Adaptation and validation of the punitivism scale to the Argentine context
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26439/persona2025.n1.7737Keywords:
punitiveness, adaptation, validation, need for cognitive closureAbstract
Punitivism can be defined as the collective preference for punitive measures and increased control over criminals. Understanding punitivism from a psychological perspective involves examining how individuals make decisions based on their beliefs, experiences, and emotions. The punitivism scale developed by Roberts et al. (2011) comprises seven items in a five-point Likert format, designed to assess individuals’ support for harsher punishments for criminal behavior. However, this construct has received limited attention in psychology, and no validated scale has yet been applied in the Argentine context. This study aims to adapt and validate the Roberts et al. punitivism scale for use in Argentina. A pilot study was conducted with a sample of 401 individuals, and an exploratory factor analysis was carried out. A subsequent final study involved a different sample of 458 participants, in which a confirmatory factor analysis was performed. One item showed inconsistencies and was therefore removed. The result was a unidimensional six-item scale with good model fit and acceptable reliability indices. This work contributes to the understanding of punitivism in the Argentine population and offers a reliable tool for future research on this topic in the local context.
Downloads
References
Aguilar, J. A. (2018). Aproximación al análisis de las actitudes punitivas. Revista Criminalidad, 60(1), 95-110. https://doi.org/10.47741/17943108.11
Aizpurúa González, E. (2015). Delimitando el punitivismo. Las actitudes de los españoles hacia el castigo de los infractores juveniles y adultos. Revista Española De Investigación Criminológica, 13, 1-30. https://doi.org/10.46381/reic.v13i0.90
Armborst, A. (2017). How fear of crime affects punitive attitudes. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 23, 461-481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-017-9342-5
Asociación Médica Mundial. (2013). Declaración de Helsinki de la AMM – Principios éticos para las investigaciones médicas con participantes humanos. https://www.wma.net/es/policies-post/declaracion-de-helsinki-de-la-amm-principios-eticos-para-las-investigaciones-medicas-en-seres-humanos/
Ballester Esteve, I., Fernández Piqueras, R., & Parra-Camacho, D. (2021). Adaptación y validación de una escala para la evaluación del desempeño profesional del entrenador de fútbol en base a su formación permanente, nivel de TIC y autoevaluación. Retos: Nuevas tendencias en Educación Física, Deportes y Recreación, 40, 272-280.
Bottoms, A. (1995). The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing. En C. Clarkson & R. Morgan (Eds.), The politics of sentencing reform (pp. 17-50). Oxford University. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198258728.003.0002
Carretero-Dios, H., & Pérez, C. (2005). Normas para el desarrollo y revisión de estudios instrumentales. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 5(3), 521-551. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=33705307
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464-504.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2.a ed.). Routledge. https://utstat.toronto.edu/brunner/oldclass/378f16/readings/CohenPower.pdf
Costelloe, M. T., Chiricos., T. & Gertz, M. (2009). Punitive attitudes toward criminals: Exploring the relevance of crime salience and economic insecurity. Punishment & Society, 11, 25-49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474508098131
Delacre, M., & Klein, O. (2019). Routliers: Robust outliers detection. R package version 0.0.
DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4.a ed.). Sage Publications.
Dominguez Lara, S. (2018). Fiabilidad y alfa ordinal. Actas Urológicas Españolas, 42(2), 140-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuro.2017.07.002
Elosua, P. (2005). Evaluación progresiva de la invarianza factorial entre las versiones original y adaptada de una escala de autoconcepto. Psicothema, 17(2), 356-362. https://www.psicothema.com/pdf/3112.pdf
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (4.a ed.). Sage Publishing. https://sadbhavnapublications.org/research-enrichment-material/2-Statistical-Books/Discovering-Statistics-Using-IBM-SPSS-Statistics-4th-c2013-Andy-Field.pdf
Garland, D. (2005). La cultura del control. Crimen y orden social en la sociedad contemporánea. Gedisa.
Giacomantonio, M., & Pierro, A. (2014). Individual differences underlying punishment motivation: The role of need for cognitive closure. Social Psychology, 45(6), 449-457. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000211
Giacomantonio, M., Pierro, A., Baldner, C., & Kruglanski, A. (2017). Need for closure, torture, and punishment motivations. Social Psychology, 48(6), 335-347. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000321
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit in-dexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
International Test Commission. (2017). The ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests (2.a ed.). https://www.intestcom.org/files/guideline_test_adaptation_2ed.pdf
Jackson, J., Hough, M., Bradford, B., & Kuha, J. (2015). Empirical legitimacy as two connected psychological states. En G. Meško & J. Tankebe (Eds.), Trust and legitimacy in criminal justice (pp. 137-160). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09813-5_7
Jaume, L. C., Schetsche, C., Roca, M. A., & Quattrocchi, P. (2022). Factor structure and internal consistency on a reduced version of the revised test of need for cognitive closure. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.813115
Jaume, L. C., & Roca, M. A. (2020). La evaluación del perdón, los modos regulatorios y la necesidad de cierre cognitivo: construyendo una agenda de investigación. Subjetividad y Procesos Cognitivos, 24(1), 1-21. https://publicacionescientificas.uces.edu.ar/index.php/subyprocog/article/view/846/864
Jordan Muiños, F. M. (2021). Valor de corte de los índices de ajuste en el análisis factorial confirmatorio. Psocial, 7(1), 66-71. http://portal.amelica.org/ameli/journal/123/1232225009/
Jorgensen, T. D., Pornprasertmanit, S., Schoemann, A. M., & Rosseel, Y. (2022). semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling. R package version 0.5-6. https://cran.r-project.org/package=semTools
Kessler, G. (2011). La extensión del sentimiento de inseguridad en América Latina: Relatos, acciones y políticas en el caso argentino. Revista de Sociologia e Política, 19(40), 83-97. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-44782011000300007
Kline, P. (2000). Handbook of psychometric testing (2.a ed.). Routledge.
Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). Lay epistemics and human knowledge: Cognitive and motivational bases. Springer.
Laterzo, I. G. (2023). Progressive ideology and support for punitive crime policy: Evidence from Argentina and Brazil. Comparative Political Studies, 57(6), 1034
Ley 25.326 Protección integral de los datos personales. Octubre 4 del 2000. Arts. 5-7 y 10 (Argentina). Boletín Nacional. https://www.argentina.gob.ar/normativa/nacional/ley-25326-64790
Leys, C., Delacre, M., Mora, Y. L., Lakens, D., & Ley, C. (2019). How to classify, detect, and manage univariate and multivariate outliers, with emphasis on pre-registration. International Review of Social Psychology, 32(1), 1-10.
Lipman, M. (1998). Pensamiento complejo y educación (2.a ed.). Ediciones de la Torre. https://ia903101.us.archive.org/35/items/LipmanPensamientoComplejoYEducacin/Lipman%20-%20pensamiento%20complejo%20y%20educaci%C3%B3n.pdf
Lüdecke, D., Ben-Shachar M., Patil I., & Makowski D. (2020). Extracting, computing and exploring the parameters of statistical models using R. Journal of Open Source Software, 5(53), 2445. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02445
Manzano, L., Fredes, D., Carvajal, J., & Cortés, F. (2022). Medición y análisis del punitivismo mediante una encuesta web. Revista de Sociología, 37(1), 147-164.
Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57(3), 519-530.
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-02770-000
Otamendi, M. A. (2012). Aclarando el panorama. Punitividad pública en el AMBA (2000-2010). Definiciones y precisiones. Ensemble, 4(7), 1-15 http://hdl.handle.net/11336/200083
Otamendi, M. A. (2020). La punitividad del público como reacción instrumental y expresiva ante las amenazas al comienzo del siglo XXI. Evidencias del Área Metropolitana de Buenos Aires. Revista CS, 31, 77-108. https://doi.org/10.18046/recs.i31.3720
Pierro, A., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2005). Revised Need for Cognitive Closure Scale [Manuscrito inédito]. Università di Roma.
Rader, N. E., Cossman, J. S., & Porter J. R. (2012). Fear of crime and vulnerability: Using a national sample to examine two competing paradigms. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(2), 134-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.02.003
R Core Team (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Versión 4.5.1) [Software].
Revelle, W. (2023). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. R package version 2.3.9. Recuperado el 23 de junio del 2025, de https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
Roberts, L. D., Spiranovic, C., & Indermaur, D. (2011). A country not divided: A comparison of public punitiveness and confidence in sentencing across Australia. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 44(3), 370-386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865811419059
Romero, K. P., & Mora, O. M. (2020). Análisis factorial exploratorio mediante el uso de las medidas de adecuación muestral kmo y esfericidad de bartlett para determinar factores principales. Journal of Science and Research, 5, 903-924. https://revistas.utb.edu.ec/index.php/sr/article/view/1046
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
Rhodes-Purdy, M. (2021). Lock them up! Punitive aggression and populism as political vigilantism. Electoral Studies, 74, Artículo 102415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102415
Shi, L. (2022). Crime trend perceptions, negative emotions, and public punitiveness: A survey experiment of information treatment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 18, 277-295.
Singer, A. J., Chouhy, C., Lehmann, P. S., Stevens, J. N., & Gertz, M. (2020). Economic anxieties, fear of crime, and punitive attitudes in Latin America. Punishment & Society, 22(2), 181-206. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474519873659
Silver, J. R., & Ulmer, J. T. (2023). Moral intuitions, punishment ideology, and judicial sentencing. Journal of Crime and Justice, 47(2), 219-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2023.2248085
Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M., and Anderson, K. G. (2000). On the sins of short-form development. Psychological Assessment, 12, 102-111. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.10
Ugarte Ontiveros, D., & Aparicio de Guzman, R. M. (2020). Técnicas robustas y no robustas para identificar outliers en el análisis de regresión. Investigación & Desarrollo, 20(2), 41-56.
Veggi, S., & Zara, G. (2023). The role of personality and the need for cognitive closure in shaping punitiveness to crime. Personality and Individual Differences, 214, 112348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112348
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Acceptance for publication implies the transfer of printing and reproduction rights, by any form and means, to the publisher, while the author retains the intellectual property of the article.
