Araştırma Daveti

Araştırma Katılım Daveti

ÖzArGe Araştırma ve Geliştirme Grubunda bir psikoloji araştırma çalışması için gönüllü katılımcılar arıyoruz.

“Ahlaki Deneyimler” başlıklı, etik kurul onayı alınmış, uluslararası ortaklı bu çalışmada insanların günlük durumlarda yaşadıkları farklı ahlaki deneyimler incelenmektedir.

Gönüllülerin aşağıdaki adresten katılım talebinde bulunabileceği bu çalışma kapsamında katılımcıların akıllı telefonlarına indirecekleri bir uygulama aracılığıyla birkaç günlük sürede farklı zamanlarda deneyimlerini paylaşmaları istenecektir.

Çalışmaya 18 yaş ve üzeri, üniversite öğrencisi olmayan ve akıllı telefonu bulunan tüm yetişkinler katılabilir.

Çalışmayı sonuna kadar tamamlayan katılımcılara 200 TL değerindeki alışveriş kartı hediye edilecektir.

Çalışma katılım talep formu: https://forms.gle/4T89sPNCTmotxZXV6

Research Article

A Worldwide Test of the Predictive Validity of Ideal Partner Preference Matching

Paul W. Eastwick, Jehan Sparks, Eli J. Finkel, Eva M. Meza, Matúš Adamkovič, Peter Adu, Ting Ai, Aderonke A. Akintola, Laith Al-Shawaf, Denisa Apriliawati, Patrícia Arriaga, Benjamin Aubert-Teillaud, Gabriel Baník, Krystian Barzykowski, Carlota Batres, Katherine J. Baucom, Elizabeth Z. Beaulieu, Maciej Behnke, Natalie Butcher, Deborah Y. Charles, Jane Minyan Chen, Jeong Eun Cheon, Phakkanun Chittham, Patrycja Chwiłkowska, Chin Wen Cong, Lee T. Copping, Nadia S. Corral-Frias, Vera Ćubela Adorić, Mikaela Dizon, Hongfei Du, Michael I. Ehinmowo, Daniela A. Escribano, Natalia M. Espinosa, Francisca Expósito, Gilad Feldman, Raquel Freitag, Martha Frias Armenta, Albina Gallyamova, Omri Gillath, Biljana Gjoneska, Theofilos Gkinopoulos, Franca Grafe, Dmitry Grigoryev, Agata Groyecka-Bernard, Gul Gunaydin, Ruby Ilustrisimo, Emily Impett, Pavol Kačmár, Young-Hoon Kim, Mirosław Kocur, Marta Kowal, Maatangi Krishna, Paul Danielle Labor, Jackson G. Lu, Marc Y. Lucas, Wojciech P. Małecki, Klara Malinakova, Sofia Meißner, Zdeněk Meier, Michal Misiak, Amy Muise, Lukas Novak, Jiaqing O, Asil A. Özdoğru, Haeyoung Gideon Park, Mariola Paruzel, Zoran Pavlović, Marcell Püski, Gianni Ribeiro, S. Craig Roberts, Jan P. Röer, Ivan Ropovik, Robert M. Ross, Ezgi Sakman, Cristina E. Salvador, Emre Selcuk, Shayna Skakoon-Sparling, Agnieszka Sorokowska, Piotr Sorokowski, Ognen Spasovski, Sarah C. E. Stanton, Suzanne L. K. Stewart, Viren Swami, Barnabas Szaszi, Kaito Takashima, Peter Tavel, Julian Tejada, Eric Tu, Jarno Tuominen, David Vaidis, Zahir Vally, Leigh Ann Vaughn, Laura Villanueva-Moya, Dian Wisnuwardhani, Yuki Yamada, Fumiya Yonemitsu, Radka Žídková, Kristýna Živná, and Nicholas A. Coles

Ideal partner preferences (i.e., ratings of the desirability of attributes like attractiveness or intelligence) are the source of numerous foundational findings in the interdisciplinary literature on human mating. Recently, research on the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matching (i.e., Do people positively evaluate partners who match vs. mismatch their ideals?) has become mired in several problems. First, articles exhibit discrepant analytic and reporting practices. Second, different findings emerge across laboratories worldwide, perhaps because they sample different relationship contexts and/or populations. This registered report—partnered with the Psychological Science Accelerator—uses a highly powered design (N = 10,358) across 43 countries and 22 languages to estimate preference-matching effect sizes. The most rigorous tests revealed significant preference-matching effects in the whole sample and for partnered and single participants separately. The “corrected pattern metric” that collapses across 35 traits revealed a zero-order effect of β = .19 and an effect of β = .11 when included alongside a normative preference-matching metric. Specific traits in the “level metric” (interaction) tests revealed very small (average β = .04) effects. Effect sizes were similar for partnered participants who reported ideals before entering a relationship, and there was no consistent evidence that individual differences moderated any effects. Comparisons between stated and revealed preferences shed light on gender differences and similarities: For attractiveness, men’s and (especially) women’s stated preferences underestimated revealed preferences (i.e., they thought attractiveness was less important than it actually was). For earning potential, men’s stated preferences underestimated—and women’s stated preferences overestimated—revealed preferences. Implications for the literature on human mating are discussed.

Keywords: attraction, close relationships, human mating, ideals, matching hypothesis

Citation: Eastwick, P. W., Sparks, J., Finkel, E. J., Meza, E. M., Adamkovič, M., Adu, P., Ai, T., Akintola, A. A., Al-Shawaf, L., Apriliawati, D., Arriaga, P., Aubert-Teillaud, B., Baník, G., Barzykowski, K., Batres, C., Baucom, K. J., Beaulieu, E. Z., Behnke, M., Butcher, N., . . . Coles, N. A. (2024). A worldwide test of the predictive validity of ideal partner preference matching. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000524

Research Article

Registered Replication Report: A Large Multilab Cross-Cultural Conceptual Replication of Turri et al. (2015)

Braeden Hall, Kathleen Schmidt, Jordan Wagge, Savannah C. Lewis, Sophia C. Weissgerber, Felix Kiunke, Gerit Pfuhl, Stefan Stieger, Ulrich S. Tran, Krystian Barzykowski, Natalia Bogatyreva, Marta Kowal, KarlIJn Massar, Felizitas Pernerstofer, Piotr Sorokowski, Martin Voracek, Christopher R. Chartier, Mark J. Brandt, Jon E. Grahe, Asil A. Özdoğru, Michael R. Andreychik, Sau-Chin Chen, Thomas R. Evans, Caro Hautekiet, Hans IJzerman, Pavol Kačmár, Anthony J. Krafnick, Erica D. Musser, Evie Vergauwe, Kaitlyn M. Werner, Balazs Aczel, Patrícia Arriaga, Carlota Batres, Jennifer L. Beaudry, Florian Cova, Simona Ďurbisová, Leslie D. Cramblet Alvarez, Gilad Feldman, Hendrik Godbersen, Jaroslav Gottfried, Gerald J. Haeffel, Andree Hartanto, Chris Isloi, Joseph P. McFall, Marina Milyavskaya, David Moreau, Ester Nosáľová, Kostas Papaioannou, Susana Ruiz-Fernandez, Jana Schrötter, Daniel Storage, Kevin Vezirian, Leonhard Volz, Yanna J. Weisberg, Qinyu Xiao, Dana Awlia, Hannah W. Branit, Megan R. Dunn, Agata Groyecka-Bernard, Ricky Haneda, Julita Kielinska, Caroline Kolle, Paweł Lubomski, Alexys M. Miller, Martin J. Mækelæ, Mytro Pantazi, Rafael R. Ribeiro, Robert M. Ross, Agnieszka Sorokowska, Christopher L. Aberson, Xanthippi Alexi Vassiliou, Bradley J. Baker, Miklos Bognar, Chin Wen Cong, Alex F. Danvers, William E. Davis, Vilius Dranseika, Andrei Dumbravă, Harry Farmer, Andy P. Field, Patrick S. Forscher, Aurélien Graton, Nandor Hajdu, Peter A. Howlett, Radosław Kabut, Emmett M. Larsen, Sean T. H. Lee, Nicole Legate, Carmel A. Levitan, Neil Levy, Jackson G. Lu, Michał Misiak, Roxana E. Morariu, Jennifer Novak, Ekaterina Pronizius, Irina Prusova, Athulya S. Rathnayake, Marina O. Romanova, Jan P. Röer, Waldir M. Sampaio, Christoph Schild, Michael Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Ian D. Stephen, Peter Szecsi, Elizabeth Takacs, Julia N. Teeter, Elian H. Thiele-Evans, Julia Valeiro-Paterlini, Iris Vilares, Louise Villafana, Ke Wang, Raymond Wu, Sara Álvarez-Solas, Hannah Moshontz, and Erin M. Buchanan

According to the justified true belief (JTB) account of knowledge, people can truly know something only if they have a belief that is both justified and true (i.e., knowledge is JTB). This account was challenged by Gettier, who argued that JTB does not explain knowledge attributions in certain situations, later called “Gettier-type cases,” wherein protagonists are justified in believing something to be true, but their belief was correct only because of luck. Laypeople may not attribute knowledge to protagonists with justified but only luckily true beliefs. Although some research has found evidence for these so-called Gettier intuitions, Turri et al. found no evidence that participants attributed knowledge in a counterfeit-object Gettier-type case differently than in a matched case of JTB. In a large-scale, cross-cultural conceptual replication of Turri and colleagues’ Experiment 1 (N = 4,724) using a within-participants design and three vignettes across 19 geopolitical regions, we did find evidence for Gettier intuitions; participants were 1.86 times more likely to attribute knowledge to protagonists in standard cases of JTB than to protagonists in Gettier-type cases. These results suggest that Gettier intuitions may be detectable across different scenarios and cultural contexts. However, the size of the Gettier intuition effect did vary by vignette, and the Turri et al. vignette produced the smallest effect, which was similar in size to that observed in the original study. Differences across vignettes suggest that epistemic intuitions may also depend on contextual factors unrelated to the criteria of knowledge, such as the characteristics of the protagonist being evaluated.

Keywords: folk epistemology, beliefs, social cognition, epistemic intuitions, justified true belief, multilevel modeling, multilab, replication

Citation: Hall, B., Schmidt, K., Wagge, J., Lewis, S. C., Weissgerber, S. C., Kiunke, F., Pfuhl, G., Stieger, S., Tran, U. S., Barzykowski, K., Bogatyreva, N., Kowal, M., Massar, K., Pernerstofer, F., Sorokowski, P., Voracek, M., Chartier, C. R., Brandt, M. J., Grahe, J. E., . . . Buchanan, E. M. (2024). Registered replication report: A large multilab cross-cultural conceptual replication of Turri et al. (2015). Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 7(4), 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459241267902

Research Article

The International Climate Psychology Collaboration: Climate Change-Related Data Collected From 63 Countries

Kimberly C. Doell, Boryana Todorova, Madalina Vlasceanu, Joseph B. Bak Coleman, Ekaterina Pronizius, Philipp Schumann, Flavio Azevedo, Yash Patel, Michael M. Berkebile-Wineberg, Cameron Brick, Florian Lange, Samantha J. Grayson, Yifei Pei, Alek Chakroff, Karlijn L. van den Broek, Claus Lamm, Denisa Vlasceanu, Sara M. Constantino, Steve Rathje, Danielle Goldwert, Ke Fang, Salvatore Maria Aglioti, Mark Alfano, Andy J. Alvarado-Yepez, Angélica Andersen, Frederik Anseel, Matthew A. J. Apps, Chillar Asadli, Fonda Jane Awuor, Piero Basaglia, Jocelyn J. Bélanger, Sebastian Berger, Paul Bertin, Michał Białek, Olga Bialobrzeska, Michelle Blaya-Burgo, Daniëlle N. M. Bleize, Simen Bø, Lea Boecker, Paulo S. Boggio, Sylvie Borau, Sylvie Borau, Björn Bos, Ayoub Bouguettaya, Markus Brauer, Tymofii Brik, Roman Briker, Tobias Brosch, Ondrej Buchel, Daniel Buonauro, Radhika Butalia, Héctor Carvacho, Sarah A. E. Chamberlain, Hang-Yee Chan, Dawn Chow, Dongil Chung, Luca Cian, Noa Cohen-Eick, Luis Sebastian Contreras-Huerta, Davide Contu, Vladimir Cristea, Jo Cutler, Silvana D’Ottone, Jonas De keersmaecker, Sarah Delcourt, Sylvain Delouvée, Kathi Diel, Benjamin D. Douglas, Moritz A. Drupp, Shreya Dubey, Jānis Ekmanis, Christian T. Elbaek, Mahmoud Elsherif, Iris M. Engelhard, Yannik A. Escher, Tom W. Etienne, Laura Farage, Ana Rita Farias, Stefan Feuerriegel, Andrej Findor, Lucia Freira, Malte Friese, Neil Philip Gains, Albina Gallyamova, Sandra J. Geiger, Oliver Genschow, Biljana Gjoneska, Theofilos Gkinopoulos, Beth Goldberg, Amit Goldenberg, Sarah Gradidge, Simone Grassini, Kurt Gray, Sonja Grelle, Siobhán M. Griffin, Lusine Grigoryan, Ani Grigoryan, Dmitry Grigoryev, June Gruber, Johnrev Guilaran, Britt Hadar, Ulf J. J. Hahnel, Eran Halperin, Annelie J. Harvey, Christian A. P. Haugestad, Aleksandra M. Herman, Hal E. Hershfield, Toshiyuki Himichi, Donald W. Hine, Wilhelm Hofmann, Lauren Howe, Enma T. Huaman-Chulluncuy, Guanxiong Huang, Tatsunori Ishii, Ayahito Ito, Fanli Jia, John T. Jost, Veljko Jovanović, Dominika Jurgiel, Ondřej Kácha, Reeta Kankaanpää, Jaroslaw Kantorowicz, Elena Kantorowicz-Reznichenko, Keren Kaplan Mintz, Ilker Kaya, Ozgur Kaya, Narine Khachatryan, Anna Klas, Colin Klein, Christian A. Klöckner, Lina Koppel, Alexandra I. Kosachenko, Emily J. Kothe, Ruth Krebs, Amy R. Krosch, Andre P. M. Krouwel, Yara Kyrychenko, Maria Lagomarsino, Julia Lee Cunningham, Jeffrey Lees, Tak Yan Leung, Neil Levy, Patricia L. Lockwood, Chiara Longoni, Alberto López Ortega, David D. Loschelder, Jackson G. Lu, Yu Luo, Joseph Luomba, Annika E. Lutz, Johann M. Majer, Ezra Markowitz, Abigail A. Marsh, Karen Louise Mascarenhas, Bwambale Mbilingi, Winfred Mbungu, Cillian McHugh, Marijn H. C. Meijers, Hugo Mercier, Fenant Laurent Mhagama, Katerina Michalaki, Nace Mikus, Sarah G. Milliron, Panagiotis Mitkidis, Fredy S. Monge-Rodríguez, Youri L. Mora, Michael J. Morais, David Moreau, Kosuke Motoki, Manuel Moyano, Mathilde Mus, Joaquin Navajas, Tam Luong Nguyen, Dung Minh Nguyen, Trieu Nguyen, Laura Niemi, Sari R. R. Nijssen, Gustav Nilsonne, Jonas P. Nitschke, Laila Nockur, Ritah Okura, Sezin Öner, Asil Ali Özdoğru, Helena Palumbo, Costas Panagopoulos, Maria Serena Panasiti, Philip Pärnamets, Mariola Paruzel-Czachura, Yuri G. Pavlov, César Payán-Gómez, Adam R. Pearson, Leonor Pereira da Costa, Hannes M. Petrowsky, Stefan Pfattheicher, Nhat Tan Pham, Vladimir Ponizovskiy, Clara Pretus, Gabriel G. Rêgo, Ritsaart Reimann, Shawn A. Rhoads, Julian Riano-Moreno, Isabell Richter, Jan Philipp Röer, Jahred Rosa-Sullivan, Robert M. Ross, Anandita Sabherwal, Toshiki Saito, Oriane Sarrasin, Nicolas Say, Katharina Schmid, Michael T. Schmitt, Philipp Schoenegger, Christin Scholz, Mariah G. Schug, Stefan Schulreich, Ganga Shreedhar, Eric Shuman, Smadar Sivan, Hallgeir Sjåstad, Meikel Soliman, Katia Soud, Tobia Spampatti, Gregg Sparkman, Ognen Spasovski, Samantha K. Stanley, Jessica A. Stern, Noel Strahm, Yasushi Suko, Sunhae Sul, Stylianos Syropoulos, Neil C. Taylor, Elisa Tedaldi, Gustav Tinghög, Luu Duc Toan Huynh, Giovanni Antonio Travaglino, Manos Tsakiris, İlayda Tüter, Michael Tyrala, Özden Melis Uluğ, Arkadiusz Urbanek, Danila Valko, Sander van der Linden, Kevin van Schie, Aart van Stekelenburg, Edmunds Vanags, Daniel Västfjäll, Stepan Vesely, Jáchym Vintr, Marek Vranka, Patrick Otuo Wanguche, Robb Willer, Adrian Dominik Wojcik, Rachel Xu, Anjali Yadav, Magdalena Zawisza, Xian Zhao, Jiaying Zhao, Dawid Żuk, and Jay J. Van Bavel

Climate change is currently one of humanity’s greatest threats. To help scholars understand the psychology of climate change, we conducted an online quasi-experimental survey on 59,508 participants from 63 countries (collected between July 2022 and July 2023). In a between-subjects design, we tested 11 interventions designed to promote climate change mitigation across four outcomes: climate change belief, support for climate policies, willingness to share information on social media, and performance on an effortful pro-environmental behavioural task. Participants also reported their demographic information (e.g., age, gender) and several other independent variables (e.g., political orientation, perceptions about the scientific consensus). In the no-intervention control group, we also measured important additional variables, such as environmentalist identity and trust in climate science. We report the collaboration procedure, study design, raw and cleaned data, all survey materials, relevant analysis scripts, and data visualisations. This dataset can be used to further the understanding of psychological, demographic, and national-level factors related to individual-level climate action and how these differ across countries.

Subjects: Climate-change mitigation, Human behaviour

Citation: Doell, K. C., Todorova, B., Vlasceanu, M., Bak Coleman, J. B., Pronizius, E., Schumann, P., Azevedo, F., Patel, Y., Berkebile-Wineberg, M. M., Brick, C., Lange, F., Grayson, S. J., Pei, Y., Chakroff, A., van den Broek, K. L., Lamm, C., Vlasceanu, D., Constantino, S. M., Rathje, S., . . . Van Bavel, J. J. (2024). The International Climate Psychology Collaboration: Climate change-related data collected from 63 countries. Scientific Data, 11, 1066. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-03865-1

Research Article

Where the ‘Bad’ and the ‘Good’ Go: A Multi-Lab Direct Replication Report of Casasanto (2009, Experiment 1)

Yuki Yamada, Jin Xue, Panpan Li, Susana Ruiz-Fernández, Asil Ali Özdoğru, Şahsenem Sarı, Sergio C. Torres, José A. Hinojosa, Pedro R. Montoro, Bedoor AlShebli, Aidos K. Bolatov, Grant J. McGeechan, Mircea Zloteanu, Irene Razpurker-Apfeld, Adil Samekin, Nurit Tal-Or, Julian Tejada, Raquel Freitag, Omid Khatin-Zadeh, Hassan Banaruee, Nicolas Robin, Guillermo Briseño-Sanchez, Carlos J. Barrera-Causil, and Fernando Marmolejo-Ramos

Casasanto (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 351–367, 2009) conceptualised the body-specificity hypothesis by empirically finding that right-handed people tend to associate a positive valence with the right side and a negative valence with the left side, whilst left-handed people tend to associate a positive valence with the left side and negative valence with the right side. Thus, this was the first paper that showed a body-specific space–valence mapping. These highly influential findings led to a substantial body of research and follow-up studies, which could confirm the original findings on a conceptual level. However, direct replications of the original study are scarce. Against this backdrop and given the replication crisis in psychology, we conducted a direct replication of Casasanto’s original study with 2,222 participants from 12 countries to examine the aforementioned effects in general and also in a cross-cultural comparison. Our results support Casasanto’s findings that right-handed people associate the right side with positivity and the left side with negativity and vice versa for left-handers.

Keywords: Embodied cognition, Body-specificity hypothesis, Social cognition, Conceptual mapping, Space–valence association, Handedness, Big team science

Citation: Yamada, Y., Xue, J., Li, P., Ruiz-Fernández, S., Özdoğru, A. A., Sarı, Ş., Torres, S. C., Hinojosa, J. A., Montoro, P. R., AlShebli, B., Bolatov, A. K., McGeechan, G. J., Zloteanu, M., Razpurker-Apfeld, I., Samekin, A., Tal-Or, N., Tejada, J., Freitag, R., Khatin-Zadeh, O., . . . Marmolejo-Ramos, F. (2024). Where the ‘bad’ and the ‘good’ go: A multi-lab direct replication report of Casasanto (2009, Experiment 1). Memory & Cognition. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-024-01637-1

Research Article

Understanding Family Dynamics in a Cross-Cultural Sample: A Multi-National Study

Mary Moussa Rogers, Kelly Cuccolo, Cliff McKinney, John E. Edlund, Jon E. Grahe, Martha S. Zlokovich, Lisa M. Bauer, Tatyana El-Kour, Tabea Hässler, Fanli Jia, Jill Norvilitis, Christina Shane-Simpson, R. Andrew Yockey, Leslie D. Cramblet Alvarez, Léïla Eisner, Thomas Rhys Evans, Hojjatollah Farahani, Sara Haden, Gina Hawkins, Yoshito Kawabata, Tara Stoppa, Asil Ali Özdoğru, Handan Akkas, Olenka Dworakowski, Amber Matteson, Tifani Fletcher, Anamaries Garcia Marrero, Stephanie Godleski, Courtney L. Gosnell, Lynn Heydasch, Amanda Jerge, Arazais D. Oliveros, Melahat Özge Şimşek, Jessica J. Wegman, Stephanie Wright, Sibo Zhao, Parvis Azadfallah, Rhiannon Gibbs, Christopher Koch, Israel Meth, Kalu T. U. Ogba, Irem Metin-Orta, Christopher Redker, Casiana Reyes, Lisa H. Rosen, Rhonda N. Balzarini, and Zornitsa Kalibatseva

The Family Systems Circumplex Model posits that balanced levels of cohesion and adaptability are associated with positive familial outcomes, whereas extremely high or low levels of these factors are associated with deleterious outcomes. Despite the popularity and utility of this model in Western cultures, there is a dearth of empirical data supporting its use in more culturally diverse contexts. The current, preregistered study assessed the Family Circumplex Model, cultural factors, and emerging adult outcomes across 7 countries (i.e., China, Iran, Nigeria, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Participants were N = 3,593 emerging adults, mostly self-identifying as women (71.3%). Collaborators were participants in Psi Chi’s Network for International Collaborative Exchange (NICE) and administered measures related to family dynamics and cultural orientation to participants in a random order. Results indicated that the Family Circumplex Model did not fit cross-culturally. As such, a new model was adapted, the Expanded Circumplex Model, which demonstrated invariance across samples and between women and men. The Expanded Circumplex Model retained 6 constructs with differences regarding the separation of disengagement into 2 variables and the combining of adaptive flexibility and cohesion. The current study suggests that the cultural context in which family dynamics occur should be taken into consideration when conceptualizing family dynamics theory and measurement. Future work should seek to replicate and further apply the Expanded Circumplex Model to familial outcomes.

Keywords: Family Circumplex Model, family dynamics, open science, cross-cultural psychology

Citation: Moussa Rogers, M., Cuccolo, K., McKinney, C., Edlund, J. E., Grahe, J. E., Zlokovich, M. S., Bauer, L. M., El-Kour, T., Hässler, B., Jia, F., Norvilitis, J., Shane-Simpson, C., Yockey, R. A., Cramblet Alvarez, L. D., Eisner, L., Rhys Evans, T., Farahani, H., Haden, S., Hawkins, G., . . . Kalibatseva, Z. (2024). Understanding family dynamics in a cross-cultural sample: A multi-national study. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 29(2), 140–149. https://doi.org/10.24839/2325-7342.JN29.2.140

Research Article

Structural Validity Evidence for the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale Across 15 Languages

Briana Oshiro, William H. B. McAuliffe, Raymond Luong, Anabela C. Santos, Andrej Findor, Anna O. Kuzminska, Anthony Lantian, Asil A. Özdoğru, Balazs Aczel, Bojana M. Dinić, Christopher R. Chartier, Jasper Hidding, Job A. M. de Grefte, John Protzko, Mairead Shaw, Maximilian A. Primbs, Nicholas A. Coles, Patricia Arriaga, Patrick S. Forscher, Savannah C. Lewis, Tamás Nagy, Wieteke C. de Vries, William Jimenez-Leal, Yansong Li, and Jessica Kay Flake

Background: The Psychological Science Accelerator (PSA) recently completed a large-scale moral psychology study using translated versions of the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale (OUS). However, the translated versions have no validity evidence. Objective: The study investigated the structural validity evidence of the OUS across 15 translated versions and produced version-specific validity reports. Methods: We analyzed OUS data from the PSA, which was collected internationally on a centralized online questionnaire. We also collected qualitative feedback from experts for each translated version. Results: For each version, we produced version-specific psychometric reports which include the following: (1) descriptive item and demographics analyses, (2) factor structure evidence using confirmatory factor analyses, (3) measurement invariance testing across languages using multiple-group confirmatory factor analyses and alignment optimization, and (4) reliability analyses using coefficients α and ω.

Keywords: Oxford Utilitarianism Scale, translation, measurement invariance, reliability, Psychological Science Accelerator

Citation: Oshiro, B., McAuliffe, W. H. B., Luong, R., Santos, A. C., Findor, A., Kuzminska, A. O., Lantian, A., Özdoğru, A. A., Aczel, B., Dinić, B. M., Chartier, C. R., Hidding, J., de Grefte, J. A. M., Protzko, J., Shaw, M., Primbs, M. A., Coles, N. A., Arriaga, P., Forscher, P. S., . . . Flake, J. K. (2024). Structural validity evidence for the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale across 15 languages. Psychological Test Adaptation and Development, 5(1), 175-191. https://doi.org/10.1027/2698-1866/a000061