ساخت و اعتباریابی مقیاس بهزیستی سیاسی و تحلیل رابطه آن با پرخاشگری سیاسی در جمعیت دانشجویی ایران

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران

2 گروه روانشناسی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی، ایران.

چکیده
بهزیستی سیاسی شامل اعتماد و سازگاری، کارآمدی، مشارکت و انعطاف‌پذیری فرد در مسائل سیاسی است و نقش مهمی در شکل‌دهی رفتارهای سیاسی، از جمله گرایش به پرخاشگری سیاسی ایفا می‌کند. پژوهش از نوع کاربردی–توسعه‌ای و به روش توصیفی–روان‌سنجی انجام شد. جامعه آماری شامل دانشجویان فعال در رسانه‌ها و شبکه‌های اجتماعی طی سال تحصیلی ۱۴۰۳-۱۴۰۴ در ایران بود که با روش در‌دسترس و از طریق فراخوان اینترنتی 720 نفر از آنان انتخاب شدند. فرآیند پژوهش شامل تولید گویه‌ها، بررسی روایی محتوایی و صوری، تحلیل عاملی اکتشافی و تأییدی، روایی ملاکی (همگرا و واگرا) و بررسی پایایی بود. تحلیل داده‌ها با نرم‌افزار آماری SPSS-24 و AMOS-24 انجام گرفت. تحلیل عاملی اکتشافی 17 گویه نهایی را در سه عامل «اعتماد سیاسی»، «کارامدی و مشارکت سیاسی» و «انعطاف‌پذیری و تحمل سیاسی» با 69/72 درصد واریانس تأیید کرد. تحلیل عاملی تأییدی نیز شاخص‌های برازش مناسبی نشان داد (χ²/df=۱/۲۱، RMSEA< ۰/۰۸). پایایی ترکیبی، درونی و بازآزمون کل مقیاس به ترتیب 0/93، 0/93 و 0/74 برآورد شد. همچنین، همبستگی معنادار مقیاس بهزیستی سیاسی با سلامت عمومی و پرخاشگری سیاسی به ترتیب روایی همگرا و واگرای ابزار را تأیید کرد. نتیجه‌گیری می‌گردد، مقیاس بهزیستی سیاسی از روایی و پایایی مطلوبی برخوردار است و می‌تواند سنجش قابل اعتمادی از بهزیستی سیاسی فراهم کند. نتایج نشان می‌دهد، بهزیستی سیاسی نقش مهمی در رفتارهای پرخاشگرانه سیاسی دارد و می‌تواند در پژوهش‌های آتی مورد توجه قرار گیرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Construction and Validation of the Political Well-Being Scale and Examination of Its Relationship with Political Aggression Among Iranian University Students

نویسندگان English

jafar Heydari 1
Bahman Esmaeili Anamagh 2
1 Department of Political Science, Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Psychology, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Iran.
چکیده English

Political well-being refers to an individual’s trust, adaptability, political efficacy, active participation, and cognitive flexibility in political matters, and plays a critical role in influencing political behaviors, including tendencies toward political aggression. The present study aimed to develop and validate the Political Well-Being Scale (PWBS) and to examine its relationship with political aggression. This applied-developmental research employed a descriptive–psychometric design. The statistical population consisted of university students in Iran who were active on social and media networks during the 2024–2025 academic year. Using an online call and convenience sampling, 720 participants were selected. The research procedure included item generation, assessment of content and face validity, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, criterion-related (convergent and divergent) validity, and reliability evaluation. Data were analyzed using SPSS-24 and AMOS-24 software. Exploratory factor analysis confirmed a 17-item scale with three components—Political Trust, Political Efficacy and Participation, and Political Flexibility and Tolerance—accounting for 69.72% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated good model fit (χ²/df=1.21, RMSEA<.08). The composite, internal consistency, and test–retest reliabilities of the total scale were .93, .93, and .74, respectively. Significant correlations of political well-being with general health and political aggression supported the scale’s convergent and divergent validity. Overall, the Political Well-Being Scale demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties and provides a reliable measure for assessing political well-being. Findings suggest that political well-being plays a significant role in political aggressive behaviors and merits further investigation in future research.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Well-being
political well-being
political aggression
psychometrics
politics
تقوی، سید محمدرضا (1380). بررسی روایی و اعتبار پرسشنامه سلامت عمومی (GHQ). مجله روانشناسی، 5 (4)، 381-98.
عطادخت، اکبر و اسماعیلی انامق، بهمن. (1404). کنش‌های سیاسی اجتماعی در رسانه‌های اجتماعی و احساس عدالت اجتماعی؛ نقش میانجی مسئولیت‌پذیری اجتماعی. جامعه فرهنگ رسانه، 15(54)، 250-217.
محمدی‌فر، نجات. (1398). تأثیر احساس بهزیستی سیاسی بر نگرش‌های سیاسی دانشجویان مطالعه موردی: دانشجویان دانشگاه اردکان. پژوهشنامه علوم سیاسی, 14 (2)، 197- 238.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 27–51.
Armaly, M. T., & Enders, A. M. (2024). Who supports political violence?. Perspectives on Politics, 22(2), 427-444.
Bagozzi, R. P., Mari, S., Oklevik, O., & Xie, C. (2023). Responses of the public towards the government in times of crisis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 62(1), 359-392.
Ballard, P. J., Hoyt, L. T., & Pachucki, M. C. (2019). Impacts of adolescent and young adult civic engagement on health and socioeconomic status in adulthood. Child development, 90(4), 1138-1154.
Ballard, P. J., Ni, X., & Brocato, N. (2020). Political engagement and wellbeing among college students. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 71, 101209.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
Bartusevičius, H., Van Leeuwen, F., & Petersen, M. B. (2023). Political repression motivates anti-government violence. Royal Society open science, 10(6), 221227.
Basimov, M. (2021). Characteristics of aggressive behaviour for groups of political preferences of young people. In International Scientific Congress «Knowledge, Man and Civilization». European Publisher. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.05.252
Bautista, T. G., Roman, G., Khan, M., Lee, M., Sahbaz, S., Duthely, L. M. ... & Bredella, M. A. (2023). What is well-being? A scoping review of the conceptual and operational definitions of occupational well-being. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 7(1), e227.
Bernardi, L., Mattila, M., Papageorgiou, A., & Rapeli, L. (2023). Down but not yet out: Depression, political efficacy, and voting. Political Psychology, 44(2), 217-233.
Bosi, L., Dochartaigh, N. Ó., & Pisoiu, D. (Eds.). (2024). Political Violence in Context: time, space and milieu. Ecpr Press.
Choi, K. W., Jung, J. H., & Kim, H. H. S. (2023). Political trust, mental health, and the coronavirus pandemic: A cross-national study. Research on Aging, 45(2), 133-148.
Clench-Aas, J., & Holte, A. (2021). Political trust influences the relationship between income and life satisfaction in Europe: differential associations with trust at national, community, and individual level. Frontiers in public health, 9, 629118.
Clifford, S., & Lothamer, L. (2025). How Strong Policy Attitudes Activate Support for Aggressive Political Action. Political Behavior, 47(3), 1275-1293.
Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual review of organizational psychology and organizational behavior, 4, 19-43.
Deng, W., Acquah, K., Joormann, J., & Cannon, T. D. (2023). Cognitive flexibility and emotion regulation: Dual layers of resilience against the emergence of paranoia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 167, 104360.
Devine, D. (2024). Does political trust matter? A meta-analysis on the consequences of trust. Political Behavior, 46(4), 2241-2262.
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American psychologist, 55(1), 34.
Eidhof, B., & de Ruyter, D. (2022). Citizenship, self-efficacy and education: A conceptual review. Theory and Research in Education, 20(1), 64-82.
Euzébios Filho, A., & Tabata, S. C. (2023). Political cynicism and political efficacy: reflections on political representation and participation with students from a Brazilian Public University. SN Social Sciences, 3(2), 27.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American psychologist, 56(3), 218-226.
Goldberg, D. P., & Hillier, V. F. (1979). A scaled version of the General Health Questionnaire. Psychological medicine, 9(1), 139-145.
Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 1–26.
Hair, J. F., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. C. (2019). Multivariate Data Analysis (8th Ed.). England: Pearson Prentice.
Hillesund, S., & Østby, G. (2023). Horizontal inequalities, political violence, and nonviolent conflict mobilization: A review of the literature. Journal of Economic Surveys, 37(5), 1589-1635.
Hope, E. C., Velez, G., Offidani-Bertrand, C., Keels, M., & Durkee, M. I. (2018). Political activism and mental health among Black and Latinx college students. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 24(1), 26-39.
Julkif, N. B. (2022). Self and political efficacy and the justifiability of political violence and the role of state terror: A crossnational analysis. Social Science Quarterly, 103(1), 108-119.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36.            
