- Email: [email protected]
Development and validation of a Citizenship Attributional Style Questionnaire
G Model SOCSCI-1407; No. of Pages 8
ARTICLE IN PRESS The Social Science Journal xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Social Science Journal journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soscij
Development and validation of a Citizenship Attributional Style Questionnaire Sedat Yazıcı a,∗ , Sevim Güven b a b
C¸ankırı Karatekin University, Department of Philosophy, C¸ankırı, Turkey Gaziosmanpas¸a University, Faculty of Education, Tokat, Turkey
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 18 June 2016 Received in revised form 6 June 2017 Accepted 8 June 2017 Available online xxx Keywords: Citizenship Attributional Style Questionnaire Attributional dimensions Internality Stability
a b s t r a c t Attribution theory remains popular in the social sciences and often informs education studies. However, attributional style questionnaires tend to reflect the context-dependent character of the theory and existing measures have been found to have poor psychometric properties. Clearly, both issues need to be carefully considered by researchers prior to them applying any scales that incorporate attributional dimensions. Here we report on the development of a reliable and valid measure that applies an attributional style within the context of citizenship. Two separate studies were conducted to inform the development of the Citizenship Attributional Style Questionnaire (CASQ). The factor loadings of eight positive and eight negative events for the internality and stability dimensions were found to range between .41 and .75. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability of positive and negative events were found to be .79 and .74, respectively. While CASQ is seen to be a reliable and valid measure, the results also indicate broader psychometric properties than many of the instruments currently used in studies with an attributional approach. © 2017 Western Social Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Attribution theory and attributional style measures Attribution or explanatory theory is a reformulation of the learned helplessness concept (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978), which suggests that people habitually explain the causes of positive and negative life experiences, behaviors and events in a way that cognitively characterizes their personality. Three major attributional styles with three dimensions (internal versus external, stable versus unstable and global versus specific) are seen in the existing literature. In the first, people who have an optimistic attributional style are apt to attribute negative causes to external factors, and positive causes to inter-
∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] [email protected] (S. Güven).
(S.
nal factors. Second, people who demonstrate a pessimistic attributional style are apt to attribute negative causes to external, unstable and specific causes, and attribute positive causes to internal and stable factors. Thirdly, people who demonstrate a hostile attributional style are apt to attribute negative causes to external and stable factors (Havey & Martinko, 2010). In order to indicate the relevance of attribution theory to general human behaviors, Heider (1958) remarks that ordinary people are naïve psychologists who make judgments to understand, predict and control the behaviors of others or events. Attribution theory posits that the interpretation of past events has a causative role in the occurrence of future behaviors. The model is not a reasonexplanation, that is, rationally explaining why someone did what he did, but rather a complex causal explanation that begins with social perception, attribution judgments,
Yazıcı),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.06.002 0362-3319/© 2017 Western Social Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Yazıcı, S., & Güven, S. Development and validation of a Citizenship Attributional Style Questionnaire. The Social Science Journal (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.06.002
G Model SOCSCI-1407; No. of Pages 8
2
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Yazıcı, S. Güven / The Social Science Journal xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
emotional response, and ends with behavioral motivation (Crittended, 1983). Attribution theory has been studied with different variables and in different settings. Among them, a great number of researchers have focused on the relationship between attributional style and depression (Abramson et al., 1978; Harvey 1981; Peterson, Schwartz, & Seligman 1981). In their meta-analysis of 84 studies, Hu and Zhang (2015) found overwhelming support for a relationship between an attributional style for negative outcomes and depression. However, the question of how attribution style operates in depression has been a matter of methodological issue. Alloy, Abramson, Metalsky, and Hartlage (1988) and Abramson, Metalsky, and Alloy (1989) argued that since depression is a complicated psychological disorder, any model explaining its etiological factors must be able to identify its necessary, sufficient and contributory causes. They provided evidence that it is hopelessness, not helplessness, that yields sufficient condition in the causal chain of depression. In this reformulated theory of depression, deprossogenic attributional style which arises from perceived cause of negative events was identified as being a distal contributory cause that increases likelihood of the occurrence of depression symptoms. Given this new approach, it was hypothesized that it is the cognitive vulnerability factor that explains why some individuals, rather than others, are at greater risk for depression after a negative live event (Haeffel, 2011; Haeffel et al., 2008). Some studies provide evidence that event-specific attribution can better mediate the relationship between vulnerability factors and depression (Johnson, 1995; Lynd-Stevenson, 1997). Haeffel (2011) proposed and provided evidence that this mediation role increases to higher level when a person’s final cognitive interpretation, rather than the initial one, is assessed. Previous studies have also indicated that an attributional style is correlated with academic performance (Gibb, Zhu, Alloy, & Abramson, 2002; Houston, 2016; Nolen-Hoeksema, Girgus, & Seligman, 1986); workplace behavior (Smith, Caputi, & Crittenden, 2013); relationships (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990), and sports performance (Hanrahan, Grove, & Hattie, 1989). The past four decades have seen the development and widespread use of several attributional style measures. The Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ) developed by Peterson et al. (1982) asks participant to write down causes for hypothetical events and then to rate whether the cause of the event is internal or external, stable or unstable, global or specific. This measure includes six positive and six negative hypothetical events. Hewitt, Foxcroft, and MacDonald’s (2004) confirmatory factor analysis of ASQ looked at six negative events, and found support for internality, stability and globality dimensions. The factorial structure of extended ASQ was also supported in some other studies (Joiner & Metalsky, 1999). The Cognitive Style Questionnaire (CSQ; Abramson et al., 1989; see Haeffel et al., 2008) was developed to assess the vulnerability factor for depression. The CSQ uses the same format as the ASQ but the measure was modified to include two additional dimensions, that is, probable consequences and self-worth implications. In order to improve reliability
scores, the number of hypothetical events was increased to 24, equally divided between positive and negative events. The CSO indicated excellent reliability scores for both the composite score and the individual vulnerability components, ranging from .88 to 96 and .83 to 91 respectively (see Haeffel et al., 2008). The Occupational Attributional Style Questionnaire (OASQ; Furnham, Sadka, & Brewin, 1992), consists of four positive and four negative hypothetical scenarios and has been used to measure attributions in work-related events. The Academic Attributional Style Questionnaire (AASQ; Peterson & Barett, 1987), consists of 12 negative events and was designed to measure students’ attributional style in relation to various experiences they encounter in an academic environment. The Children’s Attributional Style Questionnaire (CASQ; Seligman et al., 1984), is another widely used instrument that was developed to assess the attributional style of children aged between 8 and 13. CASQ has 48 items, half of them positive and half of them negative, and uses a forced choice approach. Lewis, Waschbusch, Sellers, Leblanc, and Kelley tested the factor structure of the Children’s Attributional Style QuestionnaireRevised (CASQ-R) and confirmed a one-factor solution for negative events and a two-factor solution for positive events. These measures have been used to produce fruitful research questions and agenda. However, as Peterson (1991a, 1991b) has stated, “both the meaning and the measurement of attributional style have been controversial” (p. 182). Some researchers questioned whether the theory itself has a solid foundation and is consistent across situations (Cutrona, Russell, & Jones, 1985). Part of the reason for these findings is that the reliability scores of existing measures were found to be low or at best modest, and that their validity did not well prove the hypothesized dimensions. Indeed, despite the widespread application of attribution theory, it has been often stated that existing measures have poor psychometric properties (Furnham et al., 1992; Hessling, Anderson, & Russell, 2002; Smith et al., 2013; Travers, Creed, & Morrissey, 2015). For example, the Cronbach’s alpha scores obtained for the Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ) were found to be very poor for internality, stability and globality subdomains (.38, .21, .53), low for positive and negative events (.44–.69), and modest for the composite scores of positive and negative events (.75, .72). Since the poor reliability problem was essentially related to the existence of a limited number of items in these measures (Furnham et al., 1992; Peterson & Seligman, 1984) subsequent studies aimed to improve these low reliability scores by including more items in the scale. By omitting all positive items and including 24 negative items into the original ASQ, Peterson and Villavova (1988) prepared the Expanded Attributional Style Questionnaire (EASQ). The findings of this study proved more satisfactory in terms of reliability scores, with .66 for internality, .85 for stability and .88 for globality dimensions. The Cronbach alpha coefficients of the Occupational Attributional Style Questionnaire for internality dimension were also found quite low in some studies, with .28 for positive events and .40 for negative events (Xenikou & Furnham, 1997). In a review of existing literature Smith et al. (2013) indicated
Please cite this article in press as: Yazıcı, S., & Güven, S. Development and validation of a Citizenship Attributional Style Questionnaire. The Social Science Journal (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.06.002
G Model SOCSCI-1407; No. of Pages 8
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Yazıcı, S. Güven / The Social Science Journal xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
that seven out of fifteen attributional style measures have lower than .70 internal coefficients for either total score or separate dimensions. The reasons for poor psychometric properties have been associated with small sample size, use of a limited number of items, measurement and construct related problems and the context dependency of attributions (Joiner & Metalsky, 1999). Clearly, these issues need to be considered by researchers who wish to apply attributional theory to new areas of study. The motivation behind our research was to confirm the potential to advance citizenship studies with the help of attribution theory.
