Search

Understanding lay theories on the causes of economic inequality is the first step to comprehending why people tolerate, justify, or react against it. Accordingly, this paper aims to develop and validate with two cross-sectional studies the Attributions for Cross-Country Inequality Scale (ACIS), which assesses how people explain cross-country economic inequality–namely, the uneven distribution of income and wealth between poor and rich countries. After selecting and adapting items from existing scales of attributions for poverty and wealth, in Study 1, we tested the factorial structure of this initial pool of items in three countries with different levels of economic development and inequality, namely, Italy (n = 246), the UK (n = 248), and South Africa (n = 228). Three causal dimensions emerged from the Exploratory Factor Analysis: "rich countries" (blaming the systematic advantage of and exploitation by rich countries), "poor countries" (blaming the dispositional inadequacy and faults of poor countries), and "fate" (blaming destiny and luck). The retained items were administered in Study 2 to three new samples from Italy (n = 239), the UK (n = 249), and South Africa (n = 248). Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) corroborated the factorial structure of the ACIS, and Multi-Group CFA supported configural and metric invariances of the scale across countries. In addition, we show internal consistency and construct validity of the scale: the scale correlates with relevant constructs (e.g., beliefs about cross-country inequality and ideological orientation) and attitudes toward relevant policies related to international redistribution and migration. Overall, the scale is a valid instrument to assess causal attribution for cross-national inequality and is reliable across countries. By focusing on resource distribution from an international perspective, this scale will allow researchers to broaden the discussion on economic inequality to a global level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Given the high prevalence and dramatic impact of being bullied at school, it is crucial to get more insight into how teachers can reduce bullying. So far, few instruments have measured elementary teachers' responses to bullying. This study investigated the validity of the student-reported Teachers' Responses to Bullying Questionnaire. The factor structure and measurement invariance were tested across two educational contexts among fourth and fifth grade students from Italy (n = 235) and Belgium (n = 667). Furthermore, associations between student-perceived teachers' responses and students' bullying behavior were examined. Confirmatory Factor Analysis supported the predicted five-factor structure, distinguishing Non-Intervention, Disciplinary Methods, Group Discussion, Mediation, and Victim Support. A partial factor means invariance model was found, allowing for valid comparisons between the Italian and Belgian educational contexts. Significant associations were found between self-reported, but not peer-nominated, bullying behavior and most student-perceived teachers' responses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of BPA - Applied Psychology Bulletin (Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata) is the property of Giunti O.S. Organizzazioni Speciali and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)