Advertisement

Current Psychology

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 950–958 | Cite as

Adaptation of the prosocial behavioral intentions scale for use with Turkish participants: Assessments of validity and reliability

  • Gazanfer AnlıEmail author
Article
  • 66 Downloads

Abstract

This study adapted and investigated the psychometric properties of the Prosocial Behavioral Intentions Scale (PBIS) in a Turkish sample in four sub-studies. Findings of a confirmatory factor analysis (Study 1), and tests of internal consistency and test-retest reliability (Study 2), concurrent validity (Study 3), convergent, and discriminant validity (Study 4), have been presented in this article. The confirmatory factor analysis conducted in Study 1 indicated that the unidimensional-factor structure had the best fit to the data. Study 2 found that the internal consistency value was acceptable and test-retest reliability over a 4-week period was adequate. Study 3 supported the concurrent validity of the Turkish PBIS with reference to altruism and empathy. In Study 4, convergent validity was established based on the correlation between the Adult Prosocialness Scale (APS) and Turkish PBIS. Factor loadings and t-values of the items, composite reliability (CR), and the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value of the Turkish PBIS were optimal. Discriminant validity was confirmed based on the correlation between the Turkish PBIS and Social Appearance Anxiety Scale (SAAS), with adequate cross-loadings of the PBIS and the Fornell and Larcker criterion. Thus, the Turkish PBIS was found to be a brief, valid, and reliable measure of prosocial behaviors.

Keywords

Prosocial behavioral intentions Adaptation Validation Turkish culture 

Notes

Authors’ Contributions

The author created the idea for this study; developed the protocol, methods, and data analysis; and wrote the manuscript by himself.

