Positive downstream indirect reciprocity scale (PoDIRS–6): Construction and psychometric characteristics

Abstract

Downstream indirect reciprocity (DIR) is a behavior taking the form of a reaction to an individual’s kindness or reluctance towards a third party. The literature shows that the concept of DIR may be understood in many different systems of assessing an individual’s social exchange, retributive justice, religious belief systems, rudimentary moral systems, and general philosophical treatment, as well as from a natural selection and evolutionary approach. Given the importance of an empirically based examination of DIR, the aim of the current research carried out through Studies 1–5 was fourfold: (a) develop a reliable and psychometrically sound Downstream Indirect Reciprocity Scale (DIRS); (b) establish and examine the factor structure of the DIRS and its statistical properties, using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) (Study 1); (c) assess the relationship between the observed measures and latency factor of DIR through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (Studies 2–5); (d) measure the internal consistency and nomological validity (Studies 2–5). Although the first assumption consisted in constructing a questionnaire that would measure both positive and negative aspects of downstream reciprocity, the outcomes of the EFA and CFA confirmed the final version of the scale that assesses only the positive dimension of DIR (Positive Downstream Indirect Reciprocity Scale; PoDIRS-6). In fact, the EFA showed the one factor structure of the new measure, and the findings of the CFAs indicated that it meets the criteria for good fit. All of the analyses conducted defined a preliminary nomological network of convergent constructs (gratitude, life satisfaction, religiosity, and moral concerns). The PoDIRS-6 is the first scale designed to assess a set of ideas that are expressed in the belief that an individual who has done something good might get help from other people in the future. It is encouraged that a questionnaire be developed which will measure the belief that human actions can be punished or reproved when they are negative and morally bad (Negative Downstream Indirect Reciprocity Scale; NeDIRS).

A Preliminary Validation of the Polish Version of the Social Media Fatigue Scale

“…The general threshold values of the most common fit indices were used to estimate the model: CMIN/DF less than 3; Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI), and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) more than 0.9; 55 Root Mean Square Errors of Approximation (RMSEA) less than or equal to 0.06; LO and HI between 0.05 and 0.08; PCLOSE higher than or equal to 0.05 and lower than or equal to 1; CN 0.05 and CN 0.01 higher than or equal to 200. 56 The analysis yielded a marginal fit of the model to the data (CMIN/DF = 4.58; GFI = 0.925; AGFI = 0.897; CFI = 0.912; RMSEA = 0.071; LO 90 = 0.064; HI 90 = 0.078; PCLOSE = 0.000; HOELTER 0.05 = 196; HOELTER 0.01 = 0.215). Although some fit indices presented acceptable or reasonable levels, some others showed a mediocre fit.…”

Creating social value through operational supply chain transparency

“…(0–100 scale) to test whether the manipulation was successful. Subsequently, we measured consumer‐perceived IR, with the scale design mainly referring to the way (Szcześniak et al, 2020) measure downstream IR. Questions were applied: “I would love to do something for a business involved in [helping farmers program]; it is significant for a business to be involved in [helping farmers program]; I would love to encourage a business to be involved in [helping farmers program]; how willing are you to buy products from this business involved in [helping farmers program].” A 1–7 point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) was used for the first three items of the scale, and a 0–100 scale was used for the last item.…”

“…Indirect downstream reciprocity opens the black box between transparency in inclusive supply chains and WPP. Downstream IR means that B first releases goodwill to C, and after A observes B's “helpful” behavior, A will be motivated to reciprocate B's goodwill or rewards (Chalub et al, 2006; Nowak & Sigmund, 1998; Szcześniak et al, 2020). It explains the phenomenon of people paying a monetary price for helping unrelated strangers (Nowak & Sigmund, 2005; Thielmann et al, 2021; van Dijk & De Dreu, 2021).…”

Do you reap what you sow? Driving mechanism of supply chain transparency on consumers' indirect reciprocity

“…In upstream reciprocity, B first accepts the kindness of A and then transmits it to C (Bartlett and DeSteno, 2006 ). Downstream indirect reciprocity is that B releases generosity to C first, and after A observes this generosity, A inspires kindness or rewards to B (Nowak and Sigmund, 1998 ; Chalub et al, 2006 ; Szcześniak et al, 2020 ). Upstream indirect reciprocity facilitates the virtuous circle of generosity, whereas downstream indirect reciprocity does not (Nowak and Roch, 2007 ).…”

“…Compassion has been a hot topic in psychology research for the past 30 years (Gilbert, 2017 ; Szcześniak et al, 2020 ). Human compassion is a cognitive process involving reflection on the past and predicting future behavior (Gilbert, 2019 ).…”