Development a Measurement of Attitudes about Ideal Government

274

Abstract

Objective. Develop a questionnaire to measure attitudes about ideal government and analyze the psychometric properties of this tool. Background. Psychological studies showed the key role of political attitudes (conservatism/liberalism) in different forms of political activity. Conservatism-liberalism dichotomy did not correspond with actual political “agenda” in Russia that induced the question about the structure of political attitudes. Study design. To indicate the attitudes about ideal government, an online survey was conducted. The structure of political attitudes was analysed through confirmatory factor analysis, and analyses of reliability, validity, and invariance. Participants. The research consisted of 2 independent studies. About 610 participants took part at the study 1 (353 men and 257 women) over 18 years old (M=34.28; SD=13.82); and 378 participants (196 men and 182 women) over 18 years old (M=35.26; SD=10.54) at the study 2. Methods. Russian-language versions of the scales of Needs for cognitive clousure, Openness to experience (“Big Five”), Right-wing Authoritarianism, System Justification, and the author’s questionnaire of attitudes about an ideal government. Additionally, participants completed the self-categoriaiton scales about political orientations (“left-right”; “liberal-conservatives”). Results. The structure of attitudes about the ideal government consisted of “respect” and “support”. “Political respect” was correspondent to “liberal” and “left-wing” self-identification that indicated the criterion validity. At the same time, the analysis of convergent validity showed that “respect” and “support” were linked with right-wing authoritarianism and need for cognitive clousure. Conclusions. The structure of political attitudes in Russia consisted of “governmental support” and “political respect”. The current perspective discussed in the context of liberal/conservative political orientations.

General Information

Keywords: political attitudes, “ideal government”, conservatism, liberalism, political respect, governmental support

Journal rubric: Methodological Tools

Article type: scientific article

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2021120308

Funding. The reported study was funded by Russian Science Foundation (RSF), project number 20-18-00142

For citation: Prusova I.S. Development a Measurement of Attitudes about Ideal Government . Sotsial'naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo = Social Psychology and Society, 2021. Vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 103–127. DOI: 10.17759/sps.2021120308. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)

