SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 65 Sayı: 2

TURKISH ADAPTATION OF THE SPECIESISM SCALE: A VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY STUDY

TÜRCÜLÜK ÖLÇEĞİNİN TÜRKÇE UYARLAMASI: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI

İrem Eker(MUĞLA SITKI KOÇMAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-6277-8836
Fatma Ebru Köse(AYDIN ADNAN MENDERES ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-5148-862X
Pages
1335–1366
Publication Date
2025-12-21
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In conclusion, the current results align with previous research and confirm that the Speciesism Scale is a valid and reliable tool for measuring speciesism in samples from Turkey.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Speciesism is defined as assigning different moral worth to animals depending on their species and considering humans to be superior to animals.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In three samples (NSample-1 = 256, NSample-2 = 239, NSample-3 = 227), we demonstrated that the Speciesism Scale has acceptable reliability coefficients and a one-factor structure.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, the current results align with previous research and confirm that the Speciesism Scale is a valid and reliable tool for measuring speciesism in samples from Turkey.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Türcülük · Genellenmiş Önyargı · Karar Verme

Abstract

Speciesism is defined as assigning different moral worth to animals depending on their species and considering humans to be superior to animals. Thus, speciesism can be understood as a type of prejudice that is directed towards animals. In the current study, we aimed to adapt a short scale of speciesism (i.e., Speciesism Scale) and to test its psychometric properties among Turkish samples. In three samples (NSample-1 = 256, NSample-2 = 239, NSample-3 = 227), we demonstrated that the Speciesism Scale has acceptable reliability coefficients and a one-factor structure. We also found that the scale shows high test-retest reliability approximately after four weeks (Sample-1). Evidencing its convergent validity, the scale was positively associated with benevolent sexism (Sample-1), social dominance orientation, right wing authoritarianism, and system justification (Samples 1 and 2). Moreover, we showed that social dominance orientation consistently predicted higher speciesism, suggesting that speciesism has similar roots to prejudices among human groups. Finally, demonstrating the predictive validity, we found that speciesism predicts a preference for humans over animals when making decisions about volunteering time for charities that support either humans or animals (Samples 1 and 2). All the presented results held while controlling for demographics such as age, gender, education, socio-economic level, and political view. In conclusion, the current results align with previous research and confirm that the Speciesism Scale is a valid and reliable tool for measuring speciesism in samples from Turkey.

Özet

Türcülük hayvanlara türlerine bağlı olarak farklı ahlaki değerler atfetmek ve insanları hayvanlardan daha üstün görmek olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Türcülük bu sebeple hayvanlara yönelik bir tür önyargı olarak değerlendirilebilir. Var olan çalışmada Türcülük Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye uyarlanması ve ölçeğin psikometrik özelliklerinin Türk örnekleminde test edilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Türcülük Ölçeği’nin iç tutarlık katsayısının kabul edilebilir olduğu ve ölçeğin tek faktörlü yapısı üç farklı örneklemde (NÖrneklem-1 = 256, NÖrneklem-2 = 239, NÖrneklem-3 = 227) gösterilmiştir. Aynı zamanda, yaklaşık dört hafta sonra alınan ölçümde, ölçeğin yüksek test-tekrar test güvenirliğine sahip olduğu bulunmuştur (Örneklem-1). Ölçek, yakınsak geçerliği kanıtlar şekilde, korumacı cinsiyetçilik (Örneklem-1), sosyal baskınlık yönelimi, sağ kanat yetkecilik ve sistemi meşrulaştırma ile pozitif yönde ilişkilidir (Örneklem-1 ve Örneklem-2). Ek olarak, sosyal baskınlık yöneliminin tutarlı olarak daha yüksek düzeyde türcülüğü yordadığı gösterilmiştir. Bu bulgu, türcülüğün kökeninin insan grupları arasındaki önyargılar ile benzer olabileceğini işaret etmektedir. Son olarak, ölçeğin yordayıcı geçerliğini gösterir şekilde, türcülüğün hayvanlara ya da insanlara yardım eden derneklere gönüllü zaman ayırma kararları bağlamında, insanları hayvanlara tercih etmeyi yordadığı bulunmuştur (Örneklem-1 ve Örneklem-2). Sunulan tüm sonuçlar yaş, cinsiyet, eğitim, sosyo-ekonomik düzey ve politik görüş gibi demografik değişkenler kontrol edilerek elde edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak, mevcut bulgular geçmiş çalışmalarla uyumludur ve Türcülük Ölçeği’nin Türkiye’den gelen örneklemlerde de gerçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçüm aracı olduğunu doğrulamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Eker, İ., Köse, F. E. (2025). TURKISH ADAPTATION OF THE SPECIESISM SCALE: A VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY STUDY. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 65 Sayı: 2, 1335–1366. https://doi.org/10.33171/dtcfjournal.2025.65.2.23

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (76)

  1. Abayhan, Y., Hürriyetoğlu, H., & Tuna, A. (2022). Mültecilere Yönelik Önyargı Ölçeğinin Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Liberal Düşünce Dergisi, 108, 27-43. https://doi.org/10.36484/liberal.1209023
  2. Akrami, N., Ekehammar, B., & Bergh, R. (2011). Generalized prejudice: Common and specific components. Psychological Science, 22(1), 57-59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610390384
  3. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
  4. Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47-92). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60382-2
  5. Altınal, B. E., & Tekdemir, G. (2020). Çelişik Türcülük Ölçeği: Ölçek geliştirme, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Nesne Dergisi, 8(18), 492-506. https://doi.org/10.7816/nesne-08-18-09
  6. Amiot, C. E., & Bastian, B. (2015). Toward a psychology of human-animal relations. Psychological Bulletin, 141(1), 6-47. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038147
  7. Amiot, C. E., Lépine, O., & Zaky, J. (2019). Compartmentalization of animals: Toward an understanding of how we create cognitive distinctions between animals and their implications. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 19(1), 150-176. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12177
  8. Anderson, J. R. (2018). The prejudice against asylum seekers scale: Presenting the psychometric properties of a new measure of classical and conditional attitudes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158(6), 694-710. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2017.1404958
  9. Anderson, J., & Ferguson, R. (2018). Demographic and ideological correlates of negative attitudes towards asylum seekers: A meta‐analytic review. Australian Journal of Psychology, 70(1), 18-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12162
  10. Aydın, B. (2024, February 2). Angels Farm Sanctuary: Kurtarılmış hayvanlar çiftliği. theMagger. https://www.themagger.com/angels-farm-sanctuary-nedir/
  11. Bäckström, M., & Björklund, F. (2007). Structural modeling of generalized prejudice: The role of social dominance, authoritarianism, and empathy. Journal of Individual Differences, 28(1), 10-17. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614- 0001.28.1.10
  12. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (2012). Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40, 8- 34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0278-x
  13. Bastian, B., & Loughnan, S. (2016). Resolving the meat-paradox: A motivational account of morally troublesome behavior and its maintenance. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(3), 278-299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316647562
  14. Bergh, R., Akrami, N., & Ekehammar, B. (2012). The personality underpinnings of explicit and implicit generalized prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(5), 614-621. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611432937
  15. Brown, R. (2011). Prejudice: Its social psychology. John Wiley & Sons.
  16. Brown, T. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research, second edition. Guilford Press.
  17. Caviola, L., & Capraro, V. (2020). Liking but devaluing animals: Emotional and deliberative paths to speciesism. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(8), 1080-1088. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619893959
  18. Caviola, L., Everett, J. A. C., & Faber, N. S. (2019). The moral standing of animals: Towards a psychology of speciesism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(6), 1011-1029. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000182
  19. Caviola, L., Schubert, S., Kahane, G., & Faber, N. S. (2022). Humans first: Why people value animals less than humans. Cognition, 225, 105139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105139
  20. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309-319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309
  21. Costello, K., & Hodson, G. (2010). Exploring the roots of dehumanization: The role of animal—human similarity in promoting immigrant humanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209347725
  22. Costello, K., & Hodson, G. (2014). Explaining dehumanization among children: The interspecies model of prejudice. British Journal of Psychology, 53(1), 175-197. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12016
  23. Dhont, K., & Hodson, G. (2014). Why do right-wing adherents engage in more animal exploitation and meat consumption? Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 12-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.002
  24. Dhont, K., & Hodson, G. (2020). Loving and exploiting animals. In K. Dhont & G. Hodson (Eds.), Why we love and exploit animals (pp. 1-9). Routledge.
  25. Dhont, K., Hodson, G., & Leite, A. C. (2016). Common ideological roots of speciesism and generalized ethnic prejudice: The social dominance human-animal relations model (SD-HARM). European Journal of Personality, 30(6), 507-522. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2069
  26. Dhont, K., Hodson, G., Costello, K., & MacInnis, C. C. (2014). Social dominance orientation connects prejudicial human-human and human-animal relations. Personality and Individual Differences, 61, 105-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.12.020
