Effort- and Valence-Based Just World Beliefs Scales

Abstract

The Effort- and Valence-Based Just World Beliefs Scales (Cheng et al., 2023) were developed to measure justice beliefs that efforts lead to rewards and that the perceived positive or negative valence attributed to an individual leads to a corresponding outcome. The measures were planned to be based on proverbs, defined as carefully crafted sayings with minimal words arranged for maximal effect (Miller-Naudé & Naudé, 2010), for two different cultures – Chinese and German. The resulting 9-item Chinese and 8-item German versions were evaluated in samples comprised of college students and working adults. Factor analysis, reliability, and validity results were reported for these items.

Keywords

Effort-Based Belief in a Just World; Valence-Based Belief in a Just World; German and Chinese Versions; Incremental Validity; Chinese Cultural Groups; Energy Expenditure; Justice; Morality; Test Forms; World View; European Cultural Groups; State Trait Level Measures

Authors

Cheng, Yuan; Nudelman, Gabriel; Otto, Kathleen; Ma, Jianhong

---

Purpose

The purpose of these scales is to assess belief in a just world (BJW) across the two distinct dimensions of effort (E) and valence (V).

Construct

Just World Beliefs

Validity

Convergent Validity:
Convergent validity tests showed that both the Chinese and the German versions of the E-BJW and V-BJW scales were related to additional BJW scales, that is, personal BJW and BJW for others, supporting their general validity with the existing BJW dimensions across different common BJW measures.

Discriminant Validity:
E-BJW measure revealed satisfactory discriminant validity by demonstrating stronger associations with hard work, self as a source of justice, internal LOC, and self-efficacy compared to the correlations between these items and the V-BJW scale.

Incremental Validity:
E-BJW predicted hard work beyond personal BJW and BJW for others, supporting its incremental validity.

Measurement Invariance:
Based on the nomological consistency test, the latent E- and V-BJW constructs captured by the Chinese and German versions of the scales revealed a satisfactory level of consistency.

Reliability

Internal Consistency:
The five-item E-BJW measure was consistent, α = .85, while the reliability of the four-item V-BJW was .85 in the Chinese sample. For the German version, reliability (Cronbach’s α) of the E-BJW measure was .85, that of the V-BJW was .76.

Factor Analysis

Exploratory Factor Analysis:
For the Chinese version, the results supported the proposed 2-factor model and accounted for 56.88% of the total variance. As for the German version, the obtained solution provided interpretable results, as the two factors accounted for 51.87% of the total variance and the component structure was acceptable.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis:
For the Chinese sample, the two-factor structure was superior in fit to a model that estimated only a single undifferentiated factor: ΔChi-squared(1, 411) = 162.11, p < .001, SRMR = .07, NFI = .84, CFI = .86, RMSEA = .14, with 90% CI [.13, .15]. After the deletion of a problematic item, the final 2-factor model showed an improved overall fit: chi-squared(25) = 90.03, p < .001, SRMR = .03, NFI = .95, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .08, with 90% CI [.06, .10]. Results for the final 2-factor German version were as follows: Chi-squared(17) = 36.63, p < .01, SRMR = .04, NFI = .94, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .08, with 90%CI [.04, .12].

Instrument

Test Type
Original Inventory/Questionnaire.

Format
Participants indicate their agreement with the items on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Administration methods include Electronic and Paper formats.

Language Available
The primary language present is English. Versions are also available in Chinese and German.

Population Group
Human; Male; Female.

Age Group
Adulthood (18 yrs & older).

Population Details
Respondents included College Students and Working Adults. Locations studied were China and Germany.

Test Methodology
Test Validity; Convergent Validity; Discriminant Validity; Test Reliability; Internal Consistency; Factor Analysis; Confirmatory Factor Analysis; Exploratory Factor Analysis; Measurement Invariance.

Keywords

Effort-Based Belief in a Just World; Valence-Based Belief in a Just World; German and Chinese Versions; Incremental Validity; Chinese Cultural Groups; Energy Expenditure; Justice; Morality; Test Forms; World View; European Cultural Groups; State Trait Level Measures

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier
Cheng, Yuan: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0857-4503
Otto, Kathleen: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5737-2575
Nudelman, Gabriel: No data is Available
Ma, Jianhong: No data is Available

Affiliation
Cheng, Yuan: NingboTech University, Business School
Nudelman, Gabriel: Academic College of Tel Aviv–Yaffo, Department of Psychology
Otto, Kathleen: Philipps University of Marburg, Department of Work and Organizational Psychology
Ma, Jianhong: Zhejiang University, Department of Psychology and Behavioral Science

Email addresses
Cheng, Yuan: [email protected]

Correspondence Address
Cheng, Yuan: NingboTech University, Business School, Qianhu South Road 1, Ningbo, China, 315100, [email protected]

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Permissions
May use for Research/Teaching.

Fee
There is no fee for use (Non-Commercial).

Test Year
2023

References

Cheng, Y., Nudelman, G., Otto, K., & Ma, J. (2023). Conceptualization, measurement, and validation of effort- and valence-based just world beliefs. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 39(3), 194–210. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000703

Items of the Effort- and Valence-Based Just World Beliefs Scales

Test items are available. The Chinese version consists of 9 items and the German version consists of 8 items.

Factors and Subscales:
The instrument includes the following subscales:

• Effort-based belief in a just world (E-BJW)

• Valence-based belief in a just world (V-BJW)

Chinese Version

German Version

Note. Italicized items and items with an asterisk were deleted. All items for both language versions are rated from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree.