Politik Duyarlılık Ölçeğinin (PDÖ) Türkçeye Uyarlama Çalışması

Yıl 2024, , 321 - 334, 30.04.2024

Mahmut Turan Ektiren

https://doi.org/10.52642/susbed.1408755

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, seçmenlerin siyasal sisteme karşı duyarlı hale getiren ve seçim sürecine aktif katılımlarını teşvik eden faktörleri içeren Politik Duyarlılık Ölçeğinin (PDÖ) Türkçeye Uyarlama çalışması yapmaktır. Bu kapsamda Kirmani vd. (2020) tarafından geliştirilen ve 5 alt faktörden oluşan Political Sensitivity Measurement (PSM) ölçeği kullanılmış, geçerlik, güvenirlik çalışması yapılarak Türkçe diline uyarlaması hedeflenmiştir. Verilerin toplanması amacıyla orantılı tabakalı örnekleme yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Bu bağlamda sosyo-ekonomik düzeyleri birbirinden farklı olan ve Küçükçekmece ilçesinde yer alan 21 mahalle birer tabaka olarak kabul edilecek ve bu tabakalardan nüfuslarına oranla gönüllülük esası baz alınarak basit seçkisiz örnekleme yolu ile katılımcı seçimi yapılmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlar, Politik Duyarlık Ölçeği'nin Türkçe versiyonunun geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçüm aracı olduğunu göstermektedir. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi, ölçeğin beş alt faktörlü yapısının verilerle uyumlu olduğunu doğrulamıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Siyaset Bilimi, Politik Duyarlık, Ölçek, Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi

Adaptation study of the political sensitivity scale (PSS) into Turkish

Öz

The aim of this study is to adapt the Political Sensitivity Scale (PSS), which makes voters more sensitive to the political system and encourages active participation in the electoral process, into Turkish. In this context, the Political Sensitivity Measurement (PSM) scale, developed by Kirmani et al. (2020) and consisting of 5 sub-factors, was utilized, and its adaptation to the Turkish language was targeted through validity and reliability studies. Proportional stratified sampling method was used for the collection of data. In this regard, 21 neighborhoods in Küçükçekmece district, each representing a stratum with different socio-economic levels, were considered, and participants were selected through simple random sampling based on volunteerism from these strata in proportion to their populations. The obtained results indicate that the Turkish version of the Political Sensitivity Scale is a valid and reliable measurement tool. Confirmatory factor analysis has confirmed that the scale's five-factor structure is consistent with the data.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Political Science, Political Sensitivity, Scale, Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Kaynakça

• Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963). The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton University Press.
• Autor, D., Dorn, D., Hanson, G. H., & Majlesi, K. (2020). Importing Political Polarization? The Electoral. American Economic Review, s. 3139-3183.
• Bartels, L. (2008). Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. . Princeton University Press.
• Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, s. 611-639.
• Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), s. 185-216. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301
• Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. M. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods. John Wiley & Sons.
• Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and Validity Assessment. Sage Publications.
• Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Pegem Akademi.
• Delli Carpini, M. (1999). In Search of the Information Citizen: What Americans Know About Politics and. The Communication Review, 4, s. 129-164. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10714420009359466
• Delli Carpini, M., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University Press.
• DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Sage Publications.
• Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political Economy, 65(2), s. 135-150.
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, L. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley.
• Gilens, M. (2001). Political ignorance and collective policy preferences. American Political Science Review, 95(2), s. 379-396.
• Gilens, M. (2012). Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America. . Princeton University Press.
• Guiso, L., Herrera, H., Morelli, M., & Sonno, T. (2017). Demand and supply of populism. DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES. içinde CEPR Discussion.
• Hacker, J., & Pierson, P. (2010). Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class. Simon & Schuster.
• Hambleton, R. K., Merenda, P. F., & Spielberger, C. D. (2005). Adapting Educational and Psychological Tests for Cross-Cultural Assessment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, Institutions, and organizations across nations. Sage Publications.
• Huddy, L., Feldman, S., & Cassese, E. (2007). On the distinct political effects of anxiety and anger. G. E. In W. Russell Neuman içinde, The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in political thinking and behavior (s. 202-230). University of Chicago Press.
• Huddy, L., Feldman, S., & Weber, C. (2007). The political consequences of perceived threat and felt insecurity. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 614(1), s. 131-153.
• Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The Human development sequence. Cambridge University Press.
• Jelen, T. G., & Wilcox, C. (2003). Causes and consequences of public attitudes toward abortion: A review and research agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56(4), s. 489-500.
• Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), s. 498-509.
• Kirmani, M. D., Hasan , F., & Haque, A. (2020). Scale for measuring political sensitivity: An empirical investigation on young Indian voters. Journal of Political Marketing, 22(1), s. 14-33.
• Köklü, N., Büyüköztürk, Ş., & Çokluk Bökeoğlu, Ö. (2007). Sosyal Bilimler İçin İstatistik (2. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
• Layman, G. (2001). The great divide: Religious and cultural conflict in American party politics. Columbia University Press.
• Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Nadeau, R. (2011). Economic Voting Theory: Testing new dimensions. Electoral Studies, 30(2), s. 288–294.
• Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. (1995). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know? . Cambridge University Press.
• Luskin , R., & Fishkin, J. (1998). Deliberative polling, public opinion, and democracy: The case of the national issues convention experiment. Political Communication, 15(4), s. 437–455.
• Luskin, R. (1990). Explaining political sophistication. Political Behavior, 12(4), s. 331-361.
• Madestam, A., Shoag, D., Veuger, S., & Yanagizawa-Drott, D. (2013). Do Political Protests Matter? Evidence from the Tea Party Movement. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(4), s. 1633–1685.
• Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. University of Chicago Press.
• Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2004). Sacred and secular: Religion and politics worldwide. Cambridge University Press.
• Özdamar, K. (1999). Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi. Kaan Kitabevi.
• Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster.
• Rosenstone, S. (1982). Economic Adversity and Voter Turnout. American Political Science Review, 76(1), s. 25-46.
• Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), s. 280–285.
• Smidt, C., Kellstedt, L., & Guth, J. (2009). The role of religion in American politics: Explanatory theories and associated analytical and measurement issues. L. K. C. Smidt içinde, The Oxford handbook of religion and American politics (s. 3-42).
• Soss, J. (1999). Lessons of Welfare: Policy Design, Political Learning, and Political Action. American Political Science Review, 93(2), s. 363-380.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.
• Van de Vijver, F. J., & Poortinga, Y. H. (2000). Towards an integrated analysis of bias in cross-cultural assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 16(1), s. 1-3.
• Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press.
• Wald, K., Silverman, A., & Fridy, K. (2005). Making sense of religion in political life. Annual Review of Political Science, 8, s. 121-143.
• Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press.