  27. Dhont, K., Hodson, G., Leite, A. C., & Salmen, A. (2020). The psychology of speciesism. In K. Dhont & G. Hodson (Eds.), Why we love and exploit animals (pp. 29-49). Routledge.
  28. Dhont, K., Hodson, G., Loughnan, S., & Amiot, C. E. (2019). Rethinking humananimal relations: The critical role of social psychology. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(6), 769-784. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430219864455
  29. Dovidio, J. F., Hewstone, M., Glick, P., & Esses, V. M. (2010). Prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination: Theoretical and empirical review. In In J. F. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P. Glick, & V.M. Esses (Eds.), the SAGE Handbook of Prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination The SAGE Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination (pp. 3-28). Sage.
  30. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2007). Right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice. European Journal of Personality: Published for the European Association of Personality Psychology, 21(2), 113-130. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.614
  31. Ekehammar, B., & Akrami, N. (2003). The relation between personality and prejudice: a variable‐and a person‐centred approach. European Journal of Personality, 17(6), 449-464. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.494
  32. Fiske, S. T. (2018). Stereotype content: warmth and competence endure. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(2), 67- 73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417738825
  33. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491-512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
  34. Güldü, Ö. (2011). Sağ Kanat Yetkeciliği Ölçeği: Uyarlama çalışması. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(2), 27-51. https://doi.org/10.1501/sbeder_0000000033
  35. Haytap Animal Rights Federation [@haytap]. (2024, June 1). Beni uyutacaklar, öldürecekler, hapishanelere tıkacaklar ama üretmeye devam edecekler! Sen uyuma! Mitinge davet [Photograph]. Instagram. https://www.instagram.com/p/C7rHoqvqwHV/
  36. Hodson, G., & Dhont, K. (2015). The person-based nature of prejudice: Individual difference predictors of intergroup negativity. European Review of Social Psychology, 26(1), 1-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2015.1070018
  37. Hodson, G., McInnis, C. C., & Busseri, M. A. (2017). Bowing and kicking: Rediscovering the fundamental link between generalized authoritarianism and generalized prejudice. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 243-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.018
  38. Hoffart, M. R., Azevedo, F., & Jost, J. T. (2019). Political conservatism and the exploitation of nonhuman animals: An application of system justification theory. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(6), 858-878. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430219843183
  39. Hopwood, C. J., Olaru, G., Nissen, A. T., Graça, J., Dillard, C., Thompkins, A. M., & Waldhorn, D. R. (2025). A cross-cultural examination of individual differences in human attitudes about animals. Personality Science, 6. https://doi.org/10.1177/27000710251321367
  40. Hu, L.-T., & 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
  41. Jost, J. T. (2019). A quarter century of system justification theory: Questions, answers, criticisms, and societal applications. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(2), 263-314. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12297
  42. Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system‐justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x
  43. Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(5), 260-265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00377.x
  44. Karaçanta, H. (2002). Üniversite öğrencilerinin sosyal baskınlık yönelimi ve başka bazı değişkenler açısından karşılaştırılması. [Doctoral Dissertation, Ankara Üniversitesi]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezDetay.jsp?id=z3FOHBLqhQ8qaVD XJvk-ww&no=yxhgAwDx4CieRdRh_XGgWA
  45. Kay, A. C., & Jost, J. T. (2003). Complementary justice: effects of" poor but happy" and" poor but honest" stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 823-837. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.823
  46. Konda, (2018). Seçmen kümeleri: CHP seçmenleri. [Rapor]. https://konda.com.tr/rapor/42/secmen-kumeleri-chp-secmenleri
  47. Leite, A. C., Dhont, K., & Hodson, G. (2019). Longitudinal effects of human supremacy beliefs and vegetarianism threat on moral exclusion (vs. inclusion) of animals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(1), 179-189. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2497
  48. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(3), 320-341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
  49. McFarland, S. (2010). Authoritarianism, social dominance, and other roots of generalized prejudice. Political Psychology, 31(3), 453- 477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00765.x
  50. McGuire, L., Palmer, S. B., & Faber, N. S. (2022). The development of speciesism: Age-related differences in the moral view of animals. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 14(2), 228-237. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506221086182
  51. Monteiro, B. M. A., Pfeiler, T. M., Patterson, M. D., & Milburn, M. A. (2017). The Carnism Inventory: Measuring the ideology of eating animals. Appetite, 113, 51- 62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.02.011
  52. Morgül, K., Savaşkan, O., & Mutlu, B. (2021). İstanbul’da Suriyeli mültecilere yönelik algı ve tutumlar: Partizanlık, yabancı karşıtlığı, tehdit algıları ve sosyal temas. [Rapor]. Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Vakfı. https://tr.boell.org/sites/default/files/2021- 06/Istanbulda%20Suriyeliler%20Raporu%20BASIM.pdf
  53. Motivaction. (2018). The disruptive mindset of millennials around the globe (Flash Report 4). Motivaction. https://www.motivaction.nl/downloads/Glocalities_- _Flash_Report_4_The_disruptive_mindset_of_millennials_around_the_globe.pdf
  54. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2017). MPLUS user’s guide. Eight Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
  55. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.
  56. Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25(1), 57-75. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420250106
  57. Plous, S. (1996). Attitudes toward the use of animals in psychological research and education: Results from a national survey of psychologists. American Psychologist, 51(11), 1167-1180. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003- 066X.51.11.1167
  58. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741- 763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
  59. Randler, C., Adan, A., Antofie, M. M., Arrona-Palacios, A., Candido, M., Boeve-de Pauw, J.,. & Vollmer, C. (2021). Animal welfare attitudes: Effects of gender and diet in university samples from 22 countries. Animals, 11(7), 1893. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11071893
  60. Robbins, J., Parsons, R., Johnson, A., Jorgensen, M., Danielson, J., & Millman, S. (2019). 321 Socio-demographic factors associated with attitudes towards animals among first-year veterinary students. Journal of Animal Science, 97(Supplement_3), 5-6. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.28.1.033 Ryder, R. D. (2004). Speciesism revisited. Think, 2(6), 83-92. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1477175600002840
  61. Ryder, R. D. (2006). Speciesism in the laboratory. In P. Singer (Ed.), In Defense of animals: The second wave (pp. 87-103). Blackwell.
  62. Sakallı-Uğurlu, N. (2002). Ambivalent sexism inventory: A study of reliability and validity. Turk Psikoloji Dergisi, 17, 47-61.
  63. Salmen, A., & Dhont, K. (2021). Hostile and benevolent sexism: The differential roles of human supremacy beliefs, women’s connection to nature, and the dehumanization of women. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(7), 1053- 1076. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220920713
  64. Salmen, A., & Dhont, K. (2023). Animalizing women and feminizing (vegan) men: The psychological intersections of sexism, speciesism, meat, and masculinity. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 17(2), e12717. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12717
  65. Sayın, A. (2024, July 10). Sokak köpekleri teklifi Meclis’e geliyor. BBC News Türkçe. https://www.bbc.com/turkce/articles/cx92e4yj9n4o
  66. Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation. HarperCollins.
  67. Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 893- 898. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PAID.2006.09.017
  68. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
  69. Taylor, N., & Signal, T. (2006). Attitudes to animals: Demographics within a community sample. Society & animals, 14(2), 147-157. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853006776778743
  70. Turkish Vegan Association [@tvd.org.tr]. (2024, May 28). "Toplayamazsın, hapsedemezsin, öldüremezsin" demek için 2 Haziran Pazar günü, Türkiye'nin farklı illerinden katılımcılarla gerçekleşecek olan büyük ölçekli Adalet Mitinginde olacağız [Photograph]. https://www.instagram.com/p/C7gnfcoIZE-/
  71. Verkuyten, M., Kollar, R., Gale, J., & Yogeeswaran, K. (2022). Right-wing political orientation, national identification and the acceptance of immigrants and minorities. Personality and Individual Differences, 184, Article: 111217. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PAID.2021.111217
  72. Yıldırım, N. (2010). Sivil toplum kuruluşu gönüllülerinin adil dünya inançları, sosyal baskınlık yönelimleri ve sistemi meşru algılama düzeyleri. [Master’s Dissertation, Mersin Üniversitesi].
  73. Yücel, E., Yıldırım, H. H., & Ceylan, M. Ş. (2024). Türcülük ve hayvan hakları için kolektif eylem yönelimi arasındaki ilişkide hayvanlarla empatinin rolünün sorgulanması. International Journal of Social Inquiry, 17(1), 119-140. https://doi.org/10.37093/ijsi.1372866
  74. Wagner, U., Christ, O., & Heitmeyer, W. (2010). Anti-immigration bias. In J. F. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P. Glick, & V.M. Esses (Eds.), the SAGE Handbook of Prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination (pp. 361−376). Sage.
  75. Zick, A., Pettigrew, T. F., & Wagner, U. (2008). Ethnic prejudice and discrimination in Europe. Journal of Social Issues, 64(2), 233- 251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00559.x
  76. Randler, C., Adan, A., Antofie, M. M., Arrona-Palacios, A., Candido, M., Boeve-de Pauw, J.,. & Vollmer, C. (2021). Animal welfare attitudes: Effects of gender and diet in university samples from 22 countries. Animals, 11(7), 1893. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11071893