REVISED ATTITUDES TOWARDS VIOLENCE SCALE: Scoring Version

Abstract

The Revised Attitudes Towards Violence Scale (RATS) is a specialized 40-item self-report measure designed for comprehensive assessment of cognitive attitudes regarding the acceptance, justification, and use of violence. Developed in 2006, the RATS operates on a robust four-factor psychometric model, allowing researchers to evaluate distinct components of violent ideation rather than relying on a singular, undifferentiated score. The scale is widely applied across diverse populations, including adolescents, college students, and adults, providing a reliable and valid instrument for predicting future aggressive behavior and measuring the effectiveness of violence reduction interventions in clinical and social settings.

Keywords

Attitudes towards violence, RATS, Aggressive behavior, Justification of violence, Violence acceptance, Psychological assessment, Self-report measure, Likert scale, Criminology, Psychometrics.

Authors

Anderson, C.A., Benjamin, A.J., Wood, P.K., Bonacci, A.M.

[quads id=5]

Purpose

The primary purpose of the RATS is to quantitatively assess an individual’s underlying cognitive framework—including beliefs, acceptance levels, and behavioral intentions—related to the use of violence. By utilizing a multi-factor structure, the scale offers a nuanced perspective on how individuals rationalize, tolerate, or reject violent actions across various domains, such as institutional conflict, domestic disputes, and military engagements.

In applied and research settings, the RATS serves a dual function. First, it acts as a screening tool to identify individuals who may possess attitudes highly predictive of future violent or aggressive behavior. Second, it is frequently employed as an outcome measure in longitudinal studies to gauge the effectiveness of social or psychological interventions specifically aimed at modifying violent tendencies or shifting normative beliefs toward non-violence.

Construct

The RATS measures the overarching construct of attitudes towards violence, which is theoretically segmented into four distinct, yet interrelated, sub-constructs. This detailed profile moves beyond simple measures of general hostility, providing specific insights into an individual’s cognitive relationship with aggression. The four subscales confirmed by the scale’s factor analysis are:

• Acceptance of Violence: This factor quantifies the degree to which an individual is willing to tolerate or accept the use of violence when confronted with specific contextual situations.
• Aggression: This measures the belief that aggressive or confrontational behavior represents a justifiable, valid, and effective method for conflict resolution.
• Justification of Violence: This subscale assesses the extent to which an individual deems violence to be morally permissible or contextually warranted, particularly in extreme, defensive, or retributive scenarios.
• Perceived Consequences of Violence: This factor measures the individual’s expectations regarding the negative outcomes, repercussions, or social costs associated with engaging in violent acts. Scores on this subscale typically correlate inversely with overall acceptance of violence.

Validity

Empirical evidence supports the strong validity of the RATS, established during its original development and testing (Anderson et al., 2006). The scale demonstrated robust construct validity, which was confirmed through rigorous statistical analysis that successfully verified the hypothesized four-factor structure underlying the scale items.

Furthermore, the RATS exhibits significant predictive validity. Research has consistently shown that RATS scores are effective predictors of real-world engagement in aggressive and violent actions. This predictive utility confirms the instrument’s value as a critical screening and research tool within the fields of psychology, social work, and criminology.

Reliability

The RATS is reported to possess good internal consistency, which is a key indicator of measurement reliability. This high level of consistency is evident across the four specific subscales as well as the total composite score, indicating that the 40 items consistently measure the intended underlying constructs of violent attitudes.

The stability and dependability of the measurements provided by the RATS are essential for its broad application. High reliability ensures that the scores obtained are trustworthy for use in both cross-sectional research designs and longitudinal studies aimed at tracking changes in attitudes towards violence over extended periods.

Factor Analysis

The RATS was developed as a substantial refinement of earlier instruments, utilizing a comprehensive factor analysis approach. This statistical process was crucial in confirming a distinct and stable four-factor model, which provides the theoretical underpinning for the scale.

The confirmed four-factor structure—Acceptance, Aggression, Justification, and Perceived Consequences—is central to the RATS’ utility. This delineation allows researchers to investigate specific cognitive mechanisms driving violent ideation, providing richer data than scales that rely only on a single, undifferentiated measure of overall violence propensity.

Instrument

Test Type: Psychological assessment scale; Self-report measure.

Format: 40 items utilizing a 5-point Likert scale response format.

Language Available: English (Original publication language).

Population Group: General population; specific applications in clinical, social, and forensic settings.

Age Group: Adolescents and Adults (including college students).

Population Details: The scale has been used extensively to study attitudes across diverse areas, including attitudes toward war, criminal justice, domestic violence, and corporal punishment.

Test Methodology: Respondents indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with each statement on a scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).

Keywords

Psychometrics, Intervention evaluation, Criminology, Corporal punishment, Attitude measurement, Internal consistency, Predictive validity, Social psychology.

[quads id=5]

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source. (Primary author C.A. Anderson’s faculty page: http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa)

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 2006 (Year of first publication detailing the revised, four-factor model version).

Permissions and Fees: The RATS is generally available for non-commercial academic and educational research purposes. Researchers intending to utilize the scale must contact the primary author, C.A. Anderson, for formal permission to use the instrument and to obtain details regarding appropriate citation requirements.

Reference’s

Anderson, C.A., Benjamin, A.J., Wood, P.K., & Bonacci, A.M. (2006). Development and testing of the Velicer Attitudes Toward Violence Scale: Evidence for a four-factor model. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 122-136.

[quads id=5]

Items of the REVISED ATTITUDES TOWARDS VIOLENCE SCALE: Scoring Version

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

Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. Write the number corresponding to your level of agreement or disagreement in the blank line in front of each item.

1 = Strongly Disagree

2 = Disagree

3 = Neither Agree or Disagree

4 = Agree

5 = Strongly Agree

• ____ 1. War is often necessary.
• ____ 2. Any nation should be ready with a strong military at all times.
• ____ 3. Children should be spanked for temper tantrums.
• ____ 4. Any prisoner deserves to be mistreated by other prisoners in jail.
• ____ 5. Violence against the enemy should be part of every nation’s defense.
• ____ 6. Prisoners should have more sever labor sentences than they do.
• ____ 7. Killing of civilians should be accepted as an unavoidable part of war.
• ____ 8. No matter how severe the crime‚ one should pay an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”
• ____ 9. Punishing a child physically when she/she deserves it will make him/her a responsible and mature adult.
• ____ 10. Violent crimes should be punished violently.
• ____ 11. Our country has the right to protect is borders forcefully.
• ____ 12. The manufacture of weapons is necessary.
• ____ 13. It is all right for a partner to choke the other if insulted or ridiculed.
• ____ 14. The death penalty should be a part of every penal code.
• ____ 15. Prisoners should never get out of their sentence for good behavior.
• ____ 16. Universities should use armed police against students who destroy university property.
• ____ 17. Giving mischievous children a quick slap is the best way to quickly end trouble.
• ____ 18. It is all right for a partner to slap the other’s face if insulted or ridiculed.
• ____ 19. Capital punishment is often necessary.
• ____ 20. Our country should be aggressive with its military internationally.

[quads id=5]

• ____ 21. A violent revolution can be perfectly right.
• ____ 22. A parent hitting a child when he/she does something bad on purpose teaches the child a good lesson.
• ____ 23. A child’s habitual disobedience should be punished physically.
• ____ 24. It is all right for a partner to slap the other’s face if challenged.
• ____ 25. Partners should work things out together even if it takes violence
• ____ 26. The male should not allow the female the same amount of freedom as he has.
• ____ 27. An adult should beat a child with a strap or stick for being expelled.
• ____ 28. Young children who refuse to obey should be whipped.
• ____ 29. It is all right for a partner to choke the other if they hit a child.
• ____ 30. It is all right to coerce one’s partner into ha‎ving sex when they are not willing by forcing them.
• ____ 31. Every nation should have a war industry.
• ____ 32. It is all right for a partner to shoot the other if they flirt with others.
• ____ 33. A teacher hitting a child when he/she does something bad on purpose teaches the child a good lesson.
• ____ 34. War in self-defense is perfectly all right.
• ____ 35. The partner is the appropriate one to take out the frustrations of the day on.
• ____ 36. It is all right for a partner to shoot the other if they are unfaithful.
• ____ 37. War can be just.
• ____ 38. It is all right to coerce one’s partner into ha‎ving sex when they are not willing by giving the other alcohol or drugs.
• ____ 39. The dominant partner should keep control by using violence.