Strikes are a recurrent phenomenon in many countries. However, research on strikes from a psychological perspective has been limited. By developing a sound measure to assess attitudes and behavioral reactions to strikes, we will be in a better position to evaluate these constructs in individuals and compare across studies. Therefore, we developed a scale to assess attitudes and behavioral reactions to strikes following classic scale development guidelines using four samples (total N = 1369; N1 = 304, N2 = 209, N3 = 443, N4 = 413). In Study 1, we used exploratory factor analysis to reduce the generated items to a scale and showed that the strike attitude and behavioral reactions scale consists of one affective factor (negative reactions towards strikes), one cognitive factor (legitimacy of strikes), and three behavioral factors (informing oneself about strikes, strike-related social network behavior, and support of strikers). Study 2 confirmed these five factors and showed acceptable psychometric properties. Study 3 supported the construct validity of the developed scale: the five factors were correlated with willingness to strike and attitudes towards unions, among other variables. Study 4 further showed that the scale can also capture attitudes and behavioral reactions towards specific strikes. Overall, these studies indicate that the strike attitude and behavioral reactions scale is a psychometrically sound measure consisting of five factors.

System justification is a widely researched topic in social and political psychology. One major measurement instrument in system justification research is the General System Justification Scale (G-SJS). This scale has been used, among others, for comparisons across social groups in different countries. Such comparisons rely on the assumption that the scale is measurement equivalent. However, this assumption has never been comprehensively tested. Thus, the present two studies assessed the measurement equivalence of the G-SJS following classic measurement equivalence guidelines (i.e., multigroup confirmatory factor analyses) in Study 1 and using a new method for comparing larger numbers of groups in Study 2 (i.e., alignment optimization). In Study 1, we analysed the measurement equivalence in Great Britain (n = 444), Germany (n = 454), and France (n = 463). In Study 2, we used a publicly available dataset consisting of 66 samples from 30 countries (N = 13,495) to again assess the measurement equivalence of the scale. Results indicated (partial) metric equivalence, but not scalar equivalence in both studies. Overall, the studies indicate that mean comparisons across the examined countries are not warranted with the current form of the G-SJS. The scale needs to be revised for valid cross-country comparisons of means. | 1033MEASUREMENT EQUIVALENCE SYSTEM JUSTIFICATION SCALE I N TRODUC T IONSystem justification theory recently turned 25 years old ( Jost, 2019). Over the years, numerous publications support the system justification construct, its antecedents, and predictions (e.g Jost et al., 2017;Osborne et al., 2019;van der Toorn et al., 2011). In fact, system justification theory is one of the most influential theories in recent social psychological research. The original article by Jost and Banaji (1994) has been cited 3,958 times, according to Google Scholar (as of October 8 th , 2021), and the publication of articles dealing with system justification has increased exponentially since the publication of the original article (Osborne et al., 2019).What many of these publications have in common is usage of the General System Justification Scale (G-SJS, Kay & Jost, 2003). This scale has been used in different contexts, age groups, and countries. Such comparisons depend on the scale's measurement equivalence (ME) across the assessed groups and countries. ME ensures that observed differences between groups or countries are based on differences in the construct itself and are not caused by improper translation or different understanding of items by different participant groups (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). To the extent that the (often implicit) assumption of ME is violated, the validity of the conclusions drawn from comparisons may be compromised. However, although key for cross-group comparisons, ME of the G-SJS has rarely been examined, one exception being Vargas-Salfate et al. ( 2018) who tested the ME for a shortened scale. The aim of this article was to take a first step into filling this gap by assessing the measure...

Kurzfassung Unternehmen erwarten durch den Einsatz intuitiver Bedienkonzepte ökonomische, technische und nutzerorientierte Vorteile. Das Zentrum für Mechatronik und Automatisierungstechnik (ZeMA) und die LAP GmbH Laser Applikationen haben eine Studie zur Auswahl neuer Bedienkonzepte durchgeführt. In der Studie wurden die Effektivität, Effizienz und Nutzerfreundlichkeit der Bedienung laserbasierter Montageassistenzsysteme analysiert. Eine Smartwatch, ein Armband mit Gestensteuerung und eine Sprachsteuerung wurden mit einer Infrarot (IR)-Fernbedienung verglichen.