2. Attribution theory and citizenship How could we relate attribution theory to citizenship studies, and what does an attribution process include in citizenry behaviors and events? We believe that there are both explanatory reasons and normative reasons for this question. The former deals with citizenship practices in relation to governing institutions and public affairs, the latter drives its root from democratic theory. Sahar (2014) suggested that the attributional model “could be applied not only to interpersonal situations such as making judgments about an individual homeless person on encounters on the street but also to societal-level judgments, that is, to social and political attitudes” (p. 230). Attributions occur quite often in the case of citizenry behaviors. Public issues such as prejudice, poverty, homosexuality, gay and lesbian rights, authoritarianism, political orientation, economic and racial inequality are indeed conceptually related to citizenship (Kymlicka, 1990). Several studies have examined attributional style in the context of moral and political attitudes toward public issues such as poverty (Solak & Göregenli, 2009; Weiner, Osborne, & Rudolph, 2011); lesbian and gay rights (Wood & Bartkowski, 2014; Whitley, 1990); and abortion (Zocker, 1999). Citizens experience numerous good and bad events in their public life, most of which have a deep effect on their cognitive and emotional reactions. Citizens may have optimistic, pessimistic or hostile disposition about public affairs and whether things that are going well or not in their country. Whereas some people may attribute negative causes to external factors such as governmental policies, existing political structures, global powers, discrimination, undemocratic institutions, others may place responsibility on citizens themselves due to their lack of public awareness or sensitivity. So, both the system-caused attributions and the person-caused attributions arising from the responsibility of citizens themselves can exist in citizenry behaviors and events. It is likely that unstable attributions for bad events generate the expectation that things will not change in the future. We can hypothesize that protest groups are likely to attribute negative causes to external factors such as governmental policies, existing political structures, global powers, discrimination, undemocratic institutions (Aktar, 2015). More apathy about politics and institutions would lead to attributions that assign external and stable causes to external circumstances or people in negative
3
events, internal causes to citizens themselves in positive events. We are all naïve psychologists, as Herder remarks, but social psychologists are cautious about the limit of attribution because the process includes certain cognitive bias, what they call fundamental attribution error. When attributing, people tend to underestimate the situation and to overestimate their personal characters or dispositions. Citizens’ attributions can contribute to democratic society only if their judgments and evaluations are based on sound civic virtues and sufficient knowledge. Attributional bias and effective or active citizenship seem to be normatively exclusive to each other. Democratic citizenry requires effective or active citizens who are expected to be aware of local, national and global issues; to ask meaningful questions; to analyze and evaluate information and ideas, to use effective decision-making and problem-solving; to actively participate in civic and community life; to accept responsibility for their and others’ well-being (NCSS, 2001; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). This relationship between citizenship traits and political structure was theoretically explored and defended by many political philosophers. For Plato (1991), the types of state and human spirit are intrinsically connected. As he says, “in each of us there are the same principles and habits which there are in the State; and that from the individual they pass into the state” (535-e). Plato further acknowledges the effect of the state on citizens: “if the constitutions of States are five, the dispositions of individual minds will also be five” (544-e). In Politics (1984) Aristotle argues that the success and failure of a political system, to a great extent, depends on the good or bad traits of its citizens. For republicans like Aristotle (1984), Montesquieu (2011) and Rousseau (1968), civic virtues are required of citizens for the flourishing of the state. An attribution can be in terms of an assessment of the causes of an action or event, assigning responsibility to the actors, or characterization of the personal traits of the agents who are responsible for the occurrence of the event being explained (Lord & Smith, 1983). Since democracy is a government by the people, citizens can take responsibility for ongoing events and developments in their local and national government. However, citizens in representative democracies may or may not have control over the circumstances that directly affect them because they are both actors and subjects of public affairs. For this reason a reciprocal relationship exists between citizens and their governments and representatives, and a shared attribution responsibility as well. The concept of active citizenship was chosen to provide a theoretical basis of this study, which includes civic engagement, democratic values, sense of belonging (Hoskins & Mascherini, 2009; Nelson & Kerr, 2005). Active citizenship can substantially improve both the quality of democracy and the judgments made by citizens with respect to public decisions, events and behaviors. Proponent of participatory democracy in contemporary political philosophy argues that citizen involvement in decision and policy making processes can contribute to citizens’ sense of belonging to their community, increase their civic skills and knowledge, improve the legitimacy of decisions that
Please cite this article in press as: Yazıcı, S., & Güven, S. Development and validation of a Citizenship Attributional Style Questionnaire. The Social Science Journal (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.06.002
G Model SOCSCI-1407; No. of Pages 8
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Yazıcı, S. Güven / The Social Science Journal xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
4
affect them (Albanesı, Cıcognanı, & Zanı, 2007; Michels & Graaf, 2010). Democracy includes principles and values that describe common decision making procedures. Empirical evidence, as well as common observation, indicates that affective reaction toward the outcome of a decision is associated with how the outcome is achieved (Zeelenberg, Pligt, & Vries, 2000). In short, a citizenship context is very relevant to attribution theory and studies conducted in this setting can help our understanding of the variety aspect of citizenship behaviors. 3. Method 3.1. Study 1 3.1.1. Development of Citizenship Attributional Style Questionnaire (CASQ) The hypothetical events used in this study were selected from active citizenship behaviors such as voting, submitted a petition, participating in democratic demonstrations, protesting the use of various products, being aware of rights and responsibilities. In order to develop positive and negative items that are conceptually relevant to citizenship attitudes and behaviors we first reviewed both attributional style and citizenship studies literature and then generated the item pool. We also asked seven academics who were familiar with citizenship issues whether or not the items included in the pool were appropriate for the measurement of citizenship attributional style, and asked them to suggest additional items for inclusion in the questionnaire. We then evaluated their suggestions and included 15 positive and 14 negative items in the questionnaire. To see whether any items caused difficulty of understanding or included ambiguous or obscure meanings, the questionnaire was administered to a sample of 42 undergraduate students. After some minor revisions in wording, 15 positive and 14 negative items were placed on a seven-point Likert scale. We used a plural noun “we citizens” for collective events to refer to internal cause, and “other institutions or organizations” to refer to external cause. Otherwise, the format and explanations in the manual were the same as that used in ASQ. Samples from positive and negative events and response scales are shown below: You have participated in a democratic demonstration organized in your home town. Is the cause of your participation in a democratic demonstration due to something about you or to something about other people or circumstances? Totally due to me 1234567 Totally due to other people or circumstances In the future, will this cause again be present? 1234567 Will always be present Will never again be present Your return request for a product was accepted. Is the cause of the acceptance of your request due to something about you or to something about other people or circumstances? Totally due to me Totally due to other 1234567 people or circumstances
In the future, will this cause again be present? 1234567 Will always be present Will never again be present You have never submitted a petition to an institution or organization to voice a problem you experienced. Is the cause of your not submitting a petition due to something about you or to something about other people or circumstances Totally due to other Totally due to me 1234567 people or circumstances In the future, will this cause again be present? 1234567 Will always be present Will never again be present You did not vote in the parliamentary election. Is the cause of your not voting due to something about you or to something about other people or circumstances Totally due to me Totally due to other 1234567 people or circumstances In the future, will this cause again be present? Will never again be 1234567 Will always be present present An important problem on the Parliament’s agenda has not been solved for a long time. Is the cause of this failure of solving the problem due to something about you or to something about other people or circumstances Totally due to we 1234567 Totally due to other people, institutions or citizens circumstances In the future, will this cause again be present? 1234567 Will always be present Will never again be present
Several studies have found that stability and globality dimensions are highly correlated and apt to indicate a single factor, often named generality (Abramson et al., 1989). At this initial development stage, we theoretically designed our study based on a two-factor structure (internal versus external, stable versus unstable), and item developments were done accordingly. 3.1.2. Participants The first study questionnaire was administered to 377 third and fourth year undergraduate students in a state university in Turkey, of which 221 were male and 156 female. Participants were recruited from the departments of mathematics, computer technology, economics, public administration, education, history and sociology. 3.1.3. Procedure The study was carried out in accordance with the permission and the principles of the University Ethics Committee. Data were obtained in class meetings in groups of 25–60 students. Having obtained the consent of the instructor, at least one researcher participated in each data collection session. The participants were told that the researchers were conducting a scientific study, and that participation was completely anonymous and voluntary. This was followed by a brief explanation about the manual use often stated in attribution style questionnaires. The completion of the questionnaire required about 40 min. 4. Results Attributional style has a theoretically derived factorial structure. However, because we were examining attribution style in a new setting with no prior study and findings
Please cite this article in press as: Yazıcı, S., & Güven, S. Development and validation of a Citizenship Attributional Style Questionnaire. The Social Science Journal (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.06.002
G Model SOCSCI-1407; No. of Pages 8
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Yazıcı, S. Güven / The Social Science Journal xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
5
Table 1 Items, means, standard deviations, factor loadings and item total correlations. Item num.
Positive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Internality
Stability
M/SD
Loadings
Communalities
M/SD
Loadings
Communalities
3.51/2.23 3.61/2.0 5.12/2.01 3.82/1.96 5.14/2.00 4.23/2.36 5.66/1.70 5.44/1.83 5.43/1.94 5.63/1.71 4.27/2.07 5.04/2.05 2.85/1.88 5.07/2.00 5.71/1.64
.78 (.26) .63 (.28) .37 (.40) .66 (.32) .50 (.46) .67 (.34) .34 (.38) .57 (.33) .71 (.32) .60 (.26) .63 (.32) .62 (.31) .62 (.23) .67 (.28) .66 (.40)
.63 .51 .47 .51 .60 .65 .51 .49 .58 .54 .57 .66 .51 .61 .55
5.72/1.34 5.37/1.44 6.10/1.25 5.36/1.46 5.77/1.36 5.67/1.54 5.84/1.29 6.05/1.18 6.05/1.09 6.10/1.02 5.66/1.38 5.88/1.32 4.96/1.75 5.67/1.40 5.93/1.20
.54 (.23) .62 (.32) .67 (.42) .63 (.31) .60(.42) .49 (.40) .70 (.30) .48 (.39) .67 (.34) .68 (.36) .54 (.38) .53 (.43) .72 (.15) .674(.38) .50 (.41)
.56 .48 .52 .50 .59 .64 .61 .64 .57 .55 .59 .71 .42 .69 .59
4.44/2.48 4.19/2.46 4.72/2.29 4.64/2.41 3.30/2.32 2.23/1.72 4.75/2.26 4.73/2.22 3.96/2.53 3.21/2.07 3.96/2.24 2.21/1.77 2.37/1.65 3.25/2.16
73 (.20) .66 (.22) .60 (.30) .62 (.18) .76 (.27) .64 (.34) .60 (.25) .72 (.20) .75 (.17) .48 (.21) .63 (.23) .65 (.27) .73 (.25) .63 (.25)
.66 .51 .49 .45 .69 .59 .49 .63 .69 .48 .51 .48 .55 .57
5.05/1.76 4.77/1.78 4.77/1.76 4.52/2.03 4.57/1.75 4.90/1.66 4.96/1.69 4.38/1.78 4.71/1.80 4.68/1.60 4.76/1.53 4.75/1.69 4.87/1.57 5.04/1.63
.75 (.31) .74 (43) .69 (.34) .47 (.32) .49 (.40) .65 (.39) .43 (.38) .58 (.42) .39 (.31) .71 (.42) .70 (.41) .72 (.34) .81 (.40) .69 (.34)
.60 .62 .61 .58 .51 .58 .44 .43 .53 .61 .57 .63 .59 .58
Item total correlations are in parenthesis.
available we thought it was better to see the factorial tendency and latent construct of the CASQ by conducting an explanatory factor analysis, rather than a confirmatory one. Explanatory factor analysis with principal component solution was used for data reduction. Since previous research findings indicated that positive and negative events were uncorrelated, and in most studies they were considered as a distinct domain (Peterson, 1991a, 1991b; Smith et al., 2013), we conducted separate factor analysis for each. For the positive events including 30 items, the results provided an eight-factor solution explaining 57.0 percent of the total variance. For the negative events including 28 items, six factors were extracted explaining 53,8 percent of the total variance. Means, standard deviations, factor loadings and item total correlations are shown in Table 1. In explanatory factor analysis, an important decision that needs to be made after factor extraction is determining the number of factors to retain. Although empirical evidence is suggestive in this regard, the decision in the final analysis is a matter of judgment (Thomson, 2004). Moreover, though the Kaiser eigenvalue-greater-than-one rule is the most utilized technique in practice, it may overestimate the number of factors (Ledesma & Valero-Mora, 2007). So, researchers should also look at “the interpretability of factors and theoretical expectation regarding the construct under study” (Matsunaga, 2010, p. 202). As our theoretical aim was to develop a two factor questionnaire, and the scree plot test indicated that such a solution
was appropriate for both positive and negative events, we set out to conduct our analysis to achieve this aim. Seven positive and 6 negative events were dropped from the first study due to low factor loading and cross loading and low item total correlation scores. Eight positive and 8 negative events resulted in a stable factor structure. A two factor solution for positive and negative events accounted for 37,7 and 38,6 percent of the total variance respectively. The factor loading of 8 positive events for the internality and stability dimensions ranges between .41–.75, and 43–68; and the factor loadings of 8 negative events for the internality and stability dimensions ranges between .47–.72, and 40–.70. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability of positive and negative events were found to be .82 and .78, respectively. Correlations, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of positive and negative items, internality and stability dimensions, and total correlations are given in Table 2.
4.1. Study 2 4.1.1. Participants A total of 279 students from two state universities in Turkey participated in the second study, of which 150 were male and 120 female. Of the total participants, whose age ranged from 20 to 37, 36 were in science, 165 social science and 58 in education.
Please cite this article in press as: Yazıcı, S., & Güven, S. Development and validation of a Citizenship Attributional Style Questionnaire. The Social Science Journal (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.06.002
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
SOCSCI-1407; No. of Pages 8
S. Yazıcı, S. Güven / The Social Science Journal xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
6
Table 2 Dimensions, means, standard deviations, reliabilities and intercorrelations. Dimensions
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
Positive total Positive internality Positive stability Negative total Negative internality Negative stability
5.29 4.70 5.77 4.24 3.71 4.77
.69 .96 .75 .75 1.07 1.09
(.82) .85** .74** .30** .28** .13**
(.76) .29** .22** .36** −.04
(.83) .26** .05 .29**
(.78) .68** .69**
(.75) −.04
(.88)
Reliability estimates are in parenthesis. Table 3 Items, means, standard deviations, factor loadings and item total correlations. Item wordings
Internality
Stability
Positive
M/SD
Loadings
Communality
M/SD
Loadings
Communality
As a citizen, you are aware of your rights. You have participated in a democratic demonstration organized in your home town. Your return request for a product was accepted. You have joined a political party. You have participated in the activities of a nongovernmental organization. You have taken part in a public demonstration for environmental reasons. As a citizen, you are aware of your responsibilities. You are a member of an organized group (civic initiative group) aiming at recommending solutions to a social problem. Negative You have never participated in a democratic demonstration before. You have never submitted a petition to an institution or organization to voice a problem you experienced. You have never protested against a certain product by boycotting it. You did not vote in parliamentary elections. There is an issue concerning citizens that has not yet been solved by officials. In recent years, torture cases have increased in your country. An issue likely affecting a large number of people did not receive nationwide attention. An important problem on the Parliament’s agenda has not been solved for a long time.
4.50/2.03 5.30/2.04
.34 (.26) .65 (.33)
.25 .42
5.94/1.32 5.56/1.41
.54 (.33) .48 (.27)
.37 .23
4.27/2.31 5.53/1.73 5.80/2.25
.32 (.37) .55 (.30) .35 (.30)
.57 .40 .15
5.58/1.47 5.84/1.38 5.80/1.30
.57 (.40) .58 (.36) .72 (.42)
.35 .38 .43
5.62/1.79
.70 (.31)
.47
6.22/1.18
.55 (.33)
.48
5.50/1.83 5.73/1.57
.45 (.34) .68 (.30)
.28 .55
6.18/1.23 5.90/1.37
.61 (.36) .48 (.38)
.52 .46
4.34/2.45
.40 (.26)
.24
5.12/1.84
.49 (.33)
.28
3.84/2.41
.58 (.32)
.37
5.04/1.88
.46 (.27)
.29
4.53/2.31
.48 (.37)
.36
5.01/1.84
.57 (.40)
.34
4.47/2.47 2.62/1.94
.50 (.30) .62 (.30)
.28 .43
4.57/2.07 4.97/1.84
.53 (.36) .72 (.41)
.35 .62
3.24/1.98
.53 (.31)
.37
4.87/1.78
.66 (.33)
.59
2.36/1.85
.59 (.34)
.42
4.87/1.96
.69 (.36)
.60
2.76/1.92
.55 (.30)
.40
4.84/1.84
.70 (.38)
.59
Item total correlations are in parenthesis.
4.1.2. Procedure The procedure of study 2 is similar to that of study 1 in terms of date obtainment, the consent of the instructor, and information provided to the participants. The questionnaire used in the second study consisted of 8 positive and 8 negative items, and its completion took approximately 30 min. 5. Results The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was found as .72, which indicates an acceptable level of correlation among the items. In a principle component analysis with warimax rotation, a factor analysis of eight positive events indicated a six factor solution, accounting for 65.9 percent of the total variance. In a forced two factor solution, the total variance explained was 38 percent. The factor loading of internality and stability dimensions of this solution ranged between .32–.70 and .48–.72, respectively. All variables were well defined by this factor solution,
except item five which was loaded on the stability factor with a higher score than its internality factor score. A two factor solution for negative events explained 40.5 percent of the total variance. The factor loadings of 8 negative events for the internality and stability dimensions ranges between .40–.62, and .46–72, with no cross factor loading. Means, standard deviations, factor loadings and item total correlations are shown in Table 3. The reliability estimates for 16 positive and 16 negative items indicated a satisfactory internal consistency which Cronbach’s alpha scores of .79 and .74 respectively. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of positive and negative items and internality and stability dimensions are given in Table 4. 6. Discussion and conclusion This study is the first to examine attributional style in the context of active and democratic citizenship. It arose from our attempt to develop a reliable and valid measure
Please cite this article in press as: Yazıcı, S., & Güven, S. Development and validation of a Citizenship Attributional Style Questionnaire. The Social Science Journal (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.06.002
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
SOCSCI-1407; No. of Pages 8
S. Yazıcı, S. Güven / The Social Science Journal xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
7
Table 4 Dimensions, means, standard deviations, reliabilities and intercorrelations. Dimensions
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
Positive total Positive internality Positive stability Negative total Negative internality Negative stability
5.58 5.24 5.92 4.21 3.52 4.30
.79 1.03 .79 .90 1.26 1.19
(.79) .89** .76** .28** .16** .25**
(.68) .43** .21** .21** .09
(.75) .37** .06 .51**
(.74) .75** .72**
(.72) .09
(.80)
Reliability estimates are in parenthesis.
