Multidimensional Scale of Anomia

Abstract

The Multidimensional Scale of Anomia (MSA), developed by Heydari, Davoudi, and Teymoori in 2011, is a 20-item psychometric instrument designed to assess the feeling of anomia from a revised, contemporary perspective. This scale moves beyond earlier unidimensional conceptualizations by operationalizing anomia across three distinct psychological and sociological factors: Meaninglessness and Distrust, Powerlessness, and the Fetishism of Money. It aims to provide a more comprehensive measure reflecting the complexity of alienation and normlessness experienced in modern society, incorporating elements of political disengagement and extreme materialism.

Keywords

Anomia, Multidimensional Scale, Heydari, Davoudi, Teymoori, 2011, Powerlessness, Meaninglessness, Distrust, Fetishism of Money, Psychological construct, Sociological scale.

Authors

Heydari, Arash; Davoudi, Iran; Teymoori, Ali.

[quads id=5]

Purpose

The primary purpose of the MSA is to offer a comprehensive and nuanced instrument for the assessment of the feeling of anomia, specifically addressing the limitations of previous unidimensional scales, such as Srole’s Anomia Scale. The authors sought to revise the assessment framework to capture the complexity of anomic feelings in contemporary society, integrating components related to political trust, existential meaning, and economic materialism.

By defining anomia through three core factors, the scale allows researchers to differentiate between various manifestations of social deregulation and alienation, providing a deeper understanding of how individuals interact with societal norms and institutions.

Construct

The MSA measures anomia, a sociological and psychological state characterized by a lack of social norms, feelings of alienation, and societal deregulation. The scale operationalizes this construct through three distinct, yet related, dimensions:

1. Meaninglessness and Distrust: This factor reflects the breakdown of established values, a sense of existential confusion, and a lack of faith in societal institutions and high-ranking officials.
2. Powerlessness: This factor measures the individual’s perceived inability to control their own life or destiny, often leading to feelings of frustration, being trapped, and a belief that personal effort yields no difference.
3. Fetishism of Money: This factor captures the excessive valuation of material wealth and the belief that monetary gain is the primary goal in life, often justifying the compromise of moral or ethical standards.

Validity

While specific detailed validity coefficients (such as correlation with external criteria) are not explicitly provided in the core summary, the development methodology suggests a strong focus on content validity. The scale items were systematically derived from and adapted based on well-established previous measures of anomia and related constructs (e.g., Srole, Teevan, Dean), indicating that the instrument targets recognized components of the anomic experience.

Furthermore, the establishment of three distinct factors through empirical analysis supports the scale’s construct validity as a multidimensional measure. This structure confirms that the MSA successfully differentiates between the core theoretical components of anomia (distrust, powerlessness, and materialism) as conceptualized by the authors.

Reliability

The internal consistency of the Multidimensional Scale of Anomia was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha for each subscale. The reported reliability coefficients suggest acceptable to good internal consistency across the dimensions, confirming that the items within each factor measure a unified underlying construct:

• Meaninglessness and Distrust: Alpha = 0.79
• Powerlessness: Alpha = 0.74
• Fetishism of Money: Alpha = 0.62

Factor Analysis

The scale was developed through a rigorous process of revising existing items and generating new items (including author-made items) to fit a broader conceptualization of anomia. The resulting structure, confirmed through factor analysis, validated a three-factor model of anomia. This finding is crucial as it empirically supports the departure from earlier, more simplistic unidimensional measures. The three factors—Meaninglessness and Distrust, Powerlessness, and Fetishism of Money—demonstrate that anomia is a complex, multifaceted psychological state that requires multidimensional assessment.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire / Psychological test

Format: The MSA consists of 20 items. Responses are scored using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “completely agree” to “completely disagree.”

Language Available: Original research items are provided in English, based on a study conducted by Iranian researchers.

Population Group: Adults and general population samples.

Age Group: Typically 18+ (Adult).

Population Details: Developed primarily for use in socio-psychological studies investigating societal alienation, political trust, and economic materialism within diverse cultural contexts.

Test Methodology: Quantitative assessment via questionnaire administered individually or in a group setting.

Keywords

Alienation, Social norms, Sociological deregulation, Psychometrics, Test development, Iran, Social distrust.

[quads id=5]

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source documentation.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source documentation.

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source documentation.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Multidimensional Scale of Anomia was developed and published in 2011. Information regarding specific permissions for commercial use or associated fees is not detailed in the original conference proceedings abstract. The instrument is generally available for academic research purposes, and the source publication is publicly accessible.

The original PDF detailing the instrument can be downloaded here: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/81120462.pdf

Reference’s

• Agnew, R. (1980). Development of a Multidimensional Measure of Anomie. Sociological Quarterly, 21(3), 335-347.
• Bjarnason, T. (1998). Anomie and social isolation: A study of the relationship between anomie and social isolation in Iceland. European Sociological Review, 14(4), 387-400.
• Dean, D. G. (1961). Alienation: Its Meaning and Measurement. American Sociological Review, 26(5), 753-758.
• Form, W. H. (1975). The Social Construction of Anomie: A Social Psychological Interpretation. American Journal of Sociology, 80(5), 1147-1166.
• 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.
• Kapsis, R. L. (1978). Black Street Crime and the Social Organization of the Ghetto. Criminology, 16(2), 175-195.
• Mezruchi, E. H. (1960). A measure of anomie. American Sociological Review, 25(4), 525-532.
• Muftic, L. (2006). Anomie, Strain, and College Education. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(4), 417-428.
• Rushing, W. A. (1971). Social structure, anomie, and mental illness. American Sociological Review, 36(5), 859-870.
• Srole, L. (1956). Social integration and certain corollaries: An exploratory study. American Sociological Review, 21(6), 709-716.
• Teevan, J. J. (1975). Socioeconomic Status, Alienation, and Social Participation. Sociological Quarterly, 16(1), 163-171.
• Travis, R. (1993). Alienation and Control in the Workplace. Work and Occupations, 20(3), 324-345.
• Yang, Anthony. (2015). Quantifying Anomia: Development of a Scale. California State University, Master of Arts thesis.
• Zeits, W. C., et al. (1969). Anomia and the Social Structure: A Comparative Study. Sociological Quarterly, 10(4), 450-462.

[quads id=5]

Items of the Multidimensional scale of anomia

Meaninglessness and distrust

1. I can trust to the statements of high-ranking officials (authority) (author-made).
2. There is little use writing to public officials because often they aren’t really interested in the problems of average man (Srole‚ 1956; Teevan‚ 1975; Agnew‚ 1980).
3. In spite of what some people say‚ a lot of average man is getting worse‚ not better (Srole‚ 1956; Mezruchi‚ 1960; Zeits et al.‚ 1969; Teevan‚ 1975).
4. I believe most of the congress bills are towards the welfare of people (Author-made).
5. Most public officials (people in public office) are not really interested in the problems of the average man (Mezruchi‚ 1960; Zeits et al.‚ 1969; Kapsis‚ 1978)
6. I often wonder what the meaning of life really is (Dean‚ 1961).
7. It’s hardly fair to bring children into the word with the way things look for future (Srole‚ 1956).
8. Everything is relative‚ and there just aren’t any definite rules to live by (Dean‚ 1961).

Powerlessness

9. I lead a trapped or frustrated life (Teevan‚ 1975).
10. Nobody knows what is expected of him or her life (Bjarnason‚ 1998).
11. I have no control over my destiny (Teevan‚ 1975).
12. The socioeconomic status of people determines their dignity and its inevitable (Author-made).
13. The word is changing so fast that it is hard for me to understand what is going on (Teevan‚ 1975; Form‚ 1975).
14. My whole word feels like it as falling apart (Travis‚ 1993).
15. No matter how hard people try in life it doesn’t make any difference (Travis‚ 1993).

Fetishism of money

16. To make money‚ there are no right and wrong ways anymore‚ only easy ways and hard ways (Srole‚ 1956; Zeits etal.‚ 1969).
17. A person is justified in doing almost anything if the reward is high enough (Rushing‚ 1971).
18. I am getting a college education so I can get a good job (Muftic‚ 2006).
19. I follow whatever rules I want to follow (Kapsis‚ 1978‚ Bjarnason‚ 1998).
20. Money is the most Important thing in life (Srole‚ 1956).