بررسی ساختار عاملی، روایی و پایایی پرسشنامه ملاک های انتخاب همسر (MSCI) در نمونه ایرانی

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشگاه کردستان. ایران

2 دانشگاه کردستان

چکیده

یکی از مهمترین تصمیم ­های افراد در طول زندگی، تصمیم ­گیری در مورد انتخاب همسر است.. هدف از این پژوهش بررسی روایی و پایایی و ساختارعاملی پرسشنامه ­ی معیارهای انتخاب همسر شوارتز و هاسیبروک (2012)، در نمونه ایرانی است. این پژوهش از نوع زمینه­ یابی برای سنجش ساختار عاملی ابزار است. نمونه­ ی پژوهش شامل 486 نفر بوده که به شیوه نمونه­ گیری نسبی از میان دانشجویان انتخاب شدند و پرسشنامه ­های ملاک­های انتخاب همسر (MSCI) و پرسشنامه اولویت بخشی ملاکهای همسرگزینی را تکمیل نمودند. نتایج برازش مدل عاملی تاییدی نشان داد مدل 9 عاملی پرسشنامه ملاک­های انتخاب همسر (MSCI) در نمونه ایرانی از برازش مناسب برخوردار است. میزان آلفای کرونباخ عامل ها بین 51/0 تا 91/0 و به روش بازآزمایی با فاصله 1 ماه بین 53/0 تا 72/0 به دست آمد. همبستگی عامل­های پرسشنامه MSCI با عامل­های پرسشنامه اولویت ­بخشی ملاکهای همسرگزینی، مثبت و معنی­ دار به دست آمد. یافته ­ها نشان می­دهد که مهترین عامل­ها برای انتخاب همسر در نمونه ایرانی به ترتیب عامل­های قابل اعتمادبودن، خوش خلقی، مهربانی و درک همسر است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Factor structure, validity and reliability of Mate Selection Criteria Inventory (MSCI) in an Iranian sample

نویسندگان [English]

  • Omid Isanejad 1
  • Shahin Hooshmand 2
1 University of Kurdistan, Iran
2 University of Kurdistan, Iran
چکیده [English]

Mate selection is one of the most important decisions made by individuals during their lives. The present study was aimed at examining the validity and reliability and structure of Schwarz and Hassebrauck Mate Selection Criteria Inventory (2012) in Iranian culture. The present study was a survey to measure the factor structure of the instrument. The study sample consisted of 486 individuals who were selected from among university students through a partial sampling. The participants completed the Mate Selection Criteria Inventory (MSCI) and Mate Selection Criteria Priority Questionnaire. The results of fitting the confirmatory factor model showed that the 9-factor model of Mate Selection Criteria Inventory (MSCI) has an appropriate fit in Iranian sample. The value of Cronbach’s Alpha of the factors ranged between 0.51 and 0.91, and it was between 0.53 and 0.72 using retest method with an interval of 1 month. The correlation among the factors of MSCI and the factors of Mate Selection Criteria Priority Questionnaire was positive and significant. The results of the study show that the most important factors of mate selection in Iranian culture are respectively trustfulness, kindness, and understanding