using attribution theory that we could show is both conceptually and empirically relevant to citizenship behaviors and events. The psychometric properties of this new measure were found acceptable, and higher than most attributional style questionnaires. The reliability scores of positive and negative events, as well as their internality and stability subdomains, indicated satisfactory internal consistency. Importantly, this study suggests an optimistic conclusion about the factorial integrity of attributional style measures. Given that many research findings provided evidence of low reliability scores in subdomains, and indicated that positive and negative events are uncorrelated and apt to show distinct attributional styles (Hessling et al., 2002), researchers were advised to treat positive and negative events as distinct measures, and to calculate composite scores for each separately, rather than using their subdomains. The findings of this study provided evidence that positive and negative events and their internality and stability subdomains were all significantly correlated, and internality and stability domains represent distinct factors. However, our study repeats previous research that the locus of causality is apt to indicate the lowest reliability scores among others, though this was found moderate in the study with a .68 Cronbach’s alpha score. Some limitations to our study should be noted. First, in this study, we pursued a relatively restricted task and tested only internal and stable dimensions. Most citizenship affairs such as human rights violations, public protests, constitutional amendments, ethnic conflicts, environmental tragedies would generate consequences that closely interest people. Though we did not assess probable consequences and self-worth implications in this study, these dimensions seem very relevant to and can be assessed in citizenship settings. We left it to further research to test whether probable consequence and self-worth implication dimensions work in a citizenship context. Second, in some items, to measure the locus of causality we used plural nouns “we citizens” referring to internal domain. However, it may be the case that citizens assign the causal responsibility of good or bed events to some specific groups of citizens such as political, religious, cultural, ethnic groups or uneducated peoples, rather than citizens in general, and see them as external causes. In other words, they can divide the causes of responsibility among different groups of people as internal or external. Based on social identity approach, McNamara, Muldoon, Stevenson, and Slattery argue that there is an important intergroup dimension of citizenship which cannot be seen using an individualistic approach, and provided evidence that attributions are associated with ingroup and outgroup
characteristics. In this study, we have no evidence whether or not the participants saw themselves as a unique group as citizens. Third, the participants of this study were Turkish university students. Previous research indicated evidence for the relationship between attribution and culture (Shirazi & Biel, 2005), and that political context such as community’s institutions, leaders and policies have determining effect on civic involvement (Oxendine et al., 2007). Though we do not have any empirical evidence at this point whether or not the CASQ can be used in other cultures, given the theoretical basis of the study, we do have strong implication that it can, as most of the hypothetical scenarios used in this study describe active citizen indicators that have been used in cross cultural studies (see Hoskins & Mascherini, 2009; Hoskins, Villalba, & Saisana, 2012; Schultz, Ainley, Fraillon, Kerr, & Losito, 2010; Weerd, Gemmeke, Rigter, & Rij, 2005). Future research could examine how causal attribution of responsibility in citizenry behaviors cross culturally differs in relations to variables such as political attitudes, political culture, civic engagement and other aspects of citizenship. Fourth, whereas the participants were selected only from the third and fourth year students, measuring citizenship attribution through college students is yet another limitation of the study. Because college students are in a relatively unique social and political environment, their citizenship behaviors may not represent all public behavior. Assessing the reliability and validity of the CASQ in more heterogeneous groups by using confirmatory factor analysis may be fruitful. There remains growing worldwide interest in citizenship studies and active citizenship has become a core concept in the European and American context. We hope that the findings obtained in this study encourage other researchers to study citizenship behaviors and events in relation to attribution behaviors.
References Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., & Alloy, L. B. (1989). Hopelessness depression: A theory-based subtype of depression. Psychological Review, 96, 358–372. Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49–74. Aktar, C. (2015). Resources and shortcomings of pluralism in today’s Turkey: Gezi Park protests in the light of pluralism. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 41, 465–471. Albanesı, C., Cıcognanı, E., & Zanı, B. (2007). Sense of community: Civic engagement and social well-being in Italian adolescents. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 17, 387–406.
Please cite this article in press as: Yazıcı, S., & Güven, S. Development and validation of a Citizenship Attributional Style Questionnaire. The Social Science Journal (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.06.002
G Model SOCSCI-1407; No. of Pages 8
8
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Yazıcı, S. Güven / The Social Science Journal xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Alloy, L. B., Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., & Hartlage, S. (1988). The hopelessness theory of depression: Atributional aspects. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27, 5–21. Aristotle. (1984). In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of Aristotle. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bradbury, T. n., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Attributions in marriage: Review and critique. Psychological Bulleten, 107, 3–33. Crittended, K. S. (1983). Sociological aspects of attribution. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 425–446. Cutrona, C. E., Russell, D., & Jones, R. (1985). Cross-situational consistency in causal attributions: Does attributional style exist? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1043–1058. Furnham, A., Sadka, V., & Brewin, C. R. (1992). The development of occupational style questionnaire. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 27–39. Gibb, B. E., Zhu, L., Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (2002). Attributional styles and academic achievement in university students: A Longitudinal investigation. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26, 309–315. Haeffel, G. J. (2011). After further deliberation: Cognitive vulnerability predicts changes in event-specific negative inferences for a poor midterm grade. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 35, 285–292. Haeffel, G. J., Gibb, B. E., Metalsky, G. I., Alloey, L. B., Abramson, L. Y., Hankin, B. L., et al. (2008). Measuring cognitive vulnerability to depression: Development and validation of the cognitive style questionnaire. Clinical Psychological Review, 28, 824–836. Hanrahan, S. J., Grove, J. R., & Hattie, J. A. (1989). Development of a questionnaire measure of sport-related attributional style. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 20, 114–134. Harvey, D. M. (1981). Depression and attributional style: Interpretations of important personal events. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 134–142. Havey, P., & Martinko, M. J. (2010). Attribution theory and motivation. In N. Borkowski (Ed.), Organizational behavior in health care (pp. 147–164). Boston: Jones and Barlett. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley. Hessling, R. M., Anderson, C. A., & Russell, D. W. (2002). Attributional styles. In R. F. Ballasteros (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychological assessment (pp. 116–120). London: Sage. Hewitt, A. K., Foxcroft, D. R., & MacDonald, J. (2004). Multitraitmultimethod confirmatory factor analysis of the attributional style questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1483–1491. Hoskins, B. L., & Mascherini, E. M. (2009). Measuring active citizenship through the development of a composite indicator. Social Indicator Research, 90, 459–488. Hoskins, B., Villalba, C. M. H., & Saisana, M. (2012). The 2011 civic competence composite indicator. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union. Houston, D. M. (2016). Revisiting the relationship between attributional style and academic performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46, 192–200. Hu, T., & Zhang, D. (2015). The relationship between attributional style for negative outcomes and depression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 34, 304–321. Joiner, T. E., & Metalsky, G. I. (1999). Factorial construct validity of extended attributional style questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 23, 105–113. Kymlicka, W. (1990). Contemporary political philosophy: An introduction. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ledesma, R. D., & Valero-Mora. (2007). Determining the number of factors to retain in EFA: An easy-to use computer program for carrying out parallel analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(2), 1–11. Lewis, S. P., Waschbusch, D. A., Sellers, D. P., Leblanc, M., & Kelley, M. L. (2014). Factor structure of the children’ attributional style questionnaire-revised. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 46, 125–133. Lord, R. G., & Smith, J. E. (1983). Theoretical, information processing: and situational factors affecting attribution theory models of organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 8, 50–60. Matsunaga, M. (2010). How to factor-analyze your data right: Do’es, don’ts, and how-to’s. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 97–110. McNamara, N., Muldoon, O., Stevenson, C., & Slattery, E. (2011). Citizenship attributes as the basis for intergroup differentiation: Implicit and explicit intergroup evaluation. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 21, 243–254.
Michels, & Graaf, L. D. (2010). Examining citizen participation: Local participatory policy making and democracy. Local Government Studies, 36, 477–491. Montesquieu, C. B. D. (2011). The spirit of laws. New York: Cosimo Classics. NCSS. (2001). Creating effective citizens. NCSS position statement. http://www. socialstudies.org/positions/effective citizens Nelson, J., & Kerr, D. (2005). International review of curriculum and assessment frameworks. Active citizenship: Definitions, goals and practices. Background paper. http://www.inca.org.uk/pdf/Active citizenship background paper.pdf Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Girgus, J. S., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1986). Learned helplessness in children: A longitudinal study of depression, achievement and explanatory style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 435–442. Oxendine, A., Sullivan, J. L., Borgida, E., Riedel, E., Jackson, M., & Dial, J. (2007). The importance of political context for understanding civic engagement: A longitudinal analysis. Political Behavior, 29, 31–67. Peterson, C., & Barett, L. (1987). Explanatory style and academic performance among university freshman. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 603–607. Peterson, C. (1991a). On shortening the expanded attributional style questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 59, 179–183. Peterson, C. (1991b). The meaning and measurement of explanatory style. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 50–57. Peterson, C., & Villavova, P. (1988). An expanded attributional style questionnaire. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 87–89. Peterson, C., Schwartz, S. M., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1981). Self-blame and depressive symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 253–278. Peterson, C., Semmel, A., Baeyer, C. V., Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1982). The attributional style questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6, 287–300. Plato (1991). The republic. Benjamin Jowet translation. New York: Vintage Classics Edition. Rousseau J.J. (1968). The social contract. Translated by Maurice Cranston. London : Penguin Books. Sahar, G. (2014). On the importance of attribution theory in political psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8, 229–249. Schultz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Kerr, D., & Losito, B. (2010). Initial findings from the IEA international civic and citizenship education study. Amsterdam: IEA. Seligman, M. E. P., Petorson, C., Kaslow, N. J., Tanenbaum, R. L., Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1984). Explanatory style and depressive symptoms among school children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 235–238. Smith, P., Caputi, P., & Crittenden, N. (2013). Measuring optimism in organizations: Development of a workplace explanatory style questionnaire. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 415–432. Solak, N., & Göregenli, M. (2009). Yoksullu˘ga I˙ lis¸kin Nedensel Atıflar Ölc¸e˘gi’nin gelis¸tirilmesi ve psikometric özelliklerinin de˘gerlendirilmesi. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 12, 72–89. Thomson, B. (2004). Explanatory and confirmatory factor analysis. Washington: American Psychological Association. Travers, K. M., Creed, P. A., & Morrissey, S. (2015). The development and initial validation of a new scale to measure explanatory style. Personality and Individual Differences, 81, 1–6. Weerd, M. D., Gemmeke, M., Rigter, J., & Rij, C. V. (2005). Indicator for monitoring active citizenship and citizenship education. Amsterdam: Research Report for the European Commission. Weiner, B., Osborne, D., & Rudolph, U. (2011). An attributional analysis of reactions to poverty: The political ideology of the giver and perceived morality of receiver. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 199–213. Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of education for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 237–269. Whitley, B. E. J. (1990). The relationship of heterosexual’s attribution for the causes of homosexuality to attitudes toward lesbian and gay men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 369–377. Wood, P. B., & Bartkowski, J. P. (2014). Attributional style and public policy attitudes toward gay rights. Social Science Quarterly, 85, 58–74. Xenikou, A., & Furnham, A. (1997). Attributional style for negative events: A propositional for a more reliable and valid measure of attributional style. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 53–69. Zeelenberg, M., Pligt, J. V. D., & Vries, N. K. D. (2000). Attributions of responsibility and affective reactions to decision outcomes. Acta Psychologica, 104, 303–315. Zocker, G. S. (1999). Attributional and symbolic predictors of abortion attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1218–1256.
