双因素分析提供了行动主义意图和激进主义意图的不相关测量

Q1 Social Sciences
Tomislav M. Pavlović, S. Moskalenko, C. McCauley
{"title":"双因素分析提供了行动主义意图和激进主义意图的不相关测量","authors":"Tomislav M. Pavlović, S. Moskalenko, C. McCauley","doi":"10.1080/17467586.2021.1980220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Activism is legal and non-violent political action, whereas Radicalism is illegal and sometimes violent action. Moskalenko and McCauley introduced the Activism Intentions Scale (AIS) and the Radicalism Intentions Scale (RIS) as related but distinguishable dimensions: the scales were significantly correlated but showed different correlates. The same pattern has been seen consistently in subsequent research using the scales. In this paper, two studies (280 Catalan university students, 163 Croatian adults) use bifactor analysis to measure Activism Intentions uncorrelated with Radicalism Intentions, and Radicalism Intentions uncorrelated with Activism Intentions. Scores on the purified scales show more differentiated patterns of correlates than scores on the usual item-average scales, that is, bifactor scores show improved discriminant validity. These results support the idea that activism and radicalism are different theoretical constructs. The distinction is important because it implies that fighting radicalization does not require fighting activism.","PeriodicalId":38896,"journal":{"name":"Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict: Pathways toward Terrorism and Genocide","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bifactor analyses provide uncorrelated measures of activism intentions and radicalism intentions\",\"authors\":\"Tomislav M. Pavlović, S. Moskalenko, C. McCauley\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17467586.2021.1980220\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Activism is legal and non-violent political action, whereas Radicalism is illegal and sometimes violent action. Moskalenko and McCauley introduced the Activism Intentions Scale (AIS) and the Radicalism Intentions Scale (RIS) as related but distinguishable dimensions: the scales were significantly correlated but showed different correlates. The same pattern has been seen consistently in subsequent research using the scales. In this paper, two studies (280 Catalan university students, 163 Croatian adults) use bifactor analysis to measure Activism Intentions uncorrelated with Radicalism Intentions, and Radicalism Intentions uncorrelated with Activism Intentions. Scores on the purified scales show more differentiated patterns of correlates than scores on the usual item-average scales, that is, bifactor scores show improved discriminant validity. These results support the idea that activism and radicalism are different theoretical constructs. The distinction is important because it implies that fighting radicalization does not require fighting activism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38896,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict: Pathways toward Terrorism and Genocide\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict: Pathways toward Terrorism and Genocide\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17467586.2021.1980220\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict: Pathways toward Terrorism and Genocide","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17467586.2021.1980220","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

激进主义是合法的、非暴力的政治行动,而激进主义是非法的、有时甚至是暴力的行动。Moskalenko和McCauley引入了行动主义意向量表(AIS)和激进主义意向量表(RIS)作为相关但可区分的维度:两个量表显著相关,但表现出不同的相关关系。同样的模式在随后的研究中一直被发现。在本文中,两项研究(280名加泰罗尼亚大学生和163名克罗地亚成年人)使用双因素分析来衡量与激进主义意图不相关的激进主义意图和与行动主义意图不相关的激进主义意图。净化量表上的得分比通常的项目平均量表上的得分显示出更多的差异模式,即双因素得分显示出更好的区分效度。这些结果支持了激进主义和激进主义是不同理论结构的观点。这一区别很重要,因为它意味着打击激进主义并不需要打击激进主义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bifactor analyses provide uncorrelated measures of activism intentions and radicalism intentions
ABSTRACT Activism is legal and non-violent political action, whereas Radicalism is illegal and sometimes violent action. Moskalenko and McCauley introduced the Activism Intentions Scale (AIS) and the Radicalism Intentions Scale (RIS) as related but distinguishable dimensions: the scales were significantly correlated but showed different correlates. The same pattern has been seen consistently in subsequent research using the scales. In this paper, two studies (280 Catalan university students, 163 Croatian adults) use bifactor analysis to measure Activism Intentions uncorrelated with Radicalism Intentions, and Radicalism Intentions uncorrelated with Activism Intentions. Scores on the purified scales show more differentiated patterns of correlates than scores on the usual item-average scales, that is, bifactor scores show improved discriminant validity. These results support the idea that activism and radicalism are different theoretical constructs. The distinction is important because it implies that fighting radicalization does not require fighting activism.
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
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
×
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