Keywords
psychometric validation
factorial analysis
How to Cite
Abstract
Unconditional Respect for Persons (RfP) scale is an instrument for measuring positive attitudes towards autonomy, equality, and integrity of human beings. This research validated and analyzed some psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the RfP scale in a sample of 947 pupils from 12 and 19 years old (M = 15.47, SD = 1.49). Using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, we found two factors of respect Disrespect towards people (F1) and Respect toward people (F2). Internal consistency (F1: Omega = 0.82; F2: Omega = 0.78), and convergent and discriminant validity of the RfP were acceptable. Results show that RfP is a valid and reliable instrument for applying to adolescents and young population.
Akrami, N., Ekehammar, B., & Anega, T. (2000). Classical and modern racial prejudice: A study of attitudes toward immigrants in Sweden. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 521-532.
Blackwood, L., Hopkins, N., & Reicher, S. (2013). Turning the analytic gaze on “us” the role of authorities in the alienation of minorities. European Psychologist, 18(4), 245-252.
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. Journal of Applied psychology, 94(2), 445.
Darwall, S. L. (1977). Two kinds of respect. Ethics, 88(1), 36-49.
Darwall, S. L. (2006). The second-person standpoint: Morality, respect, and accountability. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Davis, M.H. (1983). Measuring Individual Differences in Empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113-126.
De Cremer, D. & Mulder, L. B. (2007). A passion for respect: On understanding the role of human needs and morality. Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung, 38, 439-449.
De Cremer, D. & Tyler, T. R. (2005). Am I respected or not?: Inclusion and reputation as issues in group membership. Social Justice Research, 18, 121-153.
Dillon, R. S. (2007). Respect: A philosophical perspective. Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung, 38, 201-212.
Espelage, D. L., & Holt, M. K. (2001). Bullying and victimization during early adolescence: Peer influences and psychosocial correlates. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2(2-3), 123-142.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902.
Janoff-Bulman, R., & Werther, A. (2008). The social psychology of respect: Implications for delegitimization and reconciliation. In A. Nadler, T. Malloy & J. D. Fisher (Eds.), Social psychology of inter-group reconciliation: From violent conflict to peaceful co-existence (pp. 145-171). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gadermann, A. M., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2012). Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(3), 1-13.
Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2014). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences (8th ed). XXX: Cengage Learning.
Haidt, J. & Kesebir, S. (2010). Morality. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 797-832). Hobeken: Wiley.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (2005). Análisis multivariante. Madrid: Pearson Educación, SA.
Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J.,
Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E., ... & Stewart, A. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO₇ scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003-1028.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
Huo, Y. J., & Molina, L. E. (2006). Is pluralism a viable model of diversity? The benefits and limits of subgroup respect. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9(3), 359-376.
Janoff-Bulman, R., & Werther, A. (2008). The social psychology of respect: Implications for delegitimization and reconciliation. In A. Nadler, T. Malloy & J. D. Fisher (Eds.), Social psychology of inter-group reconciliation: From violent conflict to peaceful co-existence (pp. 145-171). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
JASP Team (2017). JASP (Version 0.8.3). [Computer software]
Kant, I. (1995). Fundamentación de la metafísica de las costumbres. Crítica de la razón práctica. La paz perpetua. México, DF: Porrúa. Obra originalmente publicada en 1785.
Lægard, S. (2010). Recognition and toleration: Conflicting approaches to diversity in education? In M. Sardoč (Ed.), Toleration, respect and recognition in education (pp. 17-32) Malaysia: Wiley-Blackwell.
Laham, S. M., Tam, T., Lalljee, M., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2010). Respect for persons in the intergroup context: Self-other overlap and intergroup emotions as mediators of the impact of respect on action tendencies. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(3), 301-317.
Lalljee, M., Laham, S. & Tam, T. (2007). Unconditional respect for persons: A social psychological analysis. Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung, 38, 451-464.
Lalljee, M., Tam, T., Hewstone, M., Laham, S. M., & Lee, J. (2009). Unconditional respect for persons and the prediction of intergroup action tendencies. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 666-683.
Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2000). Respect: An exploration. Cambridge: Perseus.
Leary, J. D., Brennan, E. M., & Briggs, H. E. (2005). The African American adolescent respect scale: A measure of a prosocial attitude. Research on Social Work Practice, 15, 462-469.
Licata, L., Sánchez-Masas, M., & Green E. G. T. (2011). Identity, immigration, and prejudice in Europe: A recognition approach. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (Vol 1., pp. 895-916). New York: Springer.
Marsh, H. W., Scalas, L. F., & Nagengast, B. (2010). Longitudinal tests of competing factor structures for the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Traits, ephemeral artifacts, and stable response styles. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 366-381.
McDonald, R. P. (1978). Generalizability in factorable domains: “Domain validity and generalizability.” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38(1), 75-79.
McFarland, S. (2010). Personality and support for universal human rights: A review and test of a structural model. Journal of Personality, 78(6), 1735-1763.
Mestre Escrivá, V., Frías Navarro, M. D., & Samper García, P. (2004). La medida de la empatía: Análisis del Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Psicothema, 16(2), 255-260.
Muñiz, J., Elosua, P., & Hambleton, R. K. (2013). Directrices para la traducción y adaptación de los tests: Segunda edición. Psicothema, 25(2), 151-157.
Renger, D., Mommert, A., Renger, S., & Simon, B. (2016). When less equal is less human: Intragroup (dis) respect and the experience of being human. The Journal of Social Psychology, 156(5), 553-563.
Renger, D., Renger, S., Miché, M., & Simon, B. (2017). A social recognition approach to autonomy: The role of equality-based respect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(4), 479-492. doi: 10.1177/0146167216688212
Renger, D., & Simon, B. (2011). Social recognition as an equal: The role of equality‐based respect in group life. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(4), 501-507.
Schirmer, W., Weidenstedt, L., & Reich. W. (2012). From tolerance to respect in inter-ethnic contexts. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38(7), 1049-1065.
Sidanius, J., Mitchell, M., Haley, H., & Navarrete, C. D. (2006). Support for harsh criminal sanctions and criminal justice beliefs: A social dominance perspective. Social Justice Research, 19, 433-449.
Simon, B. (2007). Respect, equality, and power: A social psychological perspective. Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung, 38, 309-326.
Simon, B., & Grabow, H. (2014). To be respected and to respect: The challenge of mutual respect in intergroup relations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53(1), 39-53.
Simon, B., Mommert, A., & Renger, D. (2015). Reaching across group boundaries: Respect from outgroup members facilitates re-categorization as a common group. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 616-628. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12112
Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 893-898.
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115-191.
Van Quaquebeke, N., Henrich, D. C., & Eckloff, T. (2007). “It’s not tolerance I’m asking for, it’s respect!” A conceptual framework to differentiate between tolerance, acceptance and (two types of) respect. Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung, 38, 185-200.
Van Sorenden, E., Sanderman, R., & Coyne, J. C. (2013). Ineffectiveness of reverse wording of questionnaire items: Let’s learn from cows in the rain. PLoS One, 8(7): e68967. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068967
van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2012). On conviction's collective consequences: Integrating moral conviction with the social identity model of collective action. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(1), 52-71.
Weijters, B., Baumgartner, H., & Schillewaert, N. (2013). Reversed item bias: An integrative model. Psychological Methods, 18(3), 320.
Zhang, X., Noor, R., & Savalei, V. (2016). Examining the effect of reverse worded items on the factor structure of the need for cognition scale. PloS one, 11(6), e0157795.
Zhang, X., & Savalei, V. (2016). Improving the factor structure of psychological scales: The Expanded format as an alternative to the Likert scale format. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76(3), 357-386.
This journal is registered under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License. Thus, this work may be reproduced, distributed, and publicly shared in digital format, as long as the names of the authors and Pontificia Universidad Javeriana are acknowledged. Others are allowed to quote, adapt, transform, auto-archive, republish, and create based on this material, for any purpose (even commercial ones), provided the authorship is duly acknowledged, a link to the original work is provided, and it is specified if changes have been made. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana does not hold the rights of published works and the authors are solely responsible for the contents of their works; they keep the moral, intellectual, privacy, and publicity rights. Approving the intervention of the work (review, copy-editing, translation, layout) and the following outreach, are granted through an use license and not through an assignment of rights. This means the journal and Pontificia Universidad Javeriana cannot be held responsible for any ethical malpractice by the authors. As a consequence of the protection granted by the use license, the journal is not required to publish recantations or modify information already published, unless the errata stems from the editorial management process. Publishing contents in this journal does not generate royalties for contributors.