References

  1. Chertkova Yu.D., Egorova M.S., Fominykh A.Ya., Alekseeva O.S. Avtoritarnost’ v structure lichnostnykh chert [Elektronnyi resurs] [Authoritarianism in personality traits structure] // Psikhologicheskie issledovaniya = Psychological Studies. 2017. Vol. 10. No. 52. P. 11. URL: http:// psystudy.ru/index.php/num/2017v10n52/1410-chertkova52.html (Accessed 25.05.2021). (In Russ.).
  2. Shchebetenko S.A. Refleksivnye adaptatsii kharaktera v pyatifaktornoi teorii lichnosti [Reflexive characteristics adaptations within the five-fector theory of personality framework] // Psikhologicheskii zhurnal = Psychological Journal. 2015. Vol. 36. No. 6. P. 74—84.(In Russ.).
  3. Altemeyer B. The Other “Authoritarian Personality” // Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 1998. Vol. 30. Р. 47—92. DOI:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60382-2
  4. Azevedo F., Jost J.T., Rothmund T., Sterling J. Neoliberal ideology and the justification of inequality in capitalist societies: Why social and economic dimensions of ideology are intertwined // Journal of Social Issues. 2019. Vol. 75. № 1. P. 49—88. DOI:10.1111/josi.12310
  5. Brandt M.J., Reyna C., Chambers J.R., Crawford J.T., Wetherell G.A. The ideological-conflict hypothesis: Intolerance among both liberals and conservatives // Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2014. Vol. 23. № 1. С. 27—34. DOI:10.1177/0963721413510932
  6. Caprara G.V., Zimbardo P. Personalizing politics: A congruency model of political preference // American Psychologist. 2004. Vol. 59. P. 581—94, 710. DOI:10.1037/0003-066X.59.7.581
  7. Caprara G.V., Schwartz S., Capanna C., Vecchione M., Barbaranelli C. Personality and Politics: Values, Traits, and Political Choice // Political Psychology. 2006. Vol. 27. № 1. P. 1—28. DOI:10.1111/ j.1467-9221.2006.00447.x
  8. Carney D.R., Jost J.T., Gosling S.D., Potter J. The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind // Political Psychology. 2008. Vol. 29. № 6. P. 807—840. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00668.x
  9. Chen F.F. Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance // Structural Equation Modeling. 2007. Vol. 14. P. 464—504. DOI:10.1080/10705510701301834
  10. Crawford J.T., Pilanski J.M. The differential effects of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on political intolerance // Political Psychology. 2014. Vol. 35. № 4. P. 557— 576. DOI:10.1111/pops.12066
  11. Gerber A.S., Huber G.A., Doherty D., Dowling C.M., Ha S.E. Personality and Political Attitudes: Relationships across Issue Domains and Political Contexts // American Political Science Review. 2010. Vol. 104. № 1. P. 111—133. DOI:10.1017/S0003055410000031
  12. Greenberg J., Jonas E. Psychological motives and political orientation — The left, the right, and the rigid: Comment on Jost et al // Psychological Bulletin. 2003. Vol. 129. P. 376—382. DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.376
  13. Haidt J., Graham J. When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize // Social Justice Research. 2007. Vol. 20. № 1. P. 98—116. DOI:10.1007/ s11211-007-0034-z
  14. Hirsh J.B., DeYoung C.G., Xu X., Peterson J.B. Compassionate liberals and polite conservatives: Associations of agreeableness with political ideology and moral values // Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2010. Vol. 36. № 5. P. 655—664. DOI:10.1177/0146167210366854
  15. Hu L.T., Bentler P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives // Structural Equation Modeling. 1999. DOI:10.1080/10705519909540118
  16. John O.P., Donahue E.M., Kentle R.L. The Big Five Inventory--Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research, 1991.
  17. John O.P., Naumann L.P., Soto C.J. Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and conceptual issues. In: Handbook of Personality // Theory and Research / In O.P. John, R.W. Robins, L.A. Pervin (eds.). New York: Guilford Press, 2008. P. 114—158.
  18. Jost J.T. The end of the end of ideology // American Psychologist. 2006. Vol. 61. № 7. P. 651— 670. DOI:10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.651
  19. Jost J.T. Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology // Political Psychology. 2017. Vol. 38. P. 167—208. DOI:10.1111/pops.12407
  20. Jost J.T., Banaji M.R. The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness // British journal of social psychology. 1994. Vol. 33. № 1. P. 1—27. DOI:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008
  21. Jost J.T., Glaser J., Kruglanski A.W., Sulloway F.J. Political conservatism as motivated social cognition // Psychological Bulletin. 2003. Vol. 129. P. 339—375. DOI:l0.1037/0033-2909.129.3,339
  22. Layman G.C., Carsey T.M. Party polarization and “conflict extension” in the American electorate // American Journal of Political Science. 2002. Vol. 46. P. 786—802. DOI:10.2307/3088434
  23. Lukin A. The political culture of the Russian “democrats”. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. 352 p.
  24. Mebane M.E., Aiello A., Francescato D. Political gender gap and social dominance orientation // Psycho-social aspects of human sexuality and ethics. 2020. P. 1—15. DOI:10.5772/intechopen.92222
  25. Mondak J.J. Personality and the foundations of political behavior. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
  26. Onraet E., Van Hiel A., Roets A., Cornelis I. The closed mind: “Experience” and “cognition” aspects of openness to experience and need for closure as psychological bases for right-wing attitudes // European Journal of Personality. 2011. Vol. 25. P. 184—197. DOI:10.1002/per.775
  27. Pan J., Xu Y. China’s Ideological Spectrum Forthcoming // The Journal of Politics. 2017. Vol. 80. № 1. P. 254—273. DOI:10.2139/ssrn.2593377
  28. Prusova I.S., Gulevich O.A. The effect of mortality salience on the attitudes toward state control: The case of Russia // International Journal of Psychology. 2020. Vol. 55. № 2. P. 305—314. DOI:10.1002/ijop.12571
  29. Roets A., Van Hiel A. Need for closure relations with authoritarianism, conservative beliefs, and racism: The impact of urgency and permanence tendencies // Psychologica Belgica. 2006. Vol. 46. P. 235—252. DOI:10.5334/pb-46-3-235
  30. Roets A., Van Hiel A. Allport’s prejudiced personality today: Need for closure as the motivated cognitive basis of prejudice // Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2011. Vol. 20. P. 349— 354. DOI:10.1177/0963721411424894
  31. Rosseel Y. Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5— 12 (BETA) // Journal of Statistical Software. 2012. Vol. 48. № 2. P. 1—36. DOI:10.18637/jss. v048.i02
  32. Satherley N., Sibley C.G., Osborne D. Ideology before party: Social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism temporally precede political party support // British Journal of Social Psychology. 2020. DOI:10.1111/bjso.12414
  33. Schoen Ha., Schumann S. Personality Traits, Partisan Attitudes, and Voting Behavior. Evidence from Germany // Political Psychology. 2007. Vol. 28. № 4. P. 471—498. DOI:10.1111/j.1467- 9221.2007.00582.x
  34. Sidanius J., Feshbach S., Levin S., Pratto F. The interface between ethnic and National attachment: Ethnic pluralism or ethnic dominance? // Public Opinion Quarterly. 1997. Vol. 61. P. 103—133. DOI:10.1086/297789
  35. Van Assche J., Dhont K., Pettigrew T.F. The social-psychological bases of far-right support in Europe and the United States // Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. 2019. Vol. 29. № 5. P. 385—401. DOI:10.1002/casp.2407

Information About the Authors

Irina S. Prusova, PhD in Psychology, Head of Laboratory for Psychology of Social Inequality, HSE University, Moscow, Russia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9298-2408, e-mail: iprusova@hse.ru

Metrics

Views

Total: 486
Previous month: 11
Current month: 11

Downloads

Total: 274
Previous month: 6
Current month: 9