The “Justice sensitivity questionnaire”: validation in a Russian speaking sample

 
PIIS020595920000075-8-1
DOI10.31857/S020595920000075-8
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Affiliation: Higher School of Economics National Research University
Address: 101000, Moscow, Myasnitskaya St., 20, Russia
Affiliation: Higher School of Economics National Research University
Address: Russian Federation, 101000, Moscow, Myasnitskaya St., 20, Russia
Affiliation: Koblenz-Landau Universität
Address: Germany, 56070, Koblenz, Universitätsstrasse, 1, Germany
Journal namePsikhologicheskii zhurnal
EditionVolume 39 №4
Pages105-116
Abstract

The German Justice Sensitivity Inventory was validated in a Russian sample (N = 1002, Mage = 22.3, SD = 6.3; 769 female). Justice sensitivity is a trait describing the extent to which a person is tolerant or sensitive to cases of injustice in everyday life and, as a result, is ready to act in order to restore justice. The four-factor structure of the Russian version of the inventory was confirmed, in line with the original version. The four scales were as follows: victim sensitivity, observer sensitivity, beneficiary sensitivity, and perpetrator sensitivity. Internal consistency reliability coefficients of scales ranged from 0.89 to 0.91. Gender differences were found: all justice sensitivity scores were higher in females. The age trend was also shown: the older respondents the higher perpetrator sensitivity and lower victim sensitivity and observer sensitivity. Discriminant validity was tested by means of Markers for the Big-Five Factor Structure, Basic World Assumptions, and Belief in a Just World scales. Convergent validity was examined by means of the Moral Motives Model scale. Validity of the Russian version of Justice Sensitivity Inventory was found satisfactory.

Keywordsjustice sensitivity, validity, reliability, belief in a just world, basic world assumptions, moral motive
Received14.10.2018
Publication date14.10.2018
Cite   Download pdf To download PDF you should sign in
Размещенный ниже текст является ознакомительной версией и может не соответствовать печатной

views: 648

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Adamjan A.A. Chuvstvitel'nost' k spravedlivosti: nekotorye harakteristiki russkojazychnoj versii oprosnika // Sbornik tezisov XXIV Mezhdunarodnoj nauchnoj konferencii studentov, aspirantov i molodyh uchjonyh “Lomonosov-2017”. Moscow: Maks Press, 2017. (In Russian)

2. Adamjan A.A. Cennost' spravedlivosti kak odin iz zhiznennyh smyslov sovremennyh studentov // Psihologicheskie problemy smysla zhizni i akme: Jelektronnyj sbornik materialov XXI simpoziuma / Eds. G.A. Vajzer, N.V. Kisel'nikova, T.A. Popova. Moscow: Psihologicheskij institut RAO, 2017. (In Russian)

3. Knjazev G.G., Mitrofanova L.G., Bocharov V.A. Validizacija russkojazychnoj versii oprosnika L. Goldberga «Markery faktorov “Bol'shoj Pjaterki”» // Psikhologicheskii zhurnal. 2010. V. 31. № 5. P. 100–110. (In Russian)

4. Nartova-Bochaver S.K., Astanina N.B.“Unizhennost' i oskorblennost'” kak cherta lichnosti: fenomenologicheskij analiz pozicii zhertvy // Social'naja psihologija i obshhestvo. 2014. № 2. P. 13–26. (In Russian)

5. Nartova-Bochaver S.K., Astanina N.B. Psihologicheskie problemy spravedlivosti v zarubezhnoj personologii: teorii i jempiricheskie issledovanija // Psikhologicheskii zhurnal. 2014. V. 35. № 1. P. 16–23. (In Russian)

6. Padun M.A., Kotel'nikova A.V. Modifikacija metodiki issledovanija bazisnyh ubezhdenij lichnosti R. Janoff-Bul'man // Psikhologicheskii zhurnal. 2008. V. 29. № 4. P. 98–106. (In Russian)

7. Furman D.E., Kaariajnen K. Religioznost' v Rossii v 90-e gody XX–nachale XXI veka. Moskow: RAN, Institut Evropy, Izdatel'stvo OGNI TD, 2006. (In Russian)

8. Ashton M.C., Lee K. The HEXACO–60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality // Journal of personality assessment. 2009. V. 91. № 4. P. 340–345.

9. Baumert A., Halmburger A., Schmitt M. Interventions against norm violations: Dispositional determinants of self-reported and real moral courage // Personality and social psychology bulletin. 2013. V. 39. P. 1053–1068.

