Journal of Psychology in Africa ISSN: 1433-0237 (Print) 1815-5626 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpia20 The factor structure of the Social Axioms Survey II (SASII) in the South African context Adi Barnard, Deon Meiring & Ian Rothmann To cite this article: Adi Barnard, Deon Meiring & Ian Rothmann (2017) The factor structure of the Social Axioms Survey II (SASII) in the South African context, Journal of Psychology in Africa, 27:6, 522-529 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2017.1399568 Published online: 06 Dec 2017. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpia20 Download by: [105.226.116.58] Date: 06 December 2017, At: 04:45 Journal of Psychology in Africa, 2017 Vol. 27, No. 6, 522–529, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2017.1399568 © 2017 Africa Scholarship Development Enterprize The factor structure of the Social Axioms Survey II (SASII) in the South African context Adi Barnard1, Deon Meiring1,* and Ian Rothmann2 1Department Human Resource Management, Economic Management Science, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa 2Optentia Research Focus Area, North-West University, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa *Corresponding author email: [email protected] The objective of this study was to validate the new Social Axioms Survey II (SASII) . The study sample comprised university students (n = 793) as well as their family members and friends (n = 645) . Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) following an initial exploratory factor analysis yielded a five-factor model: social cynicism, social complexity, reward for application, religiosity, and fate control . The findings of this study support the use of the new SASII in South Africa for research purposes . Keywords: beliefs, equivalence, item bias, social axioms, values Introduction (Leung & Bond, 2004) . However, when an evaluative Beliefs represent how people arrange their social world or belief becomes specific, the belief becomes a social axiom their social realities . General beliefs are universal in scope (Leung & Bond, 2004; Leung et al ,. 2002) . Axioms are (Barnard, Rothmann, & Meiring, 2008; Kurman, 2011) thus truth statements for an individual, but do not assess and are premised on the assumption of truth resulting from desired goals (Leung & Bond, 2004) . The Social Axioms personal experience and socialisation (Leung & Bond, Survey (SAS: Bond et al ,. 2004) holds promise as a pan- 2004; & Singelis, Hubbard, Her, & An, 2003) . Measures cultural measure of evaluative beliefs . of social axioms have operationalised five-factors: social cynicism, reward for application, social complexity, fate The evolution of the Social Axioms Survey (SAS) control, and religiosity (Leung & Bond, 2004) . The factors The original SAS is a 60-item survey of five evaluative are used to evaluate the universality and meaning of the beliefs: social cynicism (18 items), reward for application structure of beliefs (Leung et al ,. 2002) . Data is needed (14 items), social complexity (12 items), fate control (8 on the cross-cultural transportability of these social axiom items), and religiosity (8 items) (Leung & Bond, 2009; constructs . This study aimed to investigate the structure of Leung et al , . 2012) . These factors represent general the Social Axioms Survey II (SASII) in the South African (context free) beliefs (i .e . social axioms) . setting . Findings would be important for determining the The first factor, social cynicism, represents “a negative veracity of claims regarding the presumed pan-cultural view of human nature, a bias against some social groups, a structure of social axioms . mistrust of social institutions, and a belief that people tend to ignore ethical means in pursuing their goals” (Leung Social axioms in relation to values and beliefs & Bond, 2009, p . 3) . An example of a social cynicism A social axiom is based on the supposition of a relationship statement is: “kind-hearted people usually suffer losses” Downloaded by [105.226.116.58] at 04:45 06 December 2017 between two behavioural concepts (Leung & Bond, (Bond et al ,. 2004, p . 178) . The second factor, reward for 2008; Leung & Bond, 2009; Singelis et al ,. 2003) . This application, represents “a belief complex asserting that relationship can be correlational or causal (Bond, Leung, the investment of effort, knowledge, careful planning and Au, Tong, & Chemonges-Nielson, 2004; Leung & Bond, other resources will lead to positive outcomes” (Leung & 2004; Leung & Bond, 2009; Leung et al ,. 2002) . For Bond, 2009, p . 3) . An example of a reward for application example, the belief statement ‘hard work leads to reward’ statement is: “hard working people will achieve more in indicates that a causal relationship exists between ‘hard the end” (Bond et al ., 2004, p . 178) . The third factor, social work’ and ‘reward’ (Leung & Bond, 2004) . According complexity, represents “a belief constellation holding to Kurman (2011), a social axiom supplies the answer that there are multiple ways to solve a problem, and that to a ‘how’ question (i e. ,. How will I get rewarded? I people’s behaviour, indeed a given person’s behaviour, will get rewarded through working hard) . Since there may vary across situations” (Leung & Bond, 2009, p . 3) . are numerous forms of ‘hard work’ and many forms An example of a social complexity statement is “one has to of ‘reward’, an axiom also constitutes a general social deal with matters according to the specific circumstances” statement . Moreover, it is not a value statement or about (Bond et al ,. 2004, p . 178) . The fourth factor, fate control, imputed desirability of a relational term (Leung & Bond, represents “a belief complex claiming that life events are 2004) or of its instruments (Kurman, 2011) . In contrast predetermined by various external forces, but that there to a social axiom (belief), “a value is concerned with the are ways for people to influence the negative impact of desirability and importance of a single conceptual entity” these forces” (Leung & Bond, 2009, p . 3) . An example of (Leung & Bond, 2009, p . 2) . Thus beliefs differ from a fate control statement is “fate determines one’s success values in the sense that the evaluative element of a value is and failures” (Bond et al., 2004, p. 179). The fifth and last general, while the evaluative element of a belief is specific factor, religiosity, represents a belief in “the existence of The Journal of Psychology in Africa is co-published by Informa UK Limited (trading as Taylor & Francis Group) and NISC (Pty) Ltd SASII in South Africa 523 a supernatural being but also a number of beliefs about Cheung, Wada, & Zhang, 2003; Costa & McCrae, 1992; the beneficial social functions of religious institutions and Fetvadjiev & Van de Vijver, 2015; Hough & Ones, 2002; practices” (Leung & Bond, 2009, p . 3) . An example of a McCrae et al , . 2005; Nel, Valchev, Rothmann, Van religiosity statement is: “religious people are more likely de Vijver, Meiring, & De Bruin, 2012) . There are two to maintain moral standards” (Bond et al ., 2004, p . 179) . problems with this importation strategy . Firstly, while the The new SAS (or SASII) ( Leung & Bond, 2009; Leung definitions of specific constructs are seen as appropriate et al ,. 2012) was designed “ to improve the reliability of in the original culture, they may not be appropriate in the five social axioms dimensions by generating new items another culture . Secondly, certain items may inadequately based on the construct definitions of the axiom dimensions capture the nuances of a specific construct in contexts from diverse cultural perspectives” (Leung et al ,. 2012, p . where the instrument is applied (Cheung, 2004) . In this 852) . The SASII (Leung et al ,. 2012) supports the same regard, the International Test Commission (2016) provides five-factor structure as the SAS (Leung et al., 2002); guidelines for test adaptation and the analyses of adapted namely Social cynicism, reward for application, social tests to allow matches of variables across language and complexity, fate control, and religiosity . However, two cultural groups . For example, the guidelines suggest that additional sub-factors of the fate control factor have been problematic items be improved by utilising content experts identified; namely fate determinism and fate alterability from different language backgrounds . (Leung et al., 2012). Leung and colleagues (2012) defined South African legislation, such as the Employment the five axiom dimensions as follows: Equity Act (No . 47 of 2013), places a direct emphasis on Social cynicism asserts that human nature and the the cultural appropriateness of psychological tests used social world yield negative outcomes; reward for in South Africa (Paterson & Uys, 2005) . Taking South application refers to the belief complex that people’s Africa’s multi-cultural population into consideration, as use of effort, knowledge, careful planning and other well as the emphasis that the Employment Equity Act (No . resources will lead to positive outcomes; social 47 of 2013) places on the fair and equitable use of tests, complexity asserts that people’s behaviour may vary it is clear that additional research concerning the cross- across situations and that problems have multiple cultural applicability of tests is required . According to solutions; fate control refers to the belief complex