Kalaf-Hughes, N., & Leiter, D. (2025). The Efficacy Gap: Resentment and its Impact on External and Internal Political Efficacy. Political Research Quarterly, 78(3), 1007-1028.
Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications. https://www.guilford.com/books/Principles-and-Practice-of-Structural-Equation-Modeling/Rex-Kline/9781 4625 51910
Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., ... & von Eye, A. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents: Findings from the first wave of the 4-H study of positive youth development. The journal of early adolescence, 25(1), 17-71.
Lindholm, A. (2020). Does subjective well-being affect political participation?. Swiss Journal of Sociology, 46(3), 467-488.
Martin, M. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1995). A new measure of cognitive flexibility. Psychological reports, 76(2), 623-626.
Menon, A., Kavanagh, N. M., Falkenbach, M., Wismar, M., & Greer, S. L. (2025). The role of health and health systems in shaping political engagement and rebuilding trust in democratic institutions. The Lancet Regional Health–Europe, 53.
Mohammadifar, N. (2019). The impact of political well-being on students' political attitudes Case Study: Ardakan University Students. Research Letter of Political Science, 14(2), 197-238.
Nelson, G., & Prilleltensky, I. (2005). Community psychology: In pursuit of liberation and well-being. Canadian Psychology, 46(3), 173-175.
Nikiporets-Takigawa, G., & Avcinova, G. (2018). Political Well-Being: Concept And Research Framework. In I. B. Ardashkin, B. Vladimir Iosifovich, & N. V. Martyushev (Eds.), Research Paradigms Transformation in Social Sciences, vol 50. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 884-890). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2018.12.108
Nishi, K. (2021). Low Government Performance and Uncivil Political Posts on Social Media: Evidence from the COVID-19 Crisis in the US. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.10041.
Nyqvist, F., Serrat, R., Nygård, M., & Näsman, M. (2024). Does social capital enhance political participation in older adults? Multi-level evidence from the European Quality of Life Survey. European Journal of Ageing, 21(1), 2-21.
Özdoğan, A. Ç., Haspolat, N. K., Çelik, O., & Yalçın, R. Ü. (2021). Ergenlerde reaktif-proaktif saldırganlık ve bilişsel esneklik: Öfkenin aracı rolü. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 11(2), 826-851.
Persson, T., & Widmalm, S. (2025). Political intolerance in comprehensive welfare states: Evidence from Sweden. Political Psychology, 46(4), 749-765.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
Rothbaum, B., Etengoff, C., & Luong, E. (2025). Trans Rights and Safety, Political Self-efficacy, and Well-Being. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 22(1), 4-18.
Russo, S., & Stattin, H. (2017). Self-determination theory and the role of political interest in adolescents' sociopolitical development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 50, 71-78.
Seehagen, S., Bartnick, C., Kärtner, J., Krasko, J., Luhmann, M., Schaal, N., ... & Zmyj, N. (2025). Belong, Broaden, and Build: The Role of Positive Emotions in Early Human Development. Child Development Perspectives, 19(4), 237-243.
Shore, J., Rapp, C., & Stockemer, D. (2019). Health and political efficacy in context: What is the role of the welfare state?. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 60(6), 435-457.
Spencer, M. B., Dupree, D., & Hartmann, T. (1997). A phenomenological variant of ecological systems theory (PVEST): A self-organization perspective in context. Development and psychopathology, 9(4), 817-833.
Sulemana, I., & Agyapong, E. (2019). Subjective wellbeing and political participation: Empirical evidence from Ghana. Review of Development Economics, 23(3), 1368-1386.
Sullivan, J. L., Piereson, J., & Marcus, G. E. (1993). Political tolerance and American democracy. University of Chicago Press.
Tong, K., Fu, X., Hoo, N. P., Mun, L. K., Vassiliu, C., Langley, C., ... & Leong, V. (2024). The development of cognitive flexibility and its implications for mental health disorders. Psychological Medicine, 54(12), 3203-3209.
Trüdinger, E. M., & Ziller, C. (2023). Setting limits to tolerance: An experimental investigation of individual reactions to extremism and violence. Frontiers in Political Science, 5, 1000511.
Valgarðsson, V., Jennings, W., Stoker, G., McKay, L., Devine, D., & Clarke, N. (2025). The good politician: Competence, integrity and authenticity in seven democracies. Political Studies, 73(2), 631-656.
Verkuyten, M., Yogeeswaran, K., & Adelman, L. (2024). Political tolerance and the golden rule: Reciprocity increases acceptance of normative protest actions of disliked groups. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 34(1), 1-14.
Villagran, M. (2025). The influence of Political trust on the acceptance of Violence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.04352.
Wintemute, G. J., Robinson, S. L., Crawford, A., Tancredi, D., Schleimer, J. P., Tomsich, E. A., ... & Pear, V. A. (2023). Views of democracy and society and support for political violence in the USA: findings from a nationally representative survey. Injury epidemiology, 10(45), 1-17.
Yonk, R. M., & Smith, J. T. (2018). Politics and quality of life: the role of well-being in political outcomes. Springer.
Zmigrod, L. (2020). The role of cognitive rigidity in political ideologies: Theory, evidence, and future directions. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 34-39.
Zmigrod, L. (2020). The role of cognitive rigidity in political ideologies: Theory, evidence, and future directions. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 34-39.
Zmigrod, L., Eisenberg, I. W., Bissett, P. G., Robbins, T. W., & Poldrack, R. A. (2021). The cognitive and perceptual correlates of ideological attitudes: a data-driven approach. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 376(1822), 20200424.
Zmigrod, L., Rentfrow, P. J., & Robbins, T. W. (2018). Cognitive underpinnings of nationalistic ideology in the context of Brexit. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(19), E4532-E4540.
Zmigrod, L., Rentfrow, P. J., & Robbins, T. W. (2019). Cognitive inflexibility predicts extremist attitudes. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 989.
Zmigrod, L., Rentfrow, P. J., & Robbins, T. W. (2020). The partisan mind: Is extreme political partisanship related to cognitive inflexibility? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(3), 407–418.
دوره 20، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 80
شماره ۸۰
پاییز 1404
صفحه 75-119

  • تاریخ دریافت 22 آبان 1404
  • تاریخ بازنگری 30 فروردین 1405
  • تاریخ پذیرش 25 اردیبهشت 1405