10. Baumert A., Rothmund T., Thomas N., Gollwitzer M., Schmitt M. Justice as a moral motive: belief in a just world and justice sensitivity as potential indicator of the justice motive // Handbook of moral motivation / Eds. Heinrichs K., Oser F., Lovat T. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2013. P. 159–180.

11. Baumert A., Schmitt M. Justice Sensitivity // Handbook of social justice theory and research / Eds. C. Sabbagh & M. Schmitt. NY: Springer, 2016. P. 161–180.

12. Baumert A., Schlösser T., Schmitt M. Economic Games: A Performance-Based Assessment of Fairness and Altruism // European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 2014. V. 30. P. 178–192.

13. Bentler P.M. Comparative fit indexes in structural models // Psychological bulletin. 1990. V. 107. № 2. P. 238–246.

14. Browne M.W., Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit // Sage focus editions. 1993. V. 154. P. 136–136.

15. Dalbert C. The world is more just for me than generally: About the personal belief in a just world scale's validity // Social Justice Research. 1999. V. 12. № 2. P. 79–98.

16. Goldberg L.R. The development of markers for the BigFive factor structure // Psychological assessment. 1992. V. 4. № 1. P. 26–42.

17. Gollwitzer M., Rothmund T., Pfeiffer A., Ensenbach C. Why and when justice sensitivity leads to pro-and antisocial behavior // Journal of Research in Personality. 2009. V. 43. №. 6. P. 999–1005.

18. Gollwitzer M., Schmitt M., Schalke R., Maes J., Baer A. Asymmetrical effects of justice sensitivity perspectives on prosocial and antisocial behavior // Social Justice Research. 2005. V. 18. P. 183–201.

19. Hu L., Bentler P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives // Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal. 1999. V. 6. № 1. P. 1–55.

20. Janoff-Bulman R., Carnes N.C. Surveying the moral landscape: Moral motives and group-based moralities // Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2013. V. 17. № 3. P. 219–236.

21. Janoff-Bulman R. Assumptive worlds and the stress of traumatic events: Applications of the schema construct // Social cognition. 1989. V. 7. № 2. P. 113–136.

22. Lerner M.J. The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York, NY: Plenum Press, 1980.

23. Marsh H.W., Hau K.T., Wen Z. In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings // Structural equation modeling. 2004. V. 11. № 3. P. 320–341.

24. Nartova-Bochaver S., Donat M., Astanina N. Rüprich C. Russian Adaptations of General and Personal Belief in a Just World Scales: Validation and Psychometric Properties // Social Justice Research. 2018. V. 31. №. 1. P. 61–84.

25. Nartova-Bochaver S.K., Kuznetsova V.B. Friendly Home and Inhabitants' Morality: Mutual Relationships // Frontiers in Psychology. 2018. V. 8. P. 23–48.

26. Schmitt M. Individual differences in Sensitivity to Befallen Injustice (SBI) // Personality and Individual Differences. 1996. V. 21 P. 3–20.

27. Schmitt M., Baumert A., Gollwitzer M., Maes J. The justice sensitivity inventory: Factorial validity, location in the personality facet space, demographic pattern, and normative data // Social Justice Research. 2010. V. 23. P. 211–238.

28. Schmitt M., Gollwitzer M., Maes J., Arbach D. Justice sensitivity: Assessment and location in the personality space // European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 2005. V. 21. P. 202–211.

29. Schmitt M., Neumann R., Montada L. Dispositional sensitivity to befallen injustice // Social Justice Research 1995. V. 8. P. 385–407.

30. Tabachnick B.G., Fidell L.S. Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th Edn. Boston, MA: Pearson, 2005

31. Thomas N., Baumert A., Schmitt M. Justice Sensitivity as a Risk and Protective Factor in Social Conflicts // Justice and Conflicts. 2012. P. 107–120.

32. Van den Bos K., Maas M., Waldring I., Semin G.P. Toward understanding the psychology of reactions to perceived fairness: The role of affect intensity // Social Justice Research. 2003. V. 6. P. 151–168.

33. Wu M.S., Schmitt M., Nartova-Bochaver S., Astanina N., Khachatryan N., Zhou C., Han B. Examining selfadvantage in the suffering of others: cross-cultural differences in beneficiary and observer justice sensitivity among Chinese, Germans, and Russians // Social Justice Research (SORE). 2014. V. 27. № 2. P. 231–242.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up