Please cite this article in press as: Yazıcı, S., & Güven, S. Development and validation of a Citizenship Attributional Style Questionnaire. The Social Science Journal (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.06.002
ARTICLE IN PRESS The Social Science Journal xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Social Science Journal journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soscij
Development and validation of a Citizenship Attributional Style Questionnaire Sedat Yazıcı a,∗ , Sevim Güven b a b
C¸ankırı Karatekin University, Department of Philosophy, C¸ankırı, Turkey Gaziosmanpas¸a University, Faculty of Education, Tokat, Turkey
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 18 June 2016 Received in revised form 6 June 2017 Accepted 8 June 2017 Available online xxx Keywords: Citizenship Attributional Style Questionnaire Attributional dimensions Internality Stability
a b s t r a c t Attribution theory remains popular in the social sciences and often informs education studies. However, attributional style questionnaires tend to reflect the context-dependent character of the theory and existing measures have been found to have poor psychometric properties. Clearly, both issues need to be carefully considered by researchers prior to them applying any scales that incorporate attributional dimensions. Here we report on the development of a reliable and valid measure that applies an attributional style within the context of citizenship. Two separate studies were conducted to inform the development of the Citizenship Attributional Style Questionnaire (CASQ). The factor loadings of eight positive and eight negative events for the internality and stability dimensions were found to range between .41 and .75. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability of positive and negative events were found to be .79 and .74, respectively. While CASQ is seen to be a reliable and valid measure, the results also indicate broader psychometric properties than many of the instruments currently used in studies with an attributional approach. © 2017 Western Social Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Attribution theory and attributional style measures Attribution or explanatory theory is a reformulation of the learned helplessness concept (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978), which suggests that people habitually explain the causes of positive and negative life experiences, behaviors and events in a way that cognitively characterizes their personality. Three major attributional styles with three dimensions (internal versus external, stable versus unstable and global versus specific) are seen in the existing literature. In the first, people who have an optimistic attributional style are apt to attribute negative causes to external factors, and positive causes to inter-
∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] [email protected] (S. Güven).
(S.
nal factors. Second, people who demonstrate a pessimistic attributional style are apt to attribute negative causes to external, unstable and specific causes, and attribute positive causes to internal and stable factors. Thirdly, people who demonstrate a hostile attributional style are apt to attribute negative causes to external and stable factors (Havey & Martinko, 2010). In order to indicate the relevance of attribution theory to general human behaviors, Heider (1958) remarks that ordinary people are naïve psychologists who make judgments to understand, predict and control the behaviors of others or events. Attribution theory posits that the interpretation of past events has a causative role in the occurrence of future behaviors. The model is not a reasonexplanation, that is, rationally explaining why someone did what he did, but rather a complex causal explanation that begins with social perception, attribution judgments,
Yazıcı),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.06.002 0362-3319/© 2017 Western Social Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Yazıcı, S., & Güven, S. Development and validation of a Citizenship Attributional Style Questionnaire. The Social Science Journal (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.06.002
G Model SOCSCI-1407; No. of Pages 8
2
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Yazıcı, S. Güven / The Social Science Journal xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
emotional response, and ends with behavioral motivation (Crittended, 1983). Attribution theory has been studied with different variables and in different settings. Among them, a great number of researchers have focused on the relationship between attributional style and depression (Abramson et al., 1978; Harvey 1981; Peterson, Schwartz, & Seligman 1981). In their meta-analysis of 84 studies, Hu and Zhang (2015) found overwhelming support for a relationship between an attributional style for negative outcomes and depression. However, the question of how attribution style operates in depression has been a matter of methodological issue. Alloy, Abramson, Metalsky, and Hartlage (1988) and Abramson, Metalsky, and Alloy (1989) argued that since depression is a complicated psychological disorder, any model explaining its etiological factors must be able to identify its necessary, sufficient and contributory causes. They provided evidence that it is hopelessness, not helplessness, that yields sufficient condition in the causal chain of depression. In this reformulated theory of depression, deprossogenic attributional style which arises from perceived cause of negative events was identified as being a distal contributory cause that increases likelihood of the occurrence of depression symptoms. Given this new approach, it was hypothesized that it is the cognitive vulnerability factor that explains why some individuals, rather than others, are at greater risk for depression after a negative live event (Haeffel, 2011; Haeffel et al., 2008). Some studies provide evidence that event-specific attribution can better mediate the relationship between vulnerability factors and depression (Johnson, 1995; Lynd-Stevenson, 1997). Haeffel (2011) proposed and provided evidence that this mediation role increases to higher level when a person’s final cognitive interpretation, rather than the initial one, is assessed. Previous studies have also indicated that an attributional style is correlated with academic performance (Gibb, Zhu, Alloy, & Abramson, 2002; Houston, 2016; Nolen-Hoeksema, Girgus, & Seligman, 1986); workplace behavior (Smith, Caputi, & Crittenden, 2013); relationships (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990), and sports performance (Hanrahan, Grove, & Hattie, 1989). The past four decades have seen the development and widespread use of several attributional style measures. The Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ) developed by Peterson et al. (1982) asks participant to write down causes for hypothetical events and then to rate whether the cause of the event is internal or external, stable or unstable, global or specific. This measure includes six positive and six negative hypothetical events. Hewitt, Foxcroft, and MacDonald’s (2004) confirmatory factor analysis of ASQ looked at six negative events, and found support for internality, stability and globality dimensions. The factorial structure of extended ASQ was also supported in some other studies (Joiner & Metalsky, 1999). The Cognitive Style Questionnaire (CSQ; Abramson et al., 1989; see Haeffel et al., 2008) was developed to assess the vulnerability factor for depression. The CSQ uses the same format as the ASQ but the measure was modified to include two additional dimensions, that is, probable consequences and self-worth implications. In order to improve reliability
scores, the number of hypothetical events was increased to 24, equally divided between positive and negative events. The CSO indicated excellent reliability scores for both the composite score and the individual vulnerability components, ranging from .88 to 96 and .83 to 91 respectively (see Haeffel et al., 2008). The Occupational Attributional Style Questionnaire (OASQ; Furnham, Sadka, & Brewin, 1992), consists of four positive and four negative hypothetical scenarios and has been used to measure attributions in work-related events. The Academic Attributional Style Questionnaire (AASQ; Peterson & Barett, 1987), consists of 12 negative events and was designed to measure students’ attributional style in relation to various experiences they encounter in an academic environment. The Children’s Attributional Style Questionnaire (CASQ; Seligman et al., 1984), is another widely used instrument that was developed to assess the attributional style of children aged between 8 and 13. CASQ has 48 items, half of them positive and half of them negative, and uses a forced choice approach. Lewis, Waschbusch, Sellers, Leblanc, and Kelley tested the factor structure of the Children’s Attributional Style QuestionnaireRevised (CASQ-R) and confirmed a one-factor solution for negative events and a two-factor solution for positive events. These measures have been used to produce fruitful research questions and agenda. However, as Peterson (1991a, 1991b) has stated, “both the meaning and the measurement of attributional style have been controversial” (p. 182). Some researchers questioned whether the theory itself has a solid foundation and is consistent across situations (Cutrona, Russell, & Jones, 1985). Part of the reason for these findings is that the reliability scores of existing measures were found to be low or at best modest, and that their validity did not well prove the hypothesized dimensions. Indeed, despite the widespread application of attribution theory, it has been often stated that existing measures have poor psychometric properties (Furnham et al., 1992; Hessling, Anderson, & Russell, 2002; Smith et al., 2013; Travers, Creed, & Morrissey, 2015). For example, the Cronbach’s alpha scores obtained for the Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ) were found to be very poor for internality, stability and globality subdomains (.38, .21, .53), low for positive and negative events (.44–.69), and modest for the composite scores of positive and negative events (.75, .72). Since the poor reliability problem was essentially related to the existence of a limited number of items in these measures (Furnham et al., 1992; Peterson & Seligman, 1984) subsequent studies aimed to improve these low reliability scores by including more items in the scale. By omitting all positive items and including 24 negative items into the original ASQ, Peterson and Villavova (1988) prepared the Expanded Attributional Style Questionnaire (EASQ). The findings of this study proved more satisfactory in terms of reliability scores, with .66 for internality, .85 for stability and .88 for globality dimensions. The Cronbach alpha coefficients of the Occupational Attributional Style Questionnaire for internality dimension were also found quite low in some studies, with .28 for positive events and .40 for negative events (Xenikou & Furnham, 1997). In a review of existing literature Smith et al. (2013) indicated
Please cite this article in press as: Yazıcı, S., & Güven, S. Development and validation of a Citizenship Attributional Style Questionnaire. The Social Science Journal (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.06.002
G Model SOCSCI-1407; No. of Pages 8
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Yazıcı, S. Güven / The Social Science Journal xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
that seven out of fifteen attributional style measures have lower than .70 internal coefficients for either total score or separate dimensions. The reasons for poor psychometric properties have been associated with small sample size, use of a limited number of items, measurement and construct related problems and the context dependency of attributions (Joiner & Metalsky, 1999). Clearly, these issues need to be considered by researchers who wish to apply attributional theory to new areas of study. The motivation behind our research was to confirm the potential to advance citizenship studies with the help of attribution theory.