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • mate selection criteria- validity- reliability- factor structure
  1. جبرائیلی، هاشم؛ زاده محمدی، علی؛ حیدری، محمود و حبیبی، مجتبی. (1393). نقش ویژگی های شخصیتی در ملاک های انتخاب همسر. مجله اصول بهداشت روانی، 16(3)، 233-243.
  2. خادمی، علی؛ صادقیان، مرجان. (1391). بررسی معیارهای همسرگزینی بر حسب معیارهای شخصیت در دانشجویان دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی یزد. 17، 67-90.
  3. رفاهی، ژاله؛ ثنایی ذاکر، باقر؛ شفیع آبادی، عبدالله؛ پاشا شریفی، حسن (1389). بررسی مقایسه ای ملاک های همسرگزینی در زنان و مردان شیرازی در دو موقعیت هنگام ازدواج و اکنون. تازه ها و پژوهشهای مشاوره، 9، 7-31.
  4. هاشمی, سیدضیاء؛ فولادیان، مجید و فاطمی امین، زینب. (1393). بررسی تجربه ی دو نظریه‌ی رقیب همسرگزینی در ایران. فصلنامه تحقیقات فرهنگی ایران، 7، 157-187.
  5. Amador, J., Charles, T., Tait, J., & Helm, H. (2005). Sex and generational differences in desired characteristics in mate selection. Psychological Reports, 96, 19–25.
  6. Barelds, D. (2005). Self and partner personality in intimate relationships. European Journal of Personality, 19(6), 501–518. doi:10.1002/per.549
  7. Bell, R. (1970). Studies in Marriage and the Family. (R. R. Bell, Ed.) New York: Thomas Y. Crowell co.
  8. Boxer, C., Noonan, M., & Whelan, C. (2013). Measuring mate preferences: A replication and extension. Journal of Family Issues, 36(2), 163-187.
  9. Buss, D. (2012). The evolutionary psychology of crime. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology, 1(1), 90-98.
  10. Buss, D., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 559-570.
  11. Buss, D., Abbott,, M., Angleitner, A., Asherian, A., Biaggio, A., Blanco-Villasenor, A., & El Lohamy, N. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates a study of 37 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21(1), 5-47.
  12. Buunk, A., Park, J., & Duncan, L. (2010). Cultural variation in parental influence on mate choice. Cross-Cultural Research, 44(1), 23–40.
  13. Chen, R., Austin, J., Miller, J., & Piercy, F. (2015). Chinese and American individuals’mate selection criteria: Updates,modifications, and extensions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(1), 101-118.
  14. Chu, S. (2012). I like who you like, but only if I like you: Female character affects mate-choice copying. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(6), 691–695.
  15. Dion, K., & Dion, K. (1993). Individualistic and collectivistic perspective on gender and the cultural context of love and intimacy. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 53–59.
  16. Eastwick, P., & Finkel, E. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 245-264.
  17. Eastwick, P., Luchies, L., Finkel, E., & Hunt, L. (2013). The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences: A review and Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(3), 623-665.
  18. Fabrigar, L., Wegener, D., MacCallum, R., & Strahan, E. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299.
  19. Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 125-139.
  20. Figueredo, A., Sefcek, J., & Jones, D. (2006). The ideal romantic partner personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(3), 431–441. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.02.004
  21. Fisman, R., Iyengar, S., Kamenica, E., & Simonson, I. (2006). Gender differences in mate selection: Evidence from a speed dating experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 673-697. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25098803
  22. Furnham, A. (2009). Sex differences in mate selection preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(4), 262-267.
  23. Gutierres, S., Kenrick, D., Partch, J. J, & Partch, J. (1999). Beauty, dominance, and the mating game: Contrast effects in self-assessment reflect gender differences in mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(9), 1126–1134.
  24. Higgins, L., Zheng, M., & Sun, C. (2002). Attitudes to marriage and sexual behaviors: A survey of gender and culture differences in China and United Kingdom. 46(3), 75–89.
  25. Hill, R. (1945). Campus values in mate selection. Journal of Home Economics, 37, 554–558.
  26. Holmes, B., & Johnson, K. (2009). Adult attachment and romantic partner preference: A review. Jornal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 833-852. doi:10.1177/0265407509345653
  27. Hoyt, L., & Hudson, J. (1981). Personal characteristics important in mate preference among college students. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 9(1), 93-96. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1981.9.1.93
  28. Hudson, J., & Henze, L. (1969). Campus values in mate selection: A replication. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 31, 772-775. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/349321
  29. Johannesen-Schmidt, M., & Eagly, A. (2003). Another look at sex differences in preferred mate characteristics: The effects of endorsing the traditional female gender role. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 322–328. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.t01-2-00071
  30. Kenrick, D., Groth, G., Trost, M., & Sadalla, E. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 951-969.
  31. Kenrick, D., Sadalla, E., Groth, G., & Trost, M. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, 58, 97-116.
  32. Li, N., & Kenrick, D. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: what, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3), 468-489. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.468
  33. Li, N., Valentine, K., & Patel, L. (2011). Mate preferences in the US and Singapore: A cross-crosscultural. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(2), 291–294.
  34. McGinnis, R. (1958). Campus values in mate selection: a repeat study. Social Forces, 36, 368–373.
  35. Parks, M., & Adelman, M. (1983). Communication networks and the development of romantic relationships: An expansion of uncertainty reduction theory. Human Communication Research, 10(1), 55-79.
  36. Schwarz, S., & Hassebrauck, M. (2012). Sex and age differences in mate-selection preferences. Human Nature, 23(4), 447-466.
  37. Shackelford, T., Schmitt, D., & Buss, D. (2005). Universal dimensions of human mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(2), 447-458.
  38. Sprecher, S., Sullivan, Q., & Hatfield, E. (1994). Mate selection preferences: gender differences examined in a national sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(6), 1074-1080.
  39. Toro-Morn, M., & Sprecher, S. (2003). A cross-cultural comparison of mate preferences among university students: The United States vs. The People’s Republic of China (PRC). Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 34, 151-170.
  40. Trivers, R. (1972). Sexual selection and the descent of man. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Parental investment and sexual selection (pp. 1871-1971). Chicago: IL: Aldine.
  41. Webster, G. (2007). Evolutionary theory's increasing role in personality and social psychology. Evolutionary Psychology, 5(1), 84-91. doi:10.1177/147470490700500108
  42. Webster, G., Jonason, P., & Schember, T. (2009). Hot topics and popular papers in evolutionary psychology: Aalyses of title words and citation counts in evolution and human behavior, 1979 – 2008. Evolutionary Psychology, 7(3), 348-362. doi:10.1177/147470490900700301