McClosky and Schaar’s Anomie Scale

Abstract

The McClosky and Schaar’s Anomy Scale, developed in 1965, is a seminal psychometrics instrument designed to measure the psychological dimensions of anomy (or anomie). Distinguished from the sociological concept of anomie popularized by Durkheim, this scale focuses on an individual’s subjective feelings of normlessness, social disorientation, and uncertainty regarding accepted rules and values in modern society. The scale consists of nine items utilizing a dichotomous response format (Agree/Disagree) and has been widely employed in political science and social psychology research to assess the psychological impact of rapid social change and institutional decay on personal attitudes.

Keywords

Anomy, Anomie, Normlessness, Social Attitudes, Political Psychology, Social Change, Psychological Measurement, McClosky, Schaar, Social psychology

Authors

Herbert McClosky, John H. Schaar

Purpose

The primary purpose of the scale is to quantitatively assess the degree to which an individual experiences feelings of social and personal disorientation, often referred to as psychological anomy. McClosky and Schaar sought to operationalize this construct by capturing dimensions related to the perceived breakdown of traditional norms, the uncertainty of social expectations, and feelings of personal alienation. The instrument is valuable for researchers studying the relationship between psychological states and political or social behavior, particularly in contexts marked by instability or rapid transformation.

Construct

The scale measures the construct of psychological anomy, which is defined as the subjective state resulting from the perceived loss of stable social norms and values. This state is characterized by several interrelated components:

• Normative Confusion: Difficulty in discerning or following appropriate rules of conduct due to rapid social change.
• Social Isolation: Feelings of being awkward, out of place, or lacking meaningful, lasting social connections.
• Sense of Decay: The belief that important traditional values are deteriorating or being destroyed.
• Uncertainty and Disorder: The perception that the world is chaotic, unpredictable, and lacks coherent structure.

Unlike sociological anomie (which describes a societal condition), the McClosky and Schaar scale measures the individual’s internalized response to that condition.

Validity

The original research by McClosky and Schaar (1965) provided evidence supporting the scale’s construct validity, demonstrating its distinctiveness from related concepts such as alienation, cynicism, and specific political attitudes. Subsequent studies utilizing this instrument, including major compilations of social psychological measures, have generally confirmed its relevance for measuring feelings of normlessness. The items display strong face validity, directly addressing perceptions of social disorder and rule ambiguity.

However, later research (e.g., Heydari et al., 2011) has sometimes suggested that while the scale measures a coherent construct, its internal structure may not be strictly unidimensional, prompting some scholars to explore multidimensional models of anomie to better capture the nuances of personal versus social disorientation.

Reliability

The McClosky and Schaar Anomy Scale typically demonstrates acceptable levels of internal consistency. While specific reliability coefficients (such as Cronbach’s Alpha) vary across different study populations and time periods, the scale has been consistently reported in the literature as a reliable measure of psychological anomy, particularly when administered to general adult populations. Early assessments, such as those summarized in Robinson and Shaver’s 1969 compilation, supported its use in large-scale survey research due to its relatively high reliability for a short attitude measure.

Factor Analysis

In the original 1965 formulation, the scale was intended to be largely unidimensional, capturing a single overarching factor of psychological anomy. Initial factor analysis often supports a single dominant factor, particularly within samples where political and social attitudes are highly correlated.

More recent and sophisticated factor analyses, however, have occasionally indicated the presence of minor sub-factors, suggesting that the nine items might tap into slightly different facets of the anomic experience (e.g., despair vs. norm confusion). Researchers seeking to use the scale often perform confirmatory factor analysis to ensure the measure behaves as expected within their specific cultural or demographic sample.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report psychological attitude scale

Format: Nine statements requiring a dichotomous response

Language Available: Primarily English, though translations have been used in international research.

Population Group: General adult population, particularly those involved in political and social surveys.

Age Group: Typically 18 years and older.

Population Details: Originally validated on American adult samples; frequently used in studies focusing on political behavior and social attitudes in Western democracies.

Test Methodology: Respondents indicate whether they “Agree” or “Disagree” with each of the nine statements. Scoring typically involves summing the number of responses indicative of anomy (usually 1 point per agreement with an anomic statement), resulting in a total score ranging from 0 to 9.

Keywords

Psychological Anomie, Normative Breakdown, Social Disorientation, Attitude Measurement, Construct validity, Political Attitudes, Survey Research, Psychometrics

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Information not available for 1965 publication)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Information not available)

Correspondence Address: N/A (Refer to original institutional affiliations, typically University of California, Berkeley, at the time of publication)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1965

Permissions: The scale is widely considered to be in the public domain for non-commercial academic research, having been published in major academic journals and widely distributed through measures compilations. Researchers should always cite the original 1965 source.

Fee: Generally no fee is required for academic use.

The original instrument description and items can be found in the compilation “Measures of Political Attitudes” published by the Institute for Social Research (ISR). The original PDF document detailing this and other measures can be downloaded here: https://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/infoserv/isrpub/pdf/Measuresofsocialpsychologicalattitudes_2928_.PDF

Reference’s

• McClosky, H. and Schaar, J. H. (1965). Psychological dimensions of anomy. American Sociological Review, 30(1), 14-40.
• Robinson, John P., Shaver, Phillip R. (1969). Measures of Political Attitudes. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
• Heydari, Arash. Davoudi, Iran. Teymoori, Ali. (2011). Revising the assessment of feeling of anomie: Presenting a multidimensional scale. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences. 30, 1086-1090.

Items of the McClosky and Schaar’s Anomy Scale

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Response Format: Agree, Disagree

1. With everything so uncertain these days, it almost seems as though any could happen.
2. What is lacking in the world today is the old kind of friendship that lasted for a lifetime.
3. With everything in such a state of disorder, it’s hard for a person to know where he stands from one day to the next.
4. Every changes so quickly these days that I often have trouble deciding which are the right rules to follow.
5. I often feel that many things our parents stood for are just going to ruin before our very eyes.
6. The trouble with the world today is that most people really don’t believe in anything.
7. I often feel awkward and out of place.
8. People were better off in the old days when everyone knew just how he was expected to act.
9. It seems to me that other people find it easier to decide what is right than I do.