2. Attribution theory and citizenship How could we relate attribution theory to citizenship studies, and what does an attribution process include in citizenry behaviors and events? We believe that there are both explanatory reasons and normative reasons for this question. The former deals with citizenship practices in relation to governing institutions and public affairs, the latter drives its root from democratic theory. Sahar (2014) suggested that the attributional model “could be applied not only to interpersonal situations such as making judgments about an individual homeless person on encounters on the street but also to societal-level judgments, that is, to social and political attitudes” (p. 230). Attributions occur quite often in the case of citizenry behaviors. Public issues such as prejudice, poverty, homosexuality, gay and lesbian rights, authoritarianism, political orientation, economic and racial inequality are indeed conceptually related to citizenship (Kymlicka, 1990). Several studies have examined attributional style in the context of moral and political attitudes toward public issues such as poverty (Solak & Göregenli, 2009; Weiner, Osborne, & Rudolph, 2011); lesbian and gay rights (Wood & Bartkowski, 2014; Whitley, 1990); and abortion (Zocker, 1999). Citizens experience numerous good and bad events in their public life, most of which have a deep effect on their cognitive and emotional reactions. Citizens may have optimistic, pessimistic or hostile disposition about public affairs and whether things that are going well or not in their country. Whereas some people may attribute negative causes to external factors such as governmental policies, existing political structures, global powers, discrimination, undemocratic institutions, others may place responsibility on citizens themselves due to their lack of public awareness or sensitivity. So, both the system-caused attributions and the person-caused attributions arising from the responsibility of citizens themselves can exist in citizenry behaviors and events. It is likely that unstable attributions for bad events generate the expectation that things will not change in the future. We can hypothesize that protest groups are likely to attribute negative causes to external factors such as governmental policies, existing political structures, global powers, discrimination, undemocratic institutions (Aktar, 2015). More apathy about politics and institutions would lead to attributions that assign external and stable causes to external circumstances or people in negative
3
events, internal causes to citizens themselves in positive events. We are all naïve psychologists, as Herder remarks, but social psychologists are cautious about the limit of attribution because the process includes certain cognitive bias, what they call fundamental attribution error. When attributing, people tend to underestimate the situation and to overestimate their personal characters or dispositions. Citizens’ attributions can contribute to democratic society only if their judgments and evaluations are based on sound civic virtues and sufficient knowledge. Attributional bias and effective or active citizenship seem to be normatively exclusive to each other. Democratic citizenry requires effective or active citizens who are expected to be aware of local, national and global issues; to ask meaningful questions; to analyze and evaluate information and ideas, to use effective decision-making and problem-solving; to actively participate in civic and community life; to accept responsibility for their and others’ well-being (NCSS, 2001; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). This relationship between citizenship traits and political structure was theoretically explored and defended by many political philosophers. For Plato (1991), the types of state and human spirit are intrinsically connected. As he says, “in each of us there are the same principles and habits which there are in the State; and that from the individual they pass into the state” (535-e). Plato further acknowledges the effect of the state on citizens: “if the constitutions of States are five, the dispositions of individual minds will also be five” (544-e). In Politics (1984) Aristotle argues that the success and failure of a political system, to a great extent, depends on the good or bad traits of its citizens. For republicans like Aristotle (1984), Montesquieu (2011) and Rousseau (1968), civic virtues are required of citizens for the flourishing of the state. An attribution can be in terms of an assessment of the causes of an action or event, assigning responsibility to the actors, or characterization of the personal traits of the agents who are responsible for the occurrence of the event being explained (Lord & Smith, 1983). Since democracy is a government by the people, citizens can take responsibility for ongoing events and developments in their local and national government. However, citizens in representative democracies may or may not have control over the circumstances that directly affect them because they are both actors and subjects of public affairs. For this reason a reciprocal relationship exists between citizens and their governments and representatives, and a shared attribution responsibility as well. The concept of active citizenship was chosen to provide a theoretical basis of this study, which includes civic engagement, democratic values, sense of belonging (Hoskins & Mascherini, 2009; Nelson & Kerr, 2005). Active citizenship can substantially improve both the quality of democracy and the judgments made by citizens with respect to public decisions, events and behaviors. Proponent of participatory democracy in contemporary political philosophy argues that citizen involvement in decision and policy making processes can contribute to citizens’ sense of belonging to their community, increase their civic skills and knowledge, improve the legitimacy of decisions that
Please cite this article in press as: Yazıcı, S., & Güven, S. Development and validation of a Citizenship Attributional Style Questionnaire. The Social Science Journal (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.06.002
G Model SOCSCI-1407; No. of Pages 8
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Yazıcı, S. Güven / The Social Science Journal xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
4
affect them (Albanesı, Cıcognanı, & Zanı, 2007; Michels & Graaf, 2010). Democracy includes principles and values that describe common decision making procedures. Empirical evidence, as well as common observation, indicates that affective reaction toward the outcome of a decision is associated with how the outcome is achieved (Zeelenberg, Pligt, & Vries, 2000). In short, a citizenship context is very relevant to attribution theory and studies conducted in this setting can help our understanding of the variety aspect of citizenship behaviors. 3. Method 3.1. Study 1 3.1.1. Development of Citizenship Attributional Style Questionnaire (CASQ) The hypothetical events used in this study were selected from active citizenship behaviors such as voting, submitted a petition, participating in democratic demonstrations, protesting the use of various products, being aware of rights and responsibilities. In order to develop positive and negative items that are conceptually relevant to citizenship attitudes and behaviors we first reviewed both attributional style and citizenship studies literature and then generated the item pool. We also asked seven academics who were familiar with citizenship issues whether or not the items included in the pool were appropriate for the measurement of citizenship attributional style, and asked them to suggest additional items for inclusion in the questionnaire. We then evaluated their suggestions and included 15 positive and 14 negative items in the questionnaire. To see whether any items caused difficulty of understanding or included ambiguous or obscure meanings, the questionnaire was administered to a sample of 42 undergraduate students. After some minor revisions in wording, 15 positive and 14 negative items were placed on a seven-point Likert scale. We used a plural noun “we citizens” for collective events to refer to internal cause, and “other institutions or organizations” to refer to external cause. Otherwise, the format and explanations in the manual were the same as that used in ASQ. Samples from positive and negative events and response scales are shown below: You have participated in a democratic demonstration organized in your home town. Is the cause of your participation in a democratic demonstration due to something about you or to something about other people or circumstances? Totally due to me 1234567 Totally due to other people or circumstances In the future, will this cause again be present? 1234567 Will always be present Will never again be present Your return request for a product was accepted. Is the cause of the acceptance of your request due to something about you or to something about other people or circumstances? Totally due to me Totally due to other 1234567 people or circumstances
In the future, will this cause again be present? 1234567 Will always be present Will never again be present You have never submitted a petition to an institution or organization to voice a problem you experienced. Is the cause of your not submitting a petition due to something about you or to something about other people or circumstances Totally due to other Totally due to me 1234567 people or circumstances In the future, will this cause again be present? 1234567 Will always be present Will never again be present You did not vote in the parliamentary election. Is the cause of your not voting due to something about you or to something about other people or circumstances Totally due to me Totally due to other 1234567 people or circumstances In the future, will this cause again be present? Will never again be 1234567 Will always be present present An important problem on the Parliament’s agenda has not been solved for a long time. Is the cause of this failure of solving the problem due to something about you or to something about other people or circumstances Totally due to we 1234567 Totally due to other people, institutions or citizens circumstances In the future, will this cause again be present? 1234567 Will always be present Will never again be present
Several studies have found that stability and globality dimensions are highly correlated and apt to indicate a single factor, often named generality (Abramson et al., 1989). At this initial development stage, we theoretically designed our study based on a two-factor structure (internal versus external, stable versus unstable), and item developments were done accordingly. 3.1.2. Participants The first study questionnaire was administered to 377 third and fourth year undergraduate students in a state university in Turkey, of which 221 were male and 156 female. Participants were recruited from the departments of mathematics, computer technology, economics, public administration, education, history and sociology. 3.1.3. Procedure The study was carried out in accordance with the permission and the principles of the University Ethics Committee. Data were obtained in class meetings in groups of 25–60 students. Having obtained the consent of the instructor, at least one researcher participated in each data collection session. The participants were told that the researchers were conducting a scientific study, and that participation was completely anonymous and voluntary. This was followed by a brief explanation about the manual use often stated in attribution style questionnaires. The completion of the questionnaire required about 40 min. 4. Results Attributional style has a theoretically derived factorial structure. However, because we were examining attribution style in a new setting with no prior study and findings
Please cite this article in press as: Yazıcı, S., & Güven, S. Development and validation of a Citizenship Attributional Style Questionnaire. The Social Science Journal (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.06.002
G Model SOCSCI-1407; No. of Pages 8
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Yazıcı, S. Güven / The Social Science Journal xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
5
Table 1 Items, means, standard deviations, factor loadings and item total correlations. Item num.
Positive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Internality
Stability
M/SD
Loadings
Communalities
M/SD
Loadings
Communalities
3.51/2.23 3.61/2.0 5.12/2.01 3.82/1.96 5.14/2.00 4.23/2.36 5.66/1.70 5.44/1.83 5.43/1.94 5.63/1.71 4.27/2.07 5.04/2.05 2.85/1.88 5.07/2.00 5.71/1.64
.78 (.26) .63 (.28) .37 (.40) .66 (.32) .50 (.46) .67 (.34) .34 (.38) .57 (.33) .71 (.32) .60 (.26) .63 (.32) .62 (.31) .62 (.23) .67 (.28) .66 (.40)
.63 .51 .47 .51 .60 .65 .51 .49 .58 .54 .57 .66 .51 .61 .55
5.72/1.34 5.37/1.44 6.10/1.25 5.36/1.46 5.77/1.36 5.67/1.54 5.84/1.29 6.05/1.18 6.05/1.09 6.10/1.02 5.66/1.38 5.88/1.32 4.96/1.75 5.67/1.40 5.93/1.20
.54 (.23) .62 (.32) .67 (.42) .63 (.31) .60(.42) .49 (.40) .70 (.30) .48 (.39) .67 (.34) .68 (.36) .54 (.38) .53 (.43) .72 (.15) .674(.38) .50 (.41)
.56 .48 .52 .50 .59 .64 .61 .64 .57 .55 .59 .71 .42 .69 .59
4.44/2.48 4.19/2.46 4.72/2.29 4.64/2.41 3.30/2.32 2.23/1.72 4.75/2.26 4.73/2.22 3.96/2.53 3.21/2.07 3.96/2.24 2.21/1.77 2.37/1.65 3.25/2.16
73 (.20) .66 (.22) .60 (.30) .62 (.18) .76 (.27) .64 (.34) .60 (.25) .72 (.20) .75 (.17) .48 (.21) .63 (.23) .65 (.27) .73 (.25) .63 (.25)
.66 .51 .49 .45 .69 .59 .49 .63 .69 .48 .51 .48 .55 .57
5.05/1.76 4.77/1.78 4.77/1.76 4.52/2.03 4.57/1.75 4.90/1.66 4.96/1.69 4.38/1.78 4.71/1.80 4.68/1.60 4.76/1.53 4.75/1.69 4.87/1.57 5.04/1.63
.75 (.31) .74 (43) .69 (.34) .47 (.32) .49 (.40) .65 (.39) .43 (.38) .58 (.42) .39 (.31) .71 (.42) .70 (.41) .72 (.34) .81 (.40) .69 (.34)
.60 .62 .61 .58 .51 .58 .44 .43 .53 .61 .57 .63 .59 .58
Item total correlations are in parenthesis.
