the a z of social research

Find My Rep

The A-Z of Social Research A Dictionary of Key Social Science Research Concepts

Robert Lee Miller - Queen's University Belfast, UK
John D Brewer - Trinity College, Ireland
Description

Have you ever wondered what a concise, comprehensive book providing critical guidance to the whole expanse of social science research methods and issues might look like? The A-Z is a collection of 94 entries ranging from qualitative research techniques to statistical testing and the practicalities of using the Internet as a research tool. Alphabetically arranged in accessible, reader-friendly formats, the shortest entries are 800 words long and the longest are 3000. Most entries are approximately 1500 words in length and are supported by suggestions for further reading. The book:

- Answers the demand for a practical, fast and concise introduction to the key concepts and methods in social research

- Supplies students with impeccable information that can be used in essays, exams and research projects

- Demystifies a field that students often find daunting

This is a refreshing book on social research methods, which understands the pressures that modern students face in their work-load and seeks to supply an authoritative study guide to the field. It should fulfil a long-standing need in undergraduate research methods courses for an unpatronising, utterly reliable aid to making sense of research methods. Abduction and Retroduction Action Research A Case Study

`I think the book is likely to appeal to a wider audience than students, as medical colleagues and those less familiar with social research attempt to find out more about the terms and concepts they encounter' - Medical Sociology News

An innovative and engage approach to social research

I like this book. There are some interesting sections e.g. Grounded theory. However the layout is not easy yo navigate - topics are not necessarily where you would expect to find them.

This text provides concise definitions of terminology encountered by students undertaking research. The text would benefit from updating some of the suggestions for further reading.

this book is not up to date in my opinion...needs a revised edition

A very useful reference point for students and novice researchers.

This is fantastic. If a student feels lost, confused, bemused this clear A-Z of social science research methods and issues will stop the terrified tremors of 'I just don't understand'. Practical and demystifying.

Terminology that ALL researchers need!

Preview this book

For instructors.

Please select a format:

Select a Purchasing Option

Electronic Order Options VitalSource Amazon Kindle Google Play eBooks.com Kobo

Internet Archive Audio

This Just In
Grateful Dead
Old Time Radio
78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
Audio Books & Poetry
Computers, Technology and Science
Music, Arts & Culture
News & Public Affairs
Spirituality & Religion
Radio News Archive

Flickr Commons
Occupy Wall Street Flickr
NASA Images
Solar System Collection
Ames Research Center

All Software
Old School Emulation
MS-DOS Games
Historical Software
Classic PC Games
Software Library
Kodi Archive and Support File
Vintage Software
CD-ROM Software
CD-ROM Software Library
Software Sites
Tucows Software Library
Shareware CD-ROMs
Software Capsules Compilation
CD-ROM Images
ZX Spectrum
DOOM Level CD

Smithsonian Libraries
FEDLINK (US)
Lincoln Collection
American Libraries
Canadian Libraries
Universal Library
Project Gutenberg
Children's Library
Biodiversity Heritage Library
Books by Language
Additional Collections

Prelinger Archives
Democracy Now!
Occupy Wall Street
TV NSA Clip Library
Animation & Cartoons
Arts & Music
Computers & Technology
Cultural & Academic Films
Ephemeral Films
Sports Videos
Videogame Videos
Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

Wayback Machine (iOS)
Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

Explore the Collections
Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

The A-Z of social research : a dictionary of key social science research concepts

Bookreader item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.

Graphic Violence
Explicit Sexual Content
Hate Speech
Misinformation/Disinformation
Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

2 Favorites

Better World Books

DOWNLOAD OPTIONS

No suitable files to display here.

IN COLLECTIONS

Uploaded by station47.cebu on October 8, 2020

The A-Z of Social Research A Dictionary of Key Social Science Research Concepts

Robert Lee Miller - Queen's University Belfast, UK
John D Brewer - Trinity College, Ireland
Description
Author(s) / Editor(s)

`A detailed and valuable addition to the literature that will be a very useful resource for lecturers, as well as having a wide appeal among students' - Tim May, University of Salford

- Answers the demand for a practical, fast and concise introduction to the key concepts and methods in social research

- Supplies students with impeccable information that can be used in essays, exams and research projects

- Demystifies a field that students often find daunting

An innovative and engage approach to social research

I like this book. There are some interesting sections e.g. Grounded theory. However the layout is not easy yo navigate - topics are not necessarily where you would expect to find them.

