集体行动的公正衡量

IF 3.2 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
Carmen Cervone, Caterina Suitner, Luciana Carraro, A. Maass
{"title":"集体行动的公正衡量","authors":"Carmen Cervone, Caterina Suitner, Luciana Carraro, A. Maass","doi":"10.1027/1015-5759/a000762","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: In three studies, we developed and validated the Belief-aligned Collective Action scale (BCA), a new measure of collective action that discriminates the so far confounded engagement in collective action from the ideological stance on the issue. In Studies 1a ( N = 585 Italian adult participants, 61% women) and 1b ( N = 296 British adult participants, 52% women), an Exploratory Factor Analysis identified two factors, Normative and Non-normative actions. In Study 2 ( N = 602 Italian adult participants, 50% women), a bifactor Confirmatory Factor Analysis showed an adequate fit of the two-factor structure. Across studies, the scale presents good internal reliability (as indicated by Cronbach’s α and ω total) and correlations in the predicted direction with common predictors of collective action, namely efficacy, anger, and group identity. Furthermore, Study 2 shows the generalizability of the scale to multiple topics, of which some are more relevant to left-wing people (e.g., wealth tax) and some to right-wing people (e.g., abortion). In these cases, we find no evidence for the effect of ideological variables such as political orientation and system justification. This tool allows researchers to assess collective action unbiasedly, contributing to the bridging of the ideological knowledge gap in the field of social psychology.","PeriodicalId":48018,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Psychological Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Impartial Measure of Collective Action\",\"authors\":\"Carmen Cervone, Caterina Suitner, Luciana Carraro, A. Maass\",\"doi\":\"10.1027/1015-5759/a000762\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract: In three studies, we developed and validated the Belief-aligned Collective Action scale (BCA), a new measure of collective action that discriminates the so far confounded engagement in collective action from the ideological stance on the issue. In Studies 1a ( N = 585 Italian adult participants, 61% women) and 1b ( N = 296 British adult participants, 52% women), an Exploratory Factor Analysis identified two factors, Normative and Non-normative actions. In Study 2 ( N = 602 Italian adult participants, 50% women), a bifactor Confirmatory Factor Analysis showed an adequate fit of the two-factor structure. Across studies, the scale presents good internal reliability (as indicated by Cronbach’s α and ω total) and correlations in the predicted direction with common predictors of collective action, namely efficacy, anger, and group identity. Furthermore, Study 2 shows the generalizability of the scale to multiple topics, of which some are more relevant to left-wing people (e.g., wealth tax) and some to right-wing people (e.g., abortion). In these cases, we find no evidence for the effect of ideological variables such as political orientation and system justification. This tool allows researchers to assess collective action unbiasedly, contributing to the bridging of the ideological knowledge gap in the field of social psychology.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48018,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Psychological Assessment\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Psychological Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000762\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000762","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要:在三项研究中,我们开发并验证了信仰一致的集体行动量表(BCA),这是一种新的集体行动衡量标准,将迄今为止混乱的集体行动参与与意识形态立场区分开来。在研究1a(585名意大利成年参与者,61%为女性)和1b(296名英国成年参与者,52%为女性)中,探索性因素分析确定了两个因素,规范性和非规范性行动。在研究2中(N=602名意大利成年参与者,50%为女性),双因素验证性因素分析显示,双因素结构充分拟合。在所有研究中,该量表表现出良好的内部可靠性(如Cronbach的α和ω总和所示),并在预测方向上与集体行动的常见预测因素(即功效、愤怒和群体认同)相关。此外,研究2显示了该量表对多个主题的可推广性,其中一些主题与左翼人士更相关(例如财富税),另一些主题与右翼人士更相关。在这些案例中,我们没有发现任何证据表明政治取向和制度正当性等意识形态变量的影响。该工具使研究人员能够不受约束地评估集体行动,有助于弥合社会心理学领域的意识形态知识差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An Impartial Measure of Collective Action
Abstract: In three studies, we developed and validated the Belief-aligned Collective Action scale (BCA), a new measure of collective action that discriminates the so far confounded engagement in collective action from the ideological stance on the issue. In Studies 1a ( N = 585 Italian adult participants, 61% women) and 1b ( N = 296 British adult participants, 52% women), an Exploratory Factor Analysis identified two factors, Normative and Non-normative actions. In Study 2 ( N = 602 Italian adult participants, 50% women), a bifactor Confirmatory Factor Analysis showed an adequate fit of the two-factor structure. Across studies, the scale presents good internal reliability (as indicated by Cronbach’s α and ω total) and correlations in the predicted direction with common predictors of collective action, namely efficacy, anger, and group identity. Furthermore, Study 2 shows the generalizability of the scale to multiple topics, of which some are more relevant to left-wing people (e.g., wealth tax) and some to right-wing people (e.g., abortion). In these cases, we find no evidence for the effect of ideological variables such as political orientation and system justification. This tool allows researchers to assess collective action unbiasedly, contributing to the bridging of the ideological knowledge gap in the field of social psychology.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: The main purpose of the EJPA is to present important articles which provide seminal information on both theoretical and applied developments in this field. Articles reporting the construction of new measures or an advancement of an existing measure are given priority. The journal is directed to practitioners as well as to academicians: The conviction of its editors is that the discipline of psychological assessment should, necessarily and firmly, be attached to the roots of psychological science, while going deeply into all the consequences of its applied, practice-oriented development.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信