available we thought it was better to see the factorial tendency and latent construct of the CASQ by conducting an explanatory factor analysis, rather than a confirmatory one. Explanatory factor analysis with principal component solution was used for data reduction. Since previous research findings indicated that positive and negative events were uncorrelated, and in most studies they were considered as a distinct domain (Peterson, 1991a, 1991b; Smith et al., 2013), we conducted separate factor analysis for each. For the positive events including 30 items, the results provided an eight-factor solution explaining 57.0 percent of the total variance. For the negative events including 28 items, six factors were extracted explaining 53,8 percent of the total variance. Means, standard deviations, factor loadings and item total correlations are shown in Table 1. In explanatory factor analysis, an important decision that needs to be made after factor extraction is determining the number of factors to retain. Although empirical evidence is suggestive in this regard, the decision in the final analysis is a matter of judgment (Thomson, 2004). Moreover, though the Kaiser eigenvalue-greater-than-one rule is the most utilized technique in practice, it may overestimate the number of factors (Ledesma & Valero-Mora, 2007). So, researchers should also look at “the interpretability of factors and theoretical expectation regarding the construct under study” (Matsunaga, 2010, p. 202). As our theoretical aim was to develop a two factor questionnaire, and the scree plot test indicated that such a solution
was appropriate for both positive and negative events, we set out to conduct our analysis to achieve this aim. Seven positive and 6 negative events were dropped from the first study due to low factor loading and cross loading and low item total correlation scores. Eight positive and 8 negative events resulted in a stable factor structure. A two factor solution for positive and negative events accounted for 37,7 and 38,6 percent of the total variance respectively. The factor loading of 8 positive events for the internality and stability dimensions ranges between .41–.75, and 43–68; and the factor loadings of 8 negative events for the internality and stability dimensions ranges between .47–.72, and 40–.70. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability of positive and negative events were found to be .82 and .78, respectively. Correlations, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of positive and negative items, internality and stability dimensions, and total correlations are given in Table 2.
4.1. Study 2 4.1.1. Participants A total of 279 students from two state universities in Turkey participated in the second study, of which 150 were male and 120 female. Of the total participants, whose age ranged from 20 to 37, 36 were in science, 165 social science and 58 in education.
Please cite this article in press as: Yazıcı, S., & Güven, S. Development and validation of a Citizenship Attributional Style Questionnaire. The Social Science Journal (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.06.002
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
SOCSCI-1407; No. of Pages 8
S. Yazıcı, S. Güven / The Social Science Journal xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
6
Table 2 Dimensions, means, standard deviations, reliabilities and intercorrelations. Dimensions
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
Positive total Positive internality Positive stability Negative total Negative internality Negative stability
5.29 4.70 5.77 4.24 3.71 4.77
.69 .96 .75 .75 1.07 1.09
(.82) .85** .74** .30** .28** .13**
(.76) .29** .22** .36** −.04
(.83) .26** .05 .29**
(.78) .68** .69**
(.75) −.04
(.88)
Reliability estimates are in parenthesis. Table 3 Items, means, standard deviations, factor loadings and item total correlations. Item wordings
Internality
Stability
Positive
M/SD
Loadings
Communality
M/SD
Loadings
Communality
As a citizen, you are aware of your rights. You have participated in a democratic demonstration organized in your home town. Your return request for a product was accepted. You have joined a political party. You have participated in the activities of a nongovernmental organization. You have taken part in a public demonstration for environmental reasons. As a citizen, you are aware of your responsibilities. You are a member of an organized group (civic initiative group) aiming at recommending solutions to a social problem. Negative You have never participated in a democratic demonstration before. You have never submitted a petition to an institution or organization to voice a problem you experienced. You have never protested against a certain product by boycotting it. You did not vote in parliamentary elections. There is an issue concerning citizens that has not yet been solved by officials. In recent years, torture cases have increased in your country. An issue likely affecting a large number of people did not receive nationwide attention. An important problem on the Parliament’s agenda has not been solved for a long time.
4.50/2.03 5.30/2.04
.34 (.26) .65 (.33)
.25 .42
5.94/1.32 5.56/1.41
.54 (.33) .48 (.27)
.37 .23
4.27/2.31 5.53/1.73 5.80/2.25
.32 (.37) .55 (.30) .35 (.30)
.57 .40 .15
5.58/1.47 5.84/1.38 5.80/1.30
.57 (.40) .58 (.36) .72 (.42)
.35 .38 .43
5.62/1.79
.70 (.31)
.47
6.22/1.18
.55 (.33)
.48
5.50/1.83 5.73/1.57
.45 (.34) .68 (.30)
.28 .55
6.18/1.23 5.90/1.37
.61 (.36) .48 (.38)
.52 .46
4.34/2.45
.40 (.26)
.24
5.12/1.84
.49 (.33)
.28
3.84/2.41
.58 (.32)
.37
5.04/1.88
.46 (.27)
.29
4.53/2.31
.48 (.37)
.36
5.01/1.84
.57 (.40)
.34
4.47/2.47 2.62/1.94
.50 (.30) .62 (.30)
.28 .43
4.57/2.07 4.97/1.84
.53 (.36) .72 (.41)
.35 .62
3.24/1.98
.53 (.31)
.37
4.87/1.78
.66 (.33)
.59
2.36/1.85
.59 (.34)
.42
4.87/1.96
.69 (.36)
.60
2.76/1.92
.55 (.30)
.40
4.84/1.84
.70 (.38)
.59
Item total correlations are in parenthesis.
4.1.2. Procedure The procedure of study 2 is similar to that of study 1 in terms of date obtainment, the consent of the instructor, and information provided to the participants. The questionnaire used in the second study consisted of 8 positive and 8 negative items, and its completion took approximately 30 min. 5. Results The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was found as .72, which indicates an acceptable level of correlation among the items. In a principle component analysis with warimax rotation, a factor analysis of eight positive events indicated a six factor solution, accounting for 65.9 percent of the total variance. In a forced two factor solution, the total variance explained was 38 percent. The factor loading of internality and stability dimensions of this solution ranged between .32–.70 and .48–.72, respectively. All variables were well defined by this factor solution,
except item five which was loaded on the stability factor with a higher score than its internality factor score. A two factor solution for negative events explained 40.5 percent of the total variance. The factor loadings of 8 negative events for the internality and stability dimensions ranges between .40–.62, and .46–72, with no cross factor loading. Means, standard deviations, factor loadings and item total correlations are shown in Table 3. The reliability estimates for 16 positive and 16 negative items indicated a satisfactory internal consistency which Cronbach’s alpha scores of .79 and .74 respectively. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of positive and negative items and internality and stability dimensions are given in Table 4. 6. Discussion and conclusion This study is the first to examine attributional style in the context of active and democratic citizenship. It arose from our attempt to develop a reliable and valid measure
Please cite this article in press as: Yazıcı, S., & Güven, S. Development and validation of a Citizenship Attributional Style Questionnaire. The Social Science Journal (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.06.002
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
SOCSCI-1407; No. of Pages 8
S. Yazıcı, S. Güven / The Social Science Journal xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
7
Table 4 Dimensions, means, standard deviations, reliabilities and intercorrelations. Dimensions
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
Positive total Positive internality Positive stability Negative total Negative internality Negative stability
5.58 5.24 5.92 4.21 3.52 4.30
.79 1.03 .79 .90 1.26 1.19
(.79) .89** .76** .28** .16** .25**
(.68) .43** .21** .21** .09
(.75) .37** .06 .51**
(.74) .75** .72**
(.72) .09
(.80)
Reliability estimates are in parenthesis.
using attribution theory that we could show is both conceptually and empirically relevant to citizenship behaviors and events. The psychometric properties of this new measure were found acceptable, and higher than most attributional style questionnaires. The reliability scores of positive and negative events, as well as their internality and stability subdomains, indicated satisfactory internal consistency. Importantly, this study suggests an optimistic conclusion about the factorial integrity of attributional style measures. Given that many research findings provided evidence of low reliability scores in subdomains, and indicated that positive and negative events are uncorrelated and apt to show distinct attributional styles (Hessling et al., 2002), researchers were advised to treat positive and negative events as distinct measures, and to calculate composite scores for each separately, rather than using their subdomains. The findings of this study provided evidence that positive and negative events and their internality and stability subdomains were all significantly correlated, and internality and stability domains represent distinct factors. However, our study repeats previous research that the locus of causality is apt to indicate the lowest reliability scores among others, though this was found moderate in the study with a .68 Cronbach’s alpha score. Some limitations to our study should be noted. First, in this study, we pursued a relatively restricted task and tested only internal and stable dimensions. Most citizenship affairs such as human rights violations, public protests, constitutional amendments, ethnic conflicts, environmental tragedies would generate consequences that closely interest people. Though we did not assess probable consequences and self-worth implications in this study, these dimensions seem very relevant to and can be assessed in citizenship settings. We left it to further research to test whether probable consequence and self-worth implication dimensions work in a citizenship context. Second, in some items, to measure the locus of causality we used plural nouns “we citizens” referring to internal domain. However, it may be the case that citizens assign the causal responsibility of good or bed events to some specific groups of citizens such as political, religious, cultural, ethnic groups or uneducated peoples, rather than citizens in general, and see them as external causes. In other words, they can divide the causes of responsibility among different groups of people as internal or external. Based on social identity approach, McNamara, Muldoon, Stevenson, and Slattery argue that there is an important intergroup dimension of citizenship which cannot be seen using an individualistic approach, and provided evidence that attributions are associated with ingroup and outgroup
characteristics. In this study, we have no evidence whether or not the participants saw themselves as a unique group as citizens. Third, the participants of this study were Turkish university students. Previous research indicated evidence for the relationship between attribution and culture (Shirazi & Biel, 2005), and that political context such as community’s institutions, leaders and policies have determining effect on civic involvement (Oxendine et al., 2007). Though we do not have any empirical evidence at this point whether or not the CASQ can be used in other cultures, given the theoretical basis of the study, we do have strong implication that it can, as most of the hypothetical scenarios used in this study describe active citizen indicators that have been used in cross cultural studies (see Hoskins & Mascherini, 2009; Hoskins, Villalba, & Saisana, 2012; Schultz, Ainley, Fraillon, Kerr, & Losito, 2010; Weerd, Gemmeke, Rigter, & Rij, 2005). Future research could examine how causal attribution of responsibility in citizenry behaviors cross culturally differs in relations to variables such as political attitudes, political culture, civic engagement and other aspects of citizenship. Fourth, whereas the participants were selected only from the third and fourth year students, measuring citizenship attribution through college students is yet another limitation of the study. Because college students are in a relatively unique social and political environment, their citizenship behaviors may not represent all public behavior. Assessing the reliability and validity of the CASQ in more heterogeneous groups by using confirmatory factor analysis may be fruitful. There remains growing worldwide interest in citizenship studies and active citizenship has become a core concept in the European and American context. We hope that the findings obtained in this study encourage other researchers to study citizenship behaviors and events in relation to attribution behaviors.
References Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., & Alloy, L. B. (1989). Hopelessness depression: A theory-based subtype of depression. Psychological Review, 96, 358–372. Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49–74. Aktar, C. (2015). Resources and shortcomings of pluralism in today’s Turkey: Gezi Park protests in the light of pluralism. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 41, 465–471. Albanesı, C., Cıcognanı, E., & Zanı, B. (2007). Sense of community: Civic engagement and social well-being in Italian adolescents. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 17, 387–406.
Please cite this article in press as: Yazıcı, S., & Güven, S. Development and validation of a Citizenship Attributional Style Questionnaire. The Social Science Journal (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.06.002
G Model SOCSCI-1407; No. of Pages 8
8
ARTICLE IN PRESS S. Yazıcı, S. Güven / The Social Science Journal xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Alloy, L. B., Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., & Hartlage, S. (1988). The hopelessness theory of depression: Atributional aspects. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27, 5–21. Aristotle. (1984). In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of Aristotle. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bradbury, T. n., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Attributions in marriage: Review and critique. Psychological Bulleten, 107, 3–33. Crittended, K. S. (1983). Sociological aspects of attribution. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 425–446. Cutrona, C. E., Russell, D., & Jones, R. (1985). Cross-situational consistency in causal attributions: Does attributional style exist? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1043–1058. Furnham, A., Sadka, V., & Brewin, C. R. (1992). The development of occupational style questionnaire. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 27–39. Gibb, B. E., Zhu, L., Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (2002). Attributional styles and academic achievement in university students: A Longitudinal investigation. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26, 309–315. Haeffel, G. J. (2011). After further deliberation: Cognitive vulnerability predicts changes in event-specific negative inferences for a poor midterm grade. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 35, 285–292. Haeffel, G. J., Gibb, B. E., Metalsky, G. I., Alloey, L. B., Abramson, L. Y., Hankin, B. L., et al. (2008). Measuring cognitive vulnerability to depression: Development and validation of the cognitive style questionnaire. Clinical Psychological Review, 28, 824–836. Hanrahan, S. J., Grove, J. R., & Hattie, J. A. (1989). Development of a questionnaire measure of sport-related attributional style. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 20, 114–134. Harvey, D. M. (1981). Depression and attributional style: Interpretations of important personal events. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 134–142. Havey, P., & Martinko, M. J. (2010). Attribution theory and motivation. In N. Borkowski (Ed.), Organizational behavior in health care (pp. 147–164). Boston: Jones and Barlett. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley. Hessling, R. M., Anderson, C. A., & Russell, D. W. (2002). Attributional styles. In R. F. Ballasteros (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychological assessment (pp. 116–120). London: Sage. Hewitt, A. K., Foxcroft, D. R., & MacDonald, J. (2004). Multitraitmultimethod confirmatory factor analysis of the attributional style questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1483–1491. Hoskins, B. L., & Mascherini, E. M. (2009). Measuring active citizenship through the development of a composite indicator. Social Indicator Research, 90, 459–488. Hoskins, B., Villalba, C. M. H., & Saisana, M. (2012). The 2011 civic competence composite indicator. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union. Houston, D. M. (2016). Revisiting the relationship between attributional style and academic performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46, 192–200. Hu, T., & Zhang, D. (2015). The relationship between attributional style for negative outcomes and depression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 34, 304–321. Joiner, T. E., & Metalsky, G. I. (1999). Factorial construct validity of extended attributional style questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 23, 105–113. Kymlicka, W. (1990). Contemporary political philosophy: An introduction. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ledesma, R. D., & Valero-Mora. (2007). Determining the number of factors to retain in EFA: An easy-to use computer program for carrying out parallel analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(2), 1–11. Lewis, S. P., Waschbusch, D. A., Sellers, D. P., Leblanc, M., & Kelley, M. L. (2014). Factor structure of the children’ attributional style questionnaire-revised. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 46, 125–133. Lord, R. G., & Smith, J. E. (1983). Theoretical, information processing: and situational factors affecting attribution theory models of organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 8, 50–60. Matsunaga, M. (2010). How to factor-analyze your data right: Do’es, don’ts, and how-to’s. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 97–110. McNamara, N., Muldoon, O., Stevenson, C., & Slattery, E. (2011). Citizenship attributes as the basis for intergroup differentiation: Implicit and explicit intergroup evaluation. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 21, 243–254.
Michels, & Graaf, L. D. (2010). Examining citizen participation: Local participatory policy making and democracy. Local Government Studies, 36, 477–491. Montesquieu, C. B. D. (2011). The spirit of laws. New York: Cosimo Classics. NCSS. (2001). Creating effective citizens. NCSS position statement. http://www. socialstudies.org/positions/effective citizens Nelson, J., & Kerr, D. (2005). International review of curriculum and assessment frameworks. Active citizenship: Definitions, goals and practices. Background paper. http://www.inca.org.uk/pdf/Active citizenship background paper.pdf Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Girgus, J. S., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1986). Learned helplessness in children: A longitudinal study of depression, achievement and explanatory style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 435–442. Oxendine, A., Sullivan, J. L., Borgida, E., Riedel, E., Jackson, M., & Dial, J. (2007). The importance of political context for understanding civic engagement: A longitudinal analysis. Political Behavior, 29, 31–67. Peterson, C., & Barett, L. (1987). Explanatory style and academic performance among university freshman. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 603–607. Peterson, C. (1991a). On shortening the expanded attributional style questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 59, 179–183. Peterson, C. (1991b). The meaning and measurement of explanatory style. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 50–57. Peterson, C., & Villavova, P. (1988). An expanded attributional style questionnaire. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 87–89. Peterson, C., Schwartz, S. M., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1981). Self-blame and depressive symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 253–278. Peterson, C., Semmel, A., Baeyer, C. V., Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1982). The attributional style questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6, 287–300. Plato (1991). The republic. Benjamin Jowet translation. New York: Vintage Classics Edition. Rousseau J.J. (1968). The social contract. Translated by Maurice Cranston. London : Penguin Books. Sahar, G. (2014). On the importance of attribution theory in political psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8, 229–249. Schultz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Kerr, D., & Losito, B. (2010). Initial findings from the IEA international civic and citizenship education study. Amsterdam: IEA. Seligman, M. E. P., Petorson, C., Kaslow, N. J., Tanenbaum, R. L., Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1984). Explanatory style and depressive symptoms among school children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 235–238. Smith, P., Caputi, P., & Crittenden, N. (2013). Measuring optimism in organizations: Development of a workplace explanatory style questionnaire. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 415–432. Solak, N., & Göregenli, M. (2009). Yoksullu˘ga I˙ lis¸kin Nedensel Atıflar Ölc¸e˘gi’nin gelis¸tirilmesi ve psikometric özelliklerinin de˘gerlendirilmesi. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 12, 72–89. Thomson, B. (2004). Explanatory and confirmatory factor analysis. Washington: American Psychological Association. Travers, K. M., Creed, P. A., & Morrissey, S. (2015). The development and initial validation of a new scale to measure explanatory style. Personality and Individual Differences, 81, 1–6. Weerd, M. D., Gemmeke, M., Rigter, J., & Rij, C. V. (2005). Indicator for monitoring active citizenship and citizenship education. Amsterdam: Research Report for the European Commission. Weiner, B., Osborne, D., & Rudolph, U. (2011). An attributional analysis of reactions to poverty: The political ideology of the giver and perceived morality of receiver. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 199–213. Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of education for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 237–269. Whitley, B. E. J. (1990). The relationship of heterosexual’s attribution for the causes of homosexuality to attitudes toward lesbian and gay men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 369–377. Wood, P. B., & Bartkowski, J. P. (2014). Attributional style and public policy attitudes toward gay rights. Social Science Quarterly, 85, 58–74. Xenikou, A., & Furnham, A. (1997). Attributional style for negative events: A propositional for a more reliable and valid measure of attributional style. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 53–69. Zeelenberg, M., Pligt, J. V. D., & Vries, N. K. D. (2000). Attributions of responsibility and affective reactions to decision outcomes. Acta Psychologica, 104, 303–315. Zocker, G. S. (1999). Attributional and symbolic predictors of abortion attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1218–1256.
Please cite this article in press as: Yazıcı, S., & Güven, S. Development and validation of a Citizenship Attributional Style Questionnaire. The Social Science Journal (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2017.06.002