Adaptation of the Political Decision-Making Scale to Turkish Culture: Validity and Reliability Analysis

Abstract

This study presents the validity and reliability analysis of the Turkish form of the Political Decision-Making Scale developed by Lau, Kleinberg, and Ditonto (2018). The fundamental approaches explaining voter behavior are based on sociological, psychological, and economic rational choice models. However, although these approaches are effective in explaining voters’ final choices, they fail to adequately reveal how voters process information during the decision-making process and through which cognitive strategies they arrive at their decisions. This highlights the need to evaluate voter behavior not only in terms of outcomes but also through the decision-making process itself. The scale developed in this context aims to measure voters' rational, confirmatory, fast and frugal, heuristic based, and going with your gut decision-making styles. The study ensured the linguistic equivalence of the scale using the translation-back translation method, and then, through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and internal consistency analysis conducted on 298 individuals, revealed that the five-factor structure of the scale is valid and reliable in Turkish culture. The findings indicate that the scale retains its original structure and that the Political Decision-Making Scale can be used as a reliable and valid tool for examining voters' decision-making styles.

Keywords

• Voter Behavior
• Decision Strategies
• Scale Adaptation
• Political Psychology

Ethical Statement

This study was approved by the Istanbul Medeniyet University Social and Human Sciences Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Board with document number E-38510686-000-2300034177

Politik Karar Alma Ölçeği’nin (Political Decision-Making Scale) Türk Kültürüne Uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Analizi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Lau, Kleinberg ve Ditonto (2018) tarafından geliştirilen Political Decision-Making Scale (Politik Karar Alma Ölçeği) Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizini sunmaktadır. Seçmen davranışını açıklayan temel yaklaşımlar sosyolojik, psikolojik ve ekonomik temelli rasyonel tercih modellerine dayanmaktadır. Ancak bu yaklaşımlar, seçmenin nihai tercihini açıklamada etkili olsa da karar sürecinde bilgiyi nasıl işlediğini ve hangi bilişsel stratejiler aracılığıyla sonuca ulaştığını yeterince ortaya koyamamaktadır. Bu durum, seçmen davranışının yalnızca ortaya çıkan sonuç üzerinden değil, karar alma süreci üzerinden de değerlendirilmesi gerektiğini göstermektedir. Bu doğrultuda geliştirilen ölçek, seçmenlerin rasyonel, doğrulayıcı, hızlı ve basit, bilişsel kısayol temelli ve içgörüsel karar alma stillerini ölçmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma, ölçeğin çeviri-geri çeviri yöntemiyle dilsel eşdeğerliğini sağlamış, ardından 298 kişi üzerinde yapılan doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) ve iç tutarlılık analizleriyle ölçeğin beş faktörlü yapısının Türk kültüründe geçerli ve güvenilir olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Bulgular, ölçeğin orijinal yapısını koruduğunu, Politik Karar Alma Ölçeğinin seçmenlerin karar verme stillerinin incelenmesinde güvenilir ve geçerli bir araç olarak kullanılabileceğini göstermektedir.

Keywords

• seçmen davranışı
• karar stratejileri
• ölçek uyarlama
• politik psikoloji

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma, İstanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etik Kurulu tarafından E-38510686-000-2300034177 belge numarasıyla onaylanmıştır.

References

1. Ay, İ. (2020). Çağdaş psikoloji akımları: Politik psikoloji. Atatürk Üniversitesi Açıköğretim Fakültesi Yayını.
2. Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 175–184.
3. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216.
4. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Publications.
5. Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W., & Stokes, D. (1960). The American voter. University of Chicago Press.
6. Chong, D. (2013). Degrees of rationality in politics. In L. Huddy, D. O. Sears, & J. S. Levy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political psychology (2nd ed., pp. 96–129). Oxford University Press.
7. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104.
8. Cottam, M. L., Mastors, E., Preston, T., & Dietz, B. (2017). Siyaset psikolojisine giriş (M. Şenol, Çev.; E. Altınoğlu, Ed.). BB101 Yayınları.

9. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.
10. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper and Row.
11. Epstein, J., Santo, R. M., & Guillemin, F. (2015). A review of guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of questionnaires could not bring out a consensus. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(4), 435–441.
12. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
13. Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103, 650–669.
14. Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. M. (1999). Fast and frugal heuristics: The adaptive toolbox. In G. Gigerenzer, P. M. Todd, & ABC Research Group (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 3–34). Oxford University Press.
15. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
16. Hastie, R., & Dawes, R. M. (2009). Rational choice in an uncertain world (2nd ed.). Sage.
17. Hu, L., & 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.
18. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
19. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
20. Kozhevnikov, M. (2007). Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: Toward an integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 464–481.
21. Lau, R. R., Kleinberg, M. S., & Ditonto, T. M. (2018). Measuring voter decision strategies in political behavior and public opinion research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(S1), 911–936. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfy004
22. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 951-971.
23. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). How voters decide: Information processing during election campaigns. Cambridge University Press.
24. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1968). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign (3rd ed.). Columbia University Press.
25. Lipset, S. M., & Rokkan, S. (1967). Cleavage structures, party systems, and voter alignments: An introduction. In S. M. Lipset & S. Rokkan (Eds.), Party systems and voter alignments: Cross-national perspectives (pp. 1–64). Free Press.
26. Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. B. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. University of Chicago Press.
27. Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(2), 173–184.
28. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852
29. Simon, H. A. (1979). Information processing models of cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 30, 363–396.
30. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
31. Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 247–252.