This text provides concise definitions of terminology encountered by students undertaking research. The text would benefit from updating some of the suggestions for further reading.

this book is not up to date in my opinion...needs a revised edition

A very useful reference point for students and novice researchers.

Terminology that ALL researchers need!

Preview this book

Robert lee miller, john d. brewer.

John D. Brewer is President of the British Sociological Association and Sixth-Century Professor of Sociology and former Head of Department (2004-2007) at Aberdeen University, moving from Queen’s University Belfast in July 2004. He was Head of the School of Sociology and Social Policy at Queen’s between 1993-2002. He has held visiting appointments at Yale University (1989), St John’s College Oxford (1992), Corpus Christi College Cambridge (2002) and the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University (2003). He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts (elected 1998), an Academician in the Academy of Social Sciences... More About Author

For instructors

Purchasing options.

Please select a format:

Order from:

Buy from SAGE

Related Products

SAGE Research Methods is a research methods tool created to help researchers, faculty and students with their research projects. SAGE Research Methods links over 175,000 pages of SAGE’s renowned book, journal and reference content with truly advanced search and discovery tools. Researchers can explore methods concepts to help them design research projects, understand particular methods or identify a new method, conduct their research, and write up their findings. Since SAGE Research Methods focuses on methodology rather than disciplines, it can be used across the social sciences, health sciences, and more.

A-Z of Social Research

Dictionary of key social science research concepts, by john d. brewer and miller, robert l..

0 Want to read
0 Currently reading
0 Have read

My Reading Lists:

Use this Work

Create a new list

My book notes.

My private notes about this edition:

Check nearby libraries

Library.link

Buy this book

This edition doesn't have a description yet. Can you add one ?

Showing 3 featured editions. View all 3 editions?

Add another edition?

Book Details

The physical object, community reviews (0).

Created October 17, 2022

Wikipedia citation

Copy and paste this code into your Wikipedia page. Need help ?

Items related to The A-Z of Social Research: A Dictionary of Key Social...

The a-z of social research: a dictionary of key social science research concepts - softcover.

9780761971337: The A-Z of Social Research: A Dictionary of Key Social Science Research Concepts

This specific ISBN edition is currently not available.

About this title
About this edition

`A detailed and valuable addition to the literature that will be a very useful resource for lecturers, as well as having a wide appeal among students′ - Tim May, University of Salford

- Answers the demand for a practical, fast and concise introduction to the key concepts and methods in social research

- Supplies students with impeccable information that can be used in essays, exams and research projects

- Demystifies a field that students often find daunting

"synopsis" may belong to another edition of this title.

"About this title" may belong to another edition of this title.

Publisher SAGE Publications Ltd
Publication date 2003
ISBN 10 0761971335
ISBN 13 9780761971337
Binding Paperback
Edition number 1
Number of pages 346
Editor Miller Robert Lee , Brewer John D.

Convert currency

Shipping: US$ 11.14 From United Kingdom to U.S.A.

Add to Basket

Other Popular Editions of the Same Title

Featured edition.

ISBN 10: 0761971327 ISBN 13: 9780761971320 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2003 Hardcover

Top Search Results from the AbeBooks Marketplace

The a-z of social research: a dictionary of key social science research concepts.

Book Description Paperback / softback. Condition: New. New copy - Usually dispatched within 4 working days. Seller Inventory # B9780761971337

More information about this seller | Contact seller

Book Description Condition: New. PRINT ON DEMAND Book; New; Fast Shipping from the UK. No. book. Seller Inventory # ria9780761971337_lsuk

Book Description PF. Condition: New. Seller Inventory # 6666-IUK-9780761971337

Book Description Paperback / softback. Condition: New. This item is printed on demand. New copy - Usually dispatched within 5-9 working days. Seller Inventory # C9780761971337

THE A-Z OF SOCIAL RESEARCH: A DI

Book Description Condition: New. New. In shrink wrap. Looks like an interesting title! 1.37. Seller Inventory # Q-0761971335