Funding

This study was funded by the author.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The contents of this manuscript have not been copyrighted or published previously and not currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altıntaş, T. T., & Bıçakçı, M. Y. (2017). Prosocial behaviours in early childhood. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 4(57), 245–261.  https://doi.org/10.9761/JASSS6999.Google Scholar
  3. Bağcı, B., & Öztürk-Samur, A. (2016). Validity and reliability study of prosocialness scales for children and adults. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 17(3), 59–79.Google Scholar
  4. Batson, C. D., & Powell, A. A. (2003). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In T. Millon & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Personality and social psychology (pp. 463–484). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc..Google Scholar
  5. Baumsteiger, R., & Siegel, J. (2018). Measuring prosociality: The development of a prosocial behavioral intentions scale. Journal of Personality Assessment., 15, 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1411918.Google Scholar
  6. Bayraktar, F., Kındap, Y., Kumru, A., & Sayıl, M. (2010). Olumlu sosyal ve saldırgan davranışlar ölçeğinin ergen örnekleminde psikometrik açıdan incelenmesi [testing the reliability and validity of the prosocial and aggressive behaviors questionnaire in a Turkish adolescent sample]. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları (Turkish Psychological Review), 13(26), 1–13.Google Scholar
  7. Behling, O., & Law, K. S. (2000). Translating questionnaires and other research instruments: Problems and solutions. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bierhoff, H. W. (2002). Prosocial behaviour. Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  10. Boice, K., & Goldman, M. (1981). Helping behavior as affected by type of request and identity of caller. Journal of Social Psychology, 115, 95–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Byrne, B. M., & Campbell, T. L. (1999). Cross-cultural comparisons and the presumption of equivalent measurement and theoretical structure: A look beneath the surface. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 555–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Caprara, G. V., Steca, P., Zelli, A., & Capanna, C. (2005). A new scale for measuring Adults' Prosocialness. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21(2), 77–89.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.21.2.77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carlo, G., & Randall, B. A. (2002). The development of a measure of prosocial behaviors for late adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(1), 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carlo, G., Hausmann, A., Christiansen, S., & Randall, B. A. (2003). Sociocognitive and behavioral correlates of a measure of prosocial tendencies for adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 23(1), 107–134.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431602239132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carlson, K. D., & Herdman, A. O. (2012). Understanding the impact of convergent validity on research results. Organizational Research Methods, 15(1), 17–32.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110392383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chadha, N., & Misra, G. (2006). Prosocial reasoning and behaviour among Indian children: A naturalistic study. Psychology and Developing Societies, 18(2), 167–199.  https://doi.org/10.1177/097133360601800202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Doğan, T., & Akinci Çötok, N. (2011). Adaptation of the short form of the Oxford happiness questionnaire into Turkish: A validity and reliability study. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal, 4(36), 165–172.Google Scholar
  19. Durualp, E., & Aral, N. (2010). Altı yaşındaki çocukların sosyal becerilerine oyun temelli sosyal beceri eğitiminin etkisinin incelenmesi [a study on the effects of play-based social skills training on social skills of six-year-old children]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (H. U. Journal of Education), 39, 160–172.Google Scholar
  20. Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial Development. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, social, emotional and personality development in (5th ed., pp. 701–778). New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Eisenberg, N., & Mussen, P. H. (1989). The roots of prosocial behavior in children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R., & Shea, C. (1989). Gender differences in empathy and prosocial moral reasoning: Empirical investigations. In M. M. Brabeck (Ed.), Who cares? Theory, research, and educational implications of the ethic of care (pp. 127–143). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  23. Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Cumberland, A., Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S. A., Zhou, Q., & Carlo, G. (2002). Prosocial development in early adulthood: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 993–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ersanlı, K., & Doğru-Çabuker, N. (2015). Diğerkâmlık Ölçeği’nin psikometrik özellikleri [psychometric properties of the altruism scale]. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (Electronic Journal of Social Sciences), 14(52), 43–53.Google Scholar
  25. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  26. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 382–388.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3150980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Furr, R. M., & Bacharach, V. R. (2008). Psychometrics: An introduction. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Gaskin, J., & Lim, J. (2016). Master validity tool, AMOS Plugin. Gaskination's StatWiki. http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com. Accessed 6 January 2019.
  29. Gilliland, J. M., Windle, M., Grunbaum, J. A., Yancey, A., Hoelscher, D., Tortolero, S. R., & Schuster, M. (2006). Body image and children’s mental health related behaviors: Göka results from the healthy passages study. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 32, 30–41.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsl008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Göka, E. (2006). Türk Grup Davranışı [Turkish Group Behavior]. Istanbul: Aşina Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Göregenli, M. (1997). Individualist-collectivist tendencies in a Turkish sample. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(6), 787–794.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022197286009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hair, J. F., Money, H., Samouel, P., & Page, M. (2007). Research methods for business. England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd..Google Scholar
  33. Hair, J. F., Gabriel, M., & Patel, V. (2014). AMOS covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM): Guidelines on its application as a marketing research tool. Revista Brasileira de Marketing., 13, 44–55.  https://doi.org/10.5585/remark.v13i2.2718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hart, T. A., Flora, D. B., Palyo, S. A., Fresco, D. M., Holle, C., & Heimberg, R. G. (2008). Development and examination of the social appearance anxiety scale. Assessment, 15(1), 48–59.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191107306673
  35. Hastings, P. D., Utendale, W. T., & Sullivan, C. (2006). The socialization of prosocial development. In J. E. Grusec & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  36. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hur, Y. M., & Rushton, J. P. (2007). Genetic and environmental contributions to prosocial behaviour in 2- to 9-year-old south Korean twins. Biology Letters, 3(6), 664–666.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Karadağ, E., & Mutafçılar, I. (2009). Prososyal davranış ekseninde özgecilik üzerine bir çözümleme [A theoretic analysis on altruism in prosocial behavior axis]. Felsefe ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (Journal of Philosophy and Social Sciences), 8, 41–69.Google Scholar
  39. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  40. Kumru, A., Carlo, G., & Edwards, C. P. (2004). Olumlu sosyal davranişlarin ilişkisel, kültürel, bilişsel ve duyuşsal bazi değişkenlerle ilişkisi [Relational, cultural, cognitive, and affective predictors of prosocial behaviors]. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi (Turkish Journal of Psychology), 19(54), 109–125.Google Scholar
  41. Ladd, G. W., & Profilet, S. M. (1996). The child behavior scale: A teacher-report measure of young children’s aggressive, withdrawn, and prosocial behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32(6), 1008–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McGinley, M., & Carlo, G. (2007). Two sides of the same coin? The relations between prosocial and physically aggressive behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(3), 337–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Özdemir, Z. (2010). Lise öğrencilerinin prososyal davranişlarinin mizah, öfke ve utangaçlik düzeylerine göre incelenmesi [Studying the prosocial behavior of high school students according to their humor, anger and shyness levels]. Gazi University Institute of Educational Sciences: Unpublished master's thesis. Ankara.Google Scholar
  45. Schermelleh-Engel, K., & Moosbrugger, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.Google Scholar
  46. Spreng, R. N., Kinnon, C. M., Mar, R. A., & Levine, B. (2009). The Toronto empathy questionnaire: Scale development and initial validation of a factor-analytic solution to multiple empathy measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(1), 62–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Strayer, J., & Roberts, W. (1997). Facial and verbal measures of children’s emotions and empathy. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 20, 627–649.  https://doi.org/10.1080/016502597385090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  49. Tinsley, H. E. A., & Tinsley, D. J. (1987). Use of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 414–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Totan, T., Doğan, T., & Sapmaz, F. (2012). The Toronto empathy questionnaire: Evaluation of psychometric properties among Turkish university students. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 46, 179–198.Google Scholar
  51. Trommsdorff, G., Friedmeier, W., & Mayer, B. (2007). Sympathy, distress, and prosocial behavior of preschool children in four cultures. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31(3), 284–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Underwood, B., & Moore, B. (1982). Perspective-taking and altruism. Psychological Bulletin, 91(1), 143–173.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.91.1.143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Uzmen, S., & Mağden, D. (2002). Okul öncesi eğitim kurumlarinda devam eden alti yaş çocuklarinin prososyal davranişlarinin resimli çocuk kitaplari ile desteklenmesi [Enhancing five-six years old preschool children’s prosocial behaviors by using picture books]. M.U. Atatürk Education Faculty Journal of Educational Sciences, 15, 193–212.Google Scholar
  54. Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Oldehinkel, A. J., Winter, A. F. D., Verhulst, F. C., & Ormel, J. (2008). Prosocial and antisocial behavior in preadolescence: Teachers' and parents' perceptions of the behavior of girls and boys. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32(3), 243–251.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025408089274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An introductory analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  56. Yoleri, S., & Sevinç, M. (2014). Does child’s temperament determine the social skills of boys and girls? International Journal of Social Sciences and Education, 4(2), 516–523.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social SciencesBursa Technical UniversityBursaTurkey

Personalised recommendations