. 2011, 70, 53–62.
  • Stefanenko, E.A.; Ivanova, E.M.; Enikolopov, S.N. Russian adaptation of the PhoPhiKat questionnaire of gelotophobia, gelotophilia, and katagelasticism in adolescents. Psychol. Sci. Educ. 2016, 21, 61–74.
  • Swaminathan, H.; Rogers, H.J. Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. J. Educ. Meas. 1990, 27, 361–370.
  • Thissen, D.; Steinberg, L.; Wainer, H. Use of item response theory in the study of group differences in the trace lines. In Test Validity; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 1988; pp. 147–169.
  • Torres-Marín, J.; Navarro-Carrillo, G.; Eid, M.; Carretero-Dios, H. Humor styles, perceived threat, funniness of covid-19 memes, and affective mood in the early stages of COVID-19 lockdown. J. Happiness Stud. 2022, 23, 2541–2561.
  • Torres-Marín, J.; Proyer, R.T.; López-Benítez, R.; Brauer, K.; Carretero-Dios, H. Beyond the big five as predictors of dispositions toward ridicule and being laughed at: The HEXACO model and the dark triad. Scand. J. Psychol. 2019, 60, 473–483.
  • Torres-Marín, J.; Proyer, R.T.; López-Benítez, R.; Carretero-Dios, H. Assessing individual differences in the way people deal with ridicule and being laughed at: The Spanish form of the PhoPhiKat-45. Curr. Psychol 2019, 40, 2665–2679.
  • Van der Linden, W.J.; Hambleton, R.K. (Eds.) Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1997.
  • Vandenberg, R.J.; Lance, C.E. A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organ. Res. Methods 2000, 3, 4–70.
  • Vijver, F.V.d.; Poortinga, Y.H. Conceptual and methodological issues in adapting tests. In Adapting Educational and Psychological Tests for Cross-Cultural Assessment; Hambleton, R.K., Merenda, P.F., Spielberger, C.D., Eds.; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2004; pp. 39–63.
  • Yu, F.; Guo, Y. Revision of PhoPhiKat questionnaire. Chin. J. Clin. Psychol. 2009, 17, 557–558, 565.
  • Yue, X. Humor and Chinese Culture: A Psychological Perspective; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2017.
  • Zanon, C.; Hutz, C.S.; Yoo, H.; Hambleton, R.K. An application of item response theory to psychological test development. Psicol. Reflexão Crítica 2016, 29, 18.
  • Ziegler, M.; Hagemann, D. Testing the unidimensionality of items: Pitfalls and loopholes. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2015, 31, 231–237.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet