Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica
Modeling Self-reported Instrument Data with Gene Expression Programming
QIAN Jinxin;YU Jiayuan
(School of Psychology, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210097, China)
Download: PDF(354 KB)  
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks    
Abstract  It is often difficult to represent the complex relations among psychological variables with traditional analytical models like regressions. Supposedly, neural networks and support vector regression machine can be used instead. However, the limitation is that these models are recessive. Gene expression programming (GEP) can be used to handle these models with observable variables. At present, most of the data using GEP models are obtained with objective methods. But a lot of the psychological measurement data are obtained from self-report instruments and are affected by many subjective factors. Could these kinds of data be used in GEP models? How large is the modeling error? Is there any advantage in using the GEP modeling as compared with the multivariate linear regression or the polynomial regression modeling? Is the GEP modeling more accurate than neural networks and support vector regression machine modeling? All the above issues would be explored in this paper. The responses of 400 middle school students were obtained with the Williams creativity assessment packet and the need for cognition scale. A total of 17 students were deleted because of the abnormality in responses and the data from 383 students were retained for modeling. Common method biases had not been found with the Harman’s single-factor test. Five parameters of gene expression programming were optimized with the uniform design. These parameters were head length, gene number, fitness function, chromosome number and mutation probability. There were nine levels for each parameter, each established under different testing conditions respectively. The condition with maximum fitness was obtained through experiments. The GEP program was repeated 10 times under this condition. The accuracy of the models was calculated and the model with the minimum error was found, of which the expression tree was drawn. The models of the relations between need for cognition and creativity personality traits were established using BP neural networks, support vector regression machine, multivariate linear regression and polynomial regression respectively. These models were compared with the model using gene expression programming. The results showed that: (a) the accuracy of model 10, with four independent variables, was the highest; (b) the expressions of these ten models were different but their predictive errors were very close, thus supporting the robustness of the GEP modeling method; and (c) the predictive errors of different models were: GEP, 1.28; BP networks 2.76; support vector regression machine 2.31; polynomial regression 3.21; multivariate linear regression 3.86 respectively. It can be concluded that: (a) data from self-reported instruments can still be modeled with gene expression programming even though these data are affected by many subjective factors; (b) the GEP modeling is more accurate than the other intelligent computing methods (neural networks, support vector regression machine, etc.) and traditional statistical methods (multivariate linear regression, polynomial regression, etc.), and (c) the models established with GEP are robust; their predictive accuracy is similar even though their mathematical formulae are quite different.
Keywords self-reported instrument      gene expression programming      modeling      creativity      uniform design     
Corresponding Authors: YU Jiayuan   
Issue Date: 25 June 2013
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
Articles by authors
QIAN Jinxin
YU Jiayuan
Cite this article:   
QIAN Jinxin,YU Jiayuan. Modeling Self-reported Instrument Data with Gene Expression Programming[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2013.00704
URL:     OR
[1] NI Xudong; XIANG Xiaoxia; YAO Chunxu. Balance of team diversity’ effects on team creativity[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(5): 556-565.
[2] LI WenFu; TONG DanDan; QIU Jiang; ZHANG QingLin. The neural basis of scientific innovation problems solving[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(4): 331-342.
[3] WEN Hongbo; LIANG Kaili; LIU Xianwei. Effect of family environment on reading ability: The mediating effects of reading engagement and reading interest among junior high school students[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(3): 248-257.
[4] ZHANG Jinghuan; LIU Xin; REN Feifei; SUN Xiangwei; YU Qi. The effects of group diversity and organizational support on group creativity[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(12): 1551-1560.
[5] CHEN Shuai.
The influence of team faultlines on team performance: Mediating effect of team transactive memory system
[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(1): 84-94.
[6] GU Chuanhua; WANG Yali; WU Caifu; XIE Xianglong; CUI Chengzhu; WANG Yaxian; WANG Wanzhen; HU Biying; ZHOU Zongkui. Brain Correlates underlying Social Creative Thinking: EEG Alpha Activity in Trait vs. State Creativity[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(6): 765-773.
[7] LV Jie; ZHANG Gang. The Mechanisms of Knowledge Heterogeneity on Creativity of Knowledge Teams: An Interactive Cognition Perspective[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(4): 533-544.
[8] MA Jun; ZHANG Haomin; YANG Tao. A Cross-level Analysis of Achievement Goal Orientation and Performance Control on Team Member’s Creativity[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(1): 79-92.
[9] LIU Yuan; LUO Fang; LIU Hongyun. Factors of Piecewise Growth Mixture Model: Distance and Pattern[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(9): 1400-1412.
[10] FU Zhongfang;SUN Xunwei;LIANG Peipeng. Proactive Interference in Episodic Memory: Neuropsychopharmacology and Computational Cognitive Modeling Study[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(4): 492-499.
[11] ZHANG Yong; LONG Lirong; HE Wei. The Effect of Pay for Performance on Radical Creativity and Incremental Creativity[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(12): 1880-1896.
[12] LIN Xiaomin; BAI Xinwen; LIN Lin. Effects of Similarity and Accuracy Indices of Shared Mental Models on Team Creativity[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(11): 1734-1747.
[13] CAI Yahua;JIA Liangding;YOU Shuyang;ZHANG Yi;CHEN Yanlu. The Influence of Differentiated Transformational Leadership on Knowledge Sharing and Team Creativity: A Social Network Explanation[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2013, 45(5): 585-598.
[14] ZHANG Yong;LONG Lirong. The Impact of Pay for Performance on Employees’ Creativity: Moderating Effect of Person-job Fit and Mediating Effect of Creative Self-efficacy[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2013, 45(3): 363-376.
[15] LIU Junsheng;ZHOU Ying;LI Dan. Developmental Trajectories of Loneliness During Middle and Late Childhood: A Latent Growth Curve Analysis[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2013, 45(2): 179-192.
Full text



Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech