Диссертация (1136702), страница 23
Текст из файла (страница 23)
231–50n = 999M (SD)Gr. 3Greater 50n = 173M (SD)F (2, 1723)4.64 (1.05)4.36 (1.14)4.82 (1.19)4.72 (1.12)4.84 (0.96)4.65 (1.02)5.01 (1.10)4.86 (1.05)5.13 (1.01)4.87 (1.12)5.37 (1.09)5.17 (1.08)17.83 (p < .001)19.36 (p < .001)15.88 (p < .001)11.33 (p < .001)0.0200.0220.0180.007Note. ηp2 – effect size. Post-hoc comparisons performed by the Tukey HSD test.122Post-hoccomparisons1<2<31<2<31<2<31=2<3Приложение 4. Русскоязычная версия шкалы The BriefIndex of Affective Job SatisfactionПодумайте о вашей текущей работе в вашем вузе.
Согласны ли вы соследующими утверждениями?1 – Абсолютно не согласен2 – Не согласен3 – Скорее не согласен, чем согласен4 – Что-то среднее5 – Скорее согласен, чем не согласен6 – Согласен7 – Абсолютно согласен1. Я получаю истинное наслаждение от моей работы2. У меня необычная работа3. Мне нравится моя работа больше, чем среднестатистическому человеку4. Моя работа требует, чтобы я был в форме5. Большую часть времени я в восторге от моей работы6. Моя работа требует от меня много времени7. Я полностью удовлетворён своей работойКлючУдовлетворённость работой: 1, 3, 5, 7123Приложение 5. Русскоязычная версия шкала измеренияингрупповой идентификацииНиже приведён ряд суждений. Оцените, пожалуйста, насколько Высогласны с каждым из суждений. Под словами «Моя организация» надопонимать организацию, в которой вы работаете.
Если вы работаете внескольких организациях, отвечайте про ту, работа в которой занимает у васбольше времени.1 – Абсолютно не согласен2 – Не согласен3 – Скорее не согласен, чем согласен4 – Что-то среднее5 – Скорее согласен, чем не согласен6 – Согласен7 – Абсолютно согласен1. Я чувствую свою связь с моей организацией2. Я рад, что являюсь частью моей организации3. Я часто думаю о том, что я представитель моей организации4.
У меня много общего со среднестатистическим работником моейорганизации5. У работников моей организации много общего между собой6. Я во всём солидарен с моей организацией7. Я думаю, что моей организации есть чем гордиться8. Принадлежность к моей организации накладывает отпечаток на моюличность9. Я похож на среднестатистического работника моей организации10.Все работники моей организации очень похожи друг на друга11.Я ощущаю свою приверженность моей организации12.Мне приятно быть частью моей организации12413.Принадлежность к моей организации – важная часть моего представления осебе14.Я – типичный представитель моей организации (новое)15.В моей организации все имеют много одинаковых характеристик16.Принадлежность к моей организации делает меня счастливымКлючСамостереотипизация: 4, 9, 14Гомогенность ингруппы: 5, 10, 15Удовлетворенность: 2, 7, 12Солидарность: 1, 6, 11Выраженность: 3, 8, 13125Приложение 6.
Анализ психометрических свойств шкалыизмерения ингрупповой идентификации9Factorial Validity and Reliability EvidencesParticipants, Procedure and measuresThree samples were employed. The first sample included 226 undergraduatestudents of the Higher School of Economics (86 male, 135 female, 5 respondents didnot specify their gender, M (age) = 18.13, SD = 1.18 (5 people did not specify theirage)). For students, participation in the survey was part of a Psychology course. Theycompleted a paper-and-pencil questionnaire. The second sample included 146 peoplewho identified themselves as Russian (58 male, 88 female, M (age) = 33.1, SD =11.8). The third sample included 249 people who identified themselves as OrthodoxChristian (143 male, 106 female, M (age) = 30, SD = 8.6).
In the second and thirdsamples, participants completed an online questionnaire. Links to the survey wereplaced on specialized websites dedicated to psychology and the Russian culture.All participants completed a structured questionnaire that included a 14-itemmeasure based on a hierarchical model of in-group identification (Leach et al., 2008).The items were translated from English into Russian by the authors and then backtranslated by a bilingual, native speaker of both languages, who was unaware of thesubject of the questionnaire. Differences in translations were discussed untilagreement was reached. The Russian version of the items can be found in theAppendix.
Each item was scored on a 7-point scale, all 7 options verbalized rangingfrom 1 (absolutely disagree) to 7 (absolutely agree). We created four versions of themeasure for each in-group: Russian, Orthodox Christian, gender, and students of theHigher School of Economics. Participants from the student sample completed two14-item measures: one about the in-group of students of the Higher School ofEconomics, and one about the gender in-group.В данном приложении приведены фрагменты текста опубликованной статьи: Lovakov, A.
V, Agadullina, E. R.,& Osin, E. N. (2015). A Hierarchical (Multicomponent) Model of In-Group Identification: Examining in RussianSamples. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 18(e32), 1–12. http://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2015.379126ResultsWe performed CFAs with Mplus 6.12 (estimator – MLMV) to examine howwell the proposed measurement model fitted the Russian version of the 14-itemmeasure of in-group identification. We estimated the proposed measurement modelseparately for four types of in-groups: Russians, Orthodox, university, and gender.First we examined the first-order model, which consists of five components:individual self-stereotyping, in-group homogeneity, solidarity, satisfaction andcentrality (Model A).
The results (shown in Table 1) indicate that Model A fitted thedata well for all four group identities. The fit indices (excluding TLI in the case of thegender in-group) exceeded the benchmark of .930 and both of the main residualindices fell below the benchmark of .080 for models of this sample size (see Hu &Bentler, 1999).
In all four in-groups, Model A showed the best fit to the data.Following Leach et al. (2008), we compared Model A with three alternative firstorder measurement models (Model B = all items loading on one common factor:identification; Model C = items loading on two components: self-definition and selfinvestment; Model D = items loading on two components: cognitive/selfcategorization and affective ties/social identity). The fit of all three alternative modelswas worse.
Because the alternative models were based on the same data, but notnested, they can be compared using the Akaike information criterion (AIC) index(Byrne, 2011). As shown in Table 1, Model A has the lowest AIC in all four samples,which suggests that Model A is the best first-order model.Second, we examined the hierarchical model (Model E), which included thesecond-order factors of self-definition (i.e., individual self-stereotyping and in-grouphomogeneity) and self-investment (i.e., satisfaction, solidarity, centrality).
Thismodel is shown on Figure 1. Model E fitted the data well for all four group identities(Table 1). The fit indices (excluding TLI in the case of the gender in-group) exceededthe benchmark of .930, and both of the main residual indices fell below thebenchmark of .080. In all four samples Model E had the lowest AIC, which meansModel E is the best second-order model.127Table 1. The Fit of Models of In-Group IdentificationMeasurementmodelχ2, pdfRMSEA [90% CI]CFITLI SRMR AIC67777676.049 [.017, .073].117 [.100, .135].096 [.078, .114].093 [.075, .112].970.804.871.877.959.768.845.853.049.082.073.0645801.926119.585991.715981.07717271.052 [.023, .075].057 [.032, .079].052 [.023, .075].965.957.965.955 .059.945 .063.955 .0545807.455821.585808.2267777676.043 [.023, .061].093 [.080, .107].071 [.057, .085].087 [.074, .101].949.729.844.766.931.679.813.720.046.077.067.0808540.138824.518673.518764.16717271.042 [.022, .059].047 [.028, .063].048 [.030, .064].949.936.935.935 .047.920 .053.916 .0538537.778552.558553.9467777676.056 [.038, .074].135 [.122, .149].099 [.085, .113].108 [.094, .122].953.690.837.807.937.634.805.769.049.105.082.1098456.268960.968677.288737.59717271.058 [.040, .075].068 [.052, .084].061 [.044, .078].947.926.942.932 .058.907 .072.926 .0658464.278506.838477.54RussiansStage 1: first-order modelsModel A90.56, p = .029Model B231.70, p < .001Model C177.78, p < .001Model D172.81, p < .001Stage 2: second-order modelsModel E98.59, p = .017Model F106.05, p = .006Model G98.60, p = .017Orthodox (Christians)Stage 1: first-order modelsModel A98.09, p = .008Model B243.77, p < .001Model C171.98, p < .001Model D219.98, p < .001Stage 2: second-order modelsModel E102.29, p = .009Model F111.15, p = .002Model G111.10, p = .002StudentsStage 1: first-order modelsModel A113.00, p < .001Model B381.90, p < .001Model C236.04, p < .001Model D266.14, p < .001Stage 2: second-order modelsModel E122.84, p < .001Model F144.60, p < .001Model G128.20, p < .001Males / FemalesStage 1: first-order modelsModel A127.91, p < .001 67 .065 [.048, .082].933 .909 .0588986.81Model B456.03, p < .001 77 .152 [.138, .165].581 .505 .1239552.81Model C280.12, p < .001 76 .112 [.098, .126].774 .730 .0959234.68Model D312.26, p < .001 76 .121 [.107, .135].739 .687 .1279284.53Stage 2: second-order modelsModel E129.56, p < .001 71 .062 [.045, .079].935 .917 .0598980.78Model F158.40, p < .001 72 .075 [.059, .091].905 .879 .0779029.23Model G147.52, p < .001 71 .071 [.055, .087].915 .892 .0829011.92Note.
df = degrees of freedom; RMSEA – root-mean-square error of approximation; CFI –comparative fit index; TLI – Tucker-Lewis index; SRMR – standardized root-mean square residual;AIC – Akaike information criterion.128Figure 1. Hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification.Standardized item loadings are presented in the following order: Russians/Orthodox(Christians)/Students/Males & Females. ISS – individual self-stereotyping; IGH – ingroup homogeneity.As Figure 1 shows, the standardized factor loadings exceeded .50 for nearly allitems (excluding the first item in the gender in-group), with many above .80, anddiffered significantly from zero (p < .05).
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
