Flow dimensions on daily activities with the Spanish Version of the Flow Scale (DFS)

A sample of 250 students of psychology with an average age of 20.37 years, answered the Flow Q questionnaire indicating their favorite flow activity, and the Spanish version of the Dispositional Flow Scale (DFS). A confirmatory factor analysis assessed the DFS construct validity of the flow model on daily activities. Both a hierarchical model of eight first order factors reflecting a second order global flow factor, and a model with eight formative first order flow dimensions, showed good fit and discriminant power. Most optimal activities were found to be individual and structured, such as studying, reading and certain forms of individual sports. Leisure activities turned out to be more rewarding than studying. Sports displayed more flow, clear goals, merging of action and awareness, and autotelic experience. Reading also showed more flow, balance of challenge and skills, feedback, merging of action and awareness, and loss of self-consciousness. On the other hand, studying displayed less flow, merging of action and awareness, and autotelic experience (AU)

No disponible

Flow dimensions on daily activities with the Spanish version of the Flow Scale (DFS).

A sample of 250 students of psychology with an average age of 20.37 years, answered the Flow Q questionnaire indicating their favorite flow activity, and the Spanish version of the Dispositional Flow Scale (DFS). A confirmatory factor analysis assessed the DFS construct validity of the flow model on daily activities. Both a hierarchical model of eight first order factors reflecting a second order global flow factor, and a model with eight formative first order flow dimensions, showed good fit and discriminant power. Most optimal activities were found to be individual and structured, such as studying, reading and certain forms of individual sports. Leisure activities turned out to be more rewarding than studying. Sports displayed more flow, clear goals, merging of action and awareness, and autotelic experience. Reading also showed more flow, balance of challenge and skills, feedback, merging of action and awareness, and loss of self-consciousness. On the other hand, studying displayed less flow, merging of action and awareness, and autotelic experience.

Las escalas de prejuicio manifiesto y sutil: ¿una o dos dimensiones? / Subtle and blatant prejudice scales: one or two dimensions?

Se analizan las escalas de prejuicio manifiesto y sutil de Pettigrew y Meertens (1995) para verificar su supuesta independencia. Para ello se tiene en cuenta su correlación, su estructura factorial y la capacidad predictiva de la tipología de prejuicio elaborada a partir de dichas escalas. La novedad respecto a otros estudios es que posteriormente al cuestionario que incluye las escalas mencionadas, se sitúa a los sujetos en una situación experimental de jurado simulado, lo que nos ofrece información adicional sobre la validez de la tipología. Los datos obtenidos muestran una alta correlación entre las dos escalas y una estructural factorial que también cuestiona que se trate de dos dimensiones independientes. En contrapartida, la tipología presenta cierta validez predictiva. Todo ello nos lleva a considerar que ambas escalas no son substantivas, sino que reflejan diferentes niveles de intensidad de un mismo constructo

This paper examines whether the blatant and subtle prejudice scales of Pettigrew and Meertens (1995) are truly independent. We consider the correlation, factor structure and predictive capacity of the type of prejudice that these scales identify. In this study, subjects were administered the questionnaire and then placed in an experimental courtroom simulation, in which they act as members of the jury. The simulation stage, which represented the main innovation of the study, provided additional information on the validity of the typology. The data obtained showed a high correlation between the two scales and a factor structure that also calls into question the idea that the blatant and subtle prejudice scales are two independent dimensions. On the other hand, the typology presents a certain predictive value. All this suggests that the two scales reflect different levels of intensity of the same construct