Description
FSA items assess beliefs surrounding antilocution (derogatory speech), and more behavior-based items concern
both indirect discrimination and more direct avoidance.
Sample
A pilot sample comprised 102 high school students. Then a larger, Canadian sample provided responses that
the authors used to derive their final items using factor analysis. This sample included 231 participants (151
female): 109 undergraduates and 122 adults recruited from local institutions, including psychiatric hospital per-
sonnel, small businesses, and other health and educational institutions. The mean age of the sample was 31 years
(range 16 /C065 years). Participant responses were used to conduct an exploratory factor analysis, yielding three
different dimensions (described below), and 29 final items. The noted Rupp, Vodanovich, and Crede ´(2005)
follow-up study replicates the basic factor structure with two new, non-Canadian samples. The scale has been
validated in French (Parisian, as well as Que ´becois), German, Mandarin, and Turkish (Fraboni, December 6, 2012,
personal communication).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
The Cronbach alpha coefficient for the overall scale was .86 for the scale development study. Alpha coefficients
for the three factors were .76, .65, and .77, respectively ( Fraboni et al., 1990 ).
A subsequent validation study, by different authors ( Rupp et al., 2005 ), found similar alpha coefficients for
each of the three factors (.75, .61, and .77). Partly because subscale alphas were lower than the overall alpha, these
authors proposed a slightly modified version, changing the alpha coefficients somewhat (to .79, .76, and .70) and
better reflecting the authors’ original intent to measure both affective and cognitive bases of ageism.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
The original study reported significant correlation ( r5.40) between the FSA and the Acceptance of Others
Scale (AOS; Fey, 1955 ), as well as a significant negative correlation with the Facts on Aging Quiz (FAQ; Palmore,
1977 ). This latter result suggests that increased ageist attitudes predict lower knowledge of elders, which is in
line with other work showing that prejudice derives from a lack of target-group knowledge ( Pettigrew & Tropp,
2008 ).
Divergent/Discriminant
Men score more highly than women on the FSA ( Fraboni et al., 1990 ). Additionally, younger raters score high-
er than older raters ( Rupp et al., 2005 ).
The original study showed that the FSA does not correlate with the Crowne and Marlow (1964) scale of social
desirability. In follow-up work ( Rupp et al., 2005 ), the FSA cognitive components correlated more strongly with
pre-existing ageism measures than did the affective components, supporting the original authors’ claim that the
FSA represents a more complete (i.e., both affective and cognitive) measure. Six of the 29 total items were
reverse-coded, presumably to minimize response bias.
Construct/Factor Analytic
As per Fraboni et al. (1990) , three factors underlie the FSA structure: attitudinal beliefs surrounding antiloction ,
and more behavior-based items concerning indirect discrimination , and more direct avoidance. The authors did
suggest that the use of subscales may not be completely warranted, given a lack of independence between the
three factors, as well as their representing ‘theoretically additive constructs.’
The separate study by Rupp et al. (2005) mostly validated the three-factor measure, via confirmatory factor
analysis. As noted, this study proposed a slightly revised version, with fewer items and modified factor names
labeled respectively, ‘stereotypes,’ ‘separation,’ and ‘affective attitudes.’ Rupp et al. argued that these changes
would better reflect the original authors’ intent to measure cognitive and affective bases of ageism.708 24. MEASURES OF STEREOTYPING AND PREJUDICE: BAROMETERS OF BIAS
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT