Anomie: Issues of Measurement Ekaterina Lytkina, Laboratory for Comparative Social Research National Research University Higher School of Economics, Russia, Moscow ekaterina.lytkina@gmail.ru Christian Welzel, Russia, St. Petersburg, Leuphana University, Germany

Contents How anomie’s being measured in large cross- country surveys? Are these means satisfactory? Is that possible to separate between anomie and alienation? Can the existing scales measure anomie?

NORMLESSNESS MEANINGLESSNESS ANOMIE NORMLESSNESS Traditional Durkheimean concept: absence of norms and values, weakening of the role of the normative and value regulation, when the society is incapable of restricting constantly growing desires of the individuals (Durkheim 1912) MEANINGLESSNESS Cognitive disorientation, devaluation of the importance of the previous experience, lower degree of the possibility of planning the future, dominance of situational identifications (Legge et al 2008: 253) Incapability for the individual to estimate what to believe in, lack of the simplest standards of clarity in the process of decision making, as well as low predictability about the outcomes of actions (Seeman 1982: 786)

Data: World Value Survey, Wave 6 – Russia (N=2500) Special Scale Introduced by Swader & Kosals (2011) and applied for the Russian and Kazakhstan sub-samples

How’s anomie being measured (EVS, WVS) DON’T KNOW SCALE (Swader &Kosals 2011) MORALITY SCALE (EVS, WVS) Anomie Scale (Swader&Kosals 2011) WVS 2011, 2 countries* - 4 Scales Zhao & Cao 2010 (WVS) Anomie Index – 10 scales claiming state benefits which you are not entitled to avoiding a fare on public transport cheating on tax if you have the chance Buying something which you knew was stolen someone accepting a bribe in the course of their duties V58. To what extent do you agree with the statement: I don’t have enough possibilities to make an influence on solving the problems we all face today. V59. To what extend to you agree with the statement: I often feel lonely V60. To what extend to you agree with the statement: Life has become so difficult that I often don’t have any idea what I should do V61. To what extend to you agree with the statement: In order to move forward people often have to break rules V62. To what extend to you agree with the statement: I don’t like my job Cao et al. 2010 (EVS + WVS) claiming state benefits which you are not entitled to cheating on tax if you have the chance someone accepting a bribe in the course of their duties

What about Theory? The Scale applied by Zhao & Cao 2010 is addressed in literature as morality scale. The Scale of Swader & Kosals 2011 measures not only anomie but also alienation and job (un)satisfaction. Besides… Scalar consistency? No check for scalar reliability (1st case) New scale (2nd case) Cronbach’s Alpha Zhao & Cao 2010 – 0,772 Swader & Kosals 2011 – 0,338

Swader, Kosals 2011 Statistics 1 factor model Chi-Square 50.223 df 5 p 0.0000 RMSEA 0.060 Pclose RMSEA 0.119 CFI 0.958 TLI 0.917 SRMR 0.029 POWERLESSNESS 0.589 (.018) 1 0.069 (.01) 0.575 (.023) SOCIAL ISOLATION F1 1.984 (.164) MEANINGLESSNESS 2.623 (.224) 0.298 (.029) 0.998 (.098) NORMLESSNESS 0.509 (.016) 1.166 (.126) 0.702 (.025) JOB SATISFACTION

Possibility of Splitting the Measurement Statistics 1 factor model 2 factors: N2= Meaninglessness + Normlessness Powerlessness + Normlessness Chi-Square 50.223 50.201 19.731 df 5 4 p 0.0000 0.0006 RMSEA 0.060 0.068 0.040 Pclose RMSEA 0.119 0.033 0.809 CFI 0.958 0.957 0.986 TLI 0.917 0.894 0.964 SRMR 0.029 0.017 Mertonian concept of anomie?

Zhao & Cao 2010 Statistics 1 factor model Chi-Square 421.598 df 5 p 0.0000 RMSEA 0.184 Pclose RMSEA 0.000 CFI 0.893 TLI 0.786 SRMR 0.053 F2 Not paying for public transport Bribery Tax cheating Buying stolen things  Claiming for state benefits one is not entitled to 3.215 (.119) 1 2.632 (.16) 1.028 (.04) 4.461 (.156) 0.604 (.025) 1.534 (.053) 1.121 (.039) 2.497 (.107) 0.841 (.032) 1.538 (.066)

+ correlations Statistics With correlations Chi-Square 6.991 df 2 p 0.0303 RMSEA 0.032 Pclose RMSEA 0.851 CFI 0.999 TLI 0.994 SRMR 0.006 F Not paying for public transport Bribery Tax cheating Buying stolen things  Claiming for state benefits one is not entitled to 1.98 (.175) 1 3.877 (.231) -0.876 (.142) 0.89 (.042) 4.187 (.169) 0.397 (.021) 1.878 (.058) 0.981 (.035) 0.909 (.052) 2.067 (.182) 0.569 (.072) 0.511 (.027) 2.367 (.08) Interesting: negative correlation between claiming for state benefits and tax cheating

Final Model Statistics Chi-Square 199.988 df 31 p 0.0000 RMSEA 0.047 POWERLESSNESS 0.589 (.018) 1 0.069 (.01) Statistics   Chi-Square 199.988 df 31 p 0.0000 RMSEA 0.047 Pclose RMSEA 0.802 CFI 0.967 TLI 0.952 SRMR 0.033 SOCIAL ISOLATION 1.990 (.165) F1 0.574 (.023) 2.622 (.224) 0.299 (.029) MEANINGLESSNESS 1.001 (.098) NORMLESSNESS 0.509 (.016) 1,171 (.126) 0.701 (.018) JOB SATISFACTION -0.015 (.014) F2 Not paying for public transport Bribery Tax cheating Buying stolen things  Claiming for state benefits one is not entitled to 1.979 (.175) 1 -0.87 (0.142) 0.891 (.042) 4.182 (.169) 0.397 (.021) 3.877 (.23) 1.877 (.058) 0.979 (.035) 0.908 (0.052) 2.08 (.182) 0.511 (.027) 0.572 (0.072) 2.367 (0.08)

Conclusions The factors are almost orthogonal. Each measurement was loaded on each factor – thus we see that different concepts are measured as well. The measurement of Zhao & Cao is less valid than that of Swader and Kosals. For Russia more in-depth analysis is required.

Thank you! ekaterina.lytkina@gmail.com