The A-Z of Social Research

Book Description Taschenbuch. Condition: Neu. This item is printed on demand - it takes 3-4 days longer - Neuware -`A detailed and valuable addition to the literature that will be a very useful resource for lecturers, as well as having a wide appeal among students' - Tim May, University of SalfordHave you ever wondered what a concise, comprehensive book providing critical guidance to the whole expanse of social science research methods and issues might look like The A-Z is a collection of 94 entries ranging from qualitative research techniques to statistical testing and the practicalities of using the Internet as a research tool. Alphabetically arranged in accessible, reader-friendly formats, the shortest entries are 800 words long and the longest are 3000. Most entries are approximately 1500 words in length and are supported by suggestions for further reading. The book:- Answers the demand for a practical, fast and concise introduction to the key concepts and methods in social research- Supplies students with impeccable information that can be used in essays, exams and research projects- Demystifies a field that students often find dauntingThis is a refreshing book on social research methods, which understands the pressures that modern students face in their work-load and seeks to supply an authoritative study guide to the field. It should fulfil a long-standing need in undergraduate research methods courses for an unpatronising, utterly reliable aid to making sense of research methods. 362 pp. Englisch. Seller Inventory # 9780761971337

Book Description Condition: New. Book is in NEW condition. Seller Inventory # 0761971335-2-1

The A-Z of Social Research : A Dictionary of Key Social Science Research Concepts

Book Description Taschenbuch. Condition: Neu. nach der Bestellung gedruckt Neuware - Printed after ordering - `A detailed and valuable addition to the literature that will be a very useful resource for lecturers, as well as having a wide appeal among students' - Tim May, University of SalfordHave you ever wondered what a concise, comprehensive book providing critical guidance to the whole expanse of social science research methods and issues might look like The A-Z is a collection of 94 entries ranging from qualitative research techniques to statistical testing and the practicalities of using the Internet as a research tool. Alphabetically arranged in accessible, reader-friendly formats, the shortest entries are 800 words long and the longest are 3000. Most entries are approximately 1500 words in length and are supported by suggestions for further reading. The book:- Answers the demand for a practical, fast and concise introduction to the key concepts and methods in social research- Supplies students with impeccable information that can be used in essays, exams and research projects- Demystifies a field that students often find dauntingThis is a refreshing book on social research methods, which understands the pressures that modern students face in their work-load and seeks to supply an authoritative study guide to the field. It should fulfil a long-standing need in undergraduate research methods courses for an unpatronising, utterly reliable aid to making sense of research methods. Seller Inventory # 9780761971337

Book Description Condition: New. Dieser Artikel ist ein Print on Demand Artikel und wird nach Ihrer Bestellung fuer Sie gedruckt. This refreshing book on social research methods understands the pressures that modern students face in their work-load and supplies an authoritative study guide to the field. It will fulfil a long-standing need in undergraduate research methods courses for . Seller Inventory # 447058213

Search Menu
Advance articles
Editor's Choice
Author Guidelines
Submission Site
Open Access
About The British Journal of Social Work
About the British Association of Social Workers
Editorial Board
Advertising and Corporate Services
Journals Career Network
Self-Archiving Policy
Dispatch Dates
Journals on Oxford Academic
Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

< Previous

The A–Z of Social Research, Robert Miller and John Brewer (eds), London, Sage, 2003, pp. xv + 346, 0 7619 7132 7, £60 hdbk, 0 7619 7133 5, £19.99 pbk

Article contents
Figures & tables
Supplementary Data

David Berridge, The A–Z of Social Research, Robert Miller and John Brewer (eds), London, Sage, 2003, pp. xv + 346, 0 7619 7132 7, £60 hdbk, 0 7619 7133 5, £19.99 pbk, The British Journal of Social Work , Volume 34, Issue 4, June 2004, Pages 613–614, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bch078

Permissions Icon Permissions

Article PDF first page preview

Email alerts, citing articles via.

Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

Online ISSN 1468-263X
Print ISSN 0045-3102
Copyright © 2024 British Association of Social Workers
About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Institutional account management
Rights and permissions
Get help with access
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Social Acceptance Scale—development of an instrument for the differentiated measurement of social acceptance in agricultural livestock farming

S.I. : SocialLab II
Open access
Published: 16 April 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

Nadine R. Gier-Reinartz ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0873-7747 1 na1 &
Regina Harms ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0000-3988-3937 1 na1

This paper presents the development and validation of the Social Acceptance Scale (SAS), an instrument designed to measure social acceptance, particularly in transformative sectors like agricultural livestock farming. Recognizing the need for a nuanced acceptance scale, various facets of acceptance across a three-level continuum were delineated, spanning from opposition to commitment, encompassing eight distinct items. The SAS's creation and validation process included the conceptual and empirical testing of four validity types: content validity, face validity, construct validity, and criterion validity. Content and face validity involved construct definition, item generation, iterative review, and pilot testing to ensure theoretical soundness. Empirical testing encompassed construct validity through statistical validation and assessments of factorial and convergent validity. Furthermore, criterion validity was explored by examining associations with related constructs, enhancing the SAS's external applicability. In conclusion, this paper introduces the SAS as a tool to measure social acceptance within transformative sectors. It underscores the necessity for a comprehensive acceptance scale, offering a detailed account of its development and validation. The discussion section acknowledges limitations and outlines potential directions for future research in this domain.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

The transition towards sustainable consumption represents a pivotal sociopolitical imperative, as underscored prominently within the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations 2016 ). This transition inherently entails a profound societal metamorphosis, necessitating the collective realization of effective strategies to fulfill all 17 Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations 2016 ), as evidenced by recent studies (Garcia-Cuerva et al. 2016 ; Baur et al. 2022 ). Hence, the pivotal determinant of attaining this transformation lies in securing widespread social acceptance (Ingold et al. 2019 ).

In the realm of various sectors, the agricultural livestock production industry has long attracted criticism from diverse stakeholders (Christoph-Schulz et al. 2018 ). Presently, this industry is experiencing a transformation process, notably marked by a societal shift away from traditional meat products towards protein alternatives (European Commission 2016 ; Ladak and Anthis 2022 ). Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the prevailing criticism and the widely presumed discontentment with agricultural livestock farming do not consistently translate into a corresponding reduction in meat consumption among the majority of the population residing in Germany (Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung 2022 ). This observation underscores a noteworthy phenomenon often referred to as the “intention-behavior gap,” wherein survey respondents express disapproval of agricultural livestock farming but fail to align their everyday consumption behavior accordingly (Vermeir and Verbeke 2006 ; Statistisches Bundesamt et al. 2022 ).

One plausible explanation for this disparity may stem from the absence of pertinent, context-specific information at crucial points within the purchase decision-making process (Frank and Brock 2018 ). Nevertheless, an alternative explanation could be rooted in a constrained operationalization of the acceptance construct, both theoretically and methodologically. Notably, contemporary acceptance research reveals a noteworthy diversity in the interpretation of the concept of acceptance, with varying synonyms such as acquiescence, approval, and conditional acceptance being espoused (Lucke 1995 ; Sauer et al. 2005 ; Schäfer and Keppler 2013 ). Consequently, relying on single-item measurements of this construct (e.g., “I accept agricultural livestock farming”) may introduce a potential bias into the measurement process, as it fails to elucidate the specific facets of acceptance being assessed.

Nevertheless, one might inquire about the necessity for yet another acceptance scale, given the existence of numerous studies that have effectively quantified acceptance in various domains, such as policy instruments (Kammermann and Ingold 2019 ), climate protection strategies (Engler et al. 2021 ), renewable energies (Westerlund 2020 ; Baur et al. 2022 ), wastewater reuse (Faria and Naval 2022 ), or food (Siegrist 2008 ). For instance, previous quantitative research has primarily concentrated on technology or innovation acceptance (Davis 1989 ). However, upon closer examination of these specific application areas, it becomes evident that their primary focus pertains to usage and actionable aspects, a perspective not readily applicable to non-consumable, social acceptance, such as the acceptance of agricultural livestock farming. In this broader sense, “acceptance” seems to emerge as a multidimensional construct encompassing attitudes and actions in diverse forms (Lucke 1995 ; Hofinger 2001 ; Sauer et al. 2005 ; Schäfer and Keppler 2013 ). Consequently, a finer granularity in measurement may prove advantageous in ensuring the accurate and externally valid assessment of acceptance, particularly by discerning the different states of acceptance concerning attitudes and actions.

