KEY TERMS TO BE COVERED Concepts having ‘dimensions’ ‘Traits’ versus ‘types’ (matrix) typology Types

DIMENSIONS IN CONCEPTS

AIMS Conceptualization Some concepts have (independent) ‘dimensions’ ‘Traits’ versus ‘types’ On the basis of dimension one can construct types, although it may be more useful to focus on traits.

TWO EXAMPLES Personality Political efficacy

CONSTRUCTS CONSIST OF ‘FACETS’ Facets/dimensions/conditions/’traits’ Construct/Concept/Term variable

EXAMPLE Openness (closed minded – intellectual curiosity) Conscientiousness (sloppy/unreliable – highly organized) Personality Extraversion (reflective – attention seeking) Neuroticism (emotionally stable – emotionally unstable) Agreeableness (suspicious – compassionate)

FOUR TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS: TERMS & FACETS Missing: a set of ‘somehow related variables’ Not: creating (matrix) typologies And: necessary and sufficient conditions Or: family resemblance (sufficient conditions) personality

TWO (OF FIVE) ‘DIMENSIONS’ OF PERSONALITY Attention seeking “Traits” Unstable Stable Neuroticism reflective Extraversion

TRAITS OR TYPES? Personality: As a set of (five) (unrelated) ‘traits’, or As a set of types (often based on dichotomous traits)

PERSONALITY ‘TYPES’ (EYSENCK) Attention seeking Choleric Sanguine Unstable Stable Neuroticism Meaning of the words neurotic may be a bit different between the big five trait conceptualization and the Eysenck personality type conceptualization, but the point is, hat traits, dichotomized, can be used to construct matrix typologies … Together the four types are said to form a nominal variable … Melancholic Phlegmatic reflective Extraversion

EXAMPLE 2: EFFICACY Introducing a new concept: political efficacy “the feeling that individual political action does have, or can have, an impact upon the political process, i.e. that it is worth while to perform one’s civic duties”

EXAMPLE 2: EFFICACY Construct/Concept/term “Variable” “I don’t think public officials care much what people like me think” “Voting is the only way that people like me can have any say about how the government runs things” “People like me don’t have any say about what the government does” “Sometimes politics and government seem so complicated that a person like me can’t really understand what’s going on” Construct/Concept/term “Variable” Angus Campbell, Gerald Gurin and Warren Miller (1954) introduced the concept “political efficacy” along with four survey items for its operationalization. Within short, Robert Lane (1959) added a distinction between internal and external efficacy, with internal efficacy picking up individuals’ feelings that he or she has the capacity to participate in democratic decision-making processes, and with external efficacy relating to the perceived willingness of those in power to adhere to citizen opinion. As early as 1959, Robert Lane pointed out that the SRC items refer to two distinct sub-dimensions of the concept: Items 1 and 3 reflect perceived attributes of the political system (“external political efficacy”), while items 2 and 4 tap evaluations of the respondent’s own political abilities (“internal political efficacy”). 15 years later, George Balch could empirically prove that internal and external efficacy do indeed form two separate (but closely related) sub-dimensions of the original concept.

OR ORDINAL VARIABLE EXAMPLE 2: EFFICACY Construct/Concept/term “I don’t think public officials care much what people like me think” “Voting is the only way that people like me can have any say about how the government runs things” “People like me don’t have any say about what the government does” “Sometimes politics and government seem so complicated that a person like me can’t really understand what’s going on” Construct/Concept/term OR “Variable” Angus Campbell, Gerald Gurin and Warren Miller (1954) introduced the concept “political efficacy” along with four survey items for its operationalization. Within short, Robert Lane (1959) added a distinction between internal and external efficacy, with internal efficacy picking up individuals’ feelings that he or she has the capacity to participate in democratic decision-making processes, and with external efficacy relating to the perceived willingness of those in power to adhere to citizen opinion. As early as 1959, Robert Lane pointed out that the SRC items refer to two distinct sub-dimensions of the concept: Items 1 and 3 reflect perceived attributes of the political system (“external political efficacy”), while items 2 and 4 tap evaluations of the respondent’s own political abilities (“internal political efficacy”). 15 years later, George Balch could empirically prove that internal and external efficacy do indeed form two separate (but closely related) sub-dimensions of the original concept. ORDINAL VARIABLE

EFFICACY AS HAVING TWO DIMENSIONS Facets/dimensions/conditions Perceived characteristics of the individual him/herself Internal efficacy Construct/Concept/Term missing Political efficacy Perceived characteristics of the political system External efficacy missing variable

EFFICACY AS HAVING TWO DIMENSIONS “Sometimes politics and government seem so complicated that a person like me can’t really understand what’s going on” “Voting is the only way that people like me can have any say about how the government runs things” Internal efficacy missing Political efficacy missing “I don’t think public officials care much what people like me think” “People like me don’t have any say about what the government does” External efficacy

TWO DIMENSIONS OF EFFICACY External very efficacious Internal not efficacious Internal very efficacious It only makes sense to have different concepts for internal and external efficacy, if we want to claim that low high combinations, of extreme are valid too … Otherwise we would argue it is only ONE concept. External not efficacious

TWO DIMENSIONS OF EFFICACY: FOUR TYPES? External very efficacious Internal not efficacious Internal very efficacious It only makes sense to have different concepts for internal and external efficacy, if we want to claim that low high combinations, of extreme are valid too … Otherwise we would argue it is only ONE concept. External not efficacious

THIS MICROLECTURE Concepts having ‘dimensions’ ‘Traits’ (missing) versus ‘types’ (not) (matrix) typology