To address the need for a comprehensive measure of social acceptance, this study introduces the Social Acceptance Scale (SAS), aiming to encompass various dimensions of acceptance within transformative sectors, exemplified by agricultural livestock farming. The SAS employs graded statements to quantitatively assess social acceptance and offers a structured framework for evaluating acceptance across diverse dimensions.

The paper discusses the development and validation processes of the SAS, following recognized validation methods. Four validity types, as advocated by international test standards (American Psychological Association 1954 ), are tested to ensure the scale's robustness. At first, the content validity (Sect. 2.1 ) and face validity (Sect. 2.2 ) are addressed by outlining the scale's development process, theoretical foundations, item generation, iterative reviews, and piloting, culminating in the final scale formulation (Sect. 3 ). The subsequent phase involves empirical testing to evaluate construct validity and criterion validity through statistical analyses. Within construct validity (Sect. 4.1 ), factorial validity is examined through statistical validation, along with measures of convergent validity. Criterion validity (Sect. 4.2 ) explores the scale's associations with relevant constructs, enhancing external generalizability. The paper concludes by discussing limitations encountered during the SAS's development and validation and suggests avenues for future research (Sect. 5 ).

2 Evaluating the validity of the theoretical framework

To evaluate the internal validity of the SAS, two distinct types of validity assessments were conducted. First, content validity was established based on the conceptual and operational decisions made during the scale's development process. Subsequently, a secondary form of validity, known as face validity, was assessed through iterative expert and consumer evaluations.

2.1 Content validity-definition and theoretical basis

Content validity pertains to the extent to which a measurement instrument or test accurately and comprehensively encompasses the content it is designed to evaluate (American Psychological Association 1954 ). It ensures that the items are pertinent, representative, and sufficiently comprehensive to appraise the construct or concept under consideration effectively. Content validity represents a qualitative facet of validity assessment, necessitating an evaluation grounded in formal and conceptual definitions as it cannot be quantified objectively through statistical measures (Cronbach and Meehl 1955 ; Moosbrugger and Kelava 2020 ). In the subsequent sections, we elucidate the facets contributing to content validity by defining the central construct of “acceptance” and reviewing its theoretical underpinnings as established through prior research.

2.1.1 Definition

In order to establish a robust foundation for the acceptance construct within the SAS, an extensive review of existing literature in acceptance research was undertaken. This comprehensive examination revealed individual dimensions that would form the foundational structure of the SAS.

Acceptance is a term often associated with affirmative consent and is linked to words such as accept, acknowledge, agree, affirm, approve, or endorse (Lucke 1995 ; Schäfer and Keppler 2013 ). The interchangeable use of these terms highlights the absence of a universally defined concept of acceptance in everyday language, leaving room for diverse interpretations.

To provide a theoretical underpinning for our understanding of the acceptance construct, we draw significantly from the work of Lucke ( 1995 ), who has historically and theoretically conceptualized acceptance. As such, this paper adopts a relatively broad conceptualization of acceptance, defining it as the likelihood that specific opinions, actions, proposals, and decisions will receive explicit or implicit approval from a discernible group of individuals, with the understanding that this approval can be reasonably relied upon in certain circumstances (Lucke 1995 ). In this context, acceptance occurs when an individual (referred to as the acceptance subject) embraces something (the acceptance object) within a defined framework or under specific initial conditions (the acceptance context; Lucke 1995 ).

Acceptance, being a multifaceted construct, can be divided into various forms, including attitudes, observable actions, and specific values, with the latter dimension sometimes considered a component of the attitude dimension (Schäfer and Keppler 2013 ). Attitude refers to the positive or negative orientation towards the acceptance object, accompanied by a specific intention to take action (Lucke 1995 ; Schäfer and Keppler 2013 ). On the other hand, action encompasses observable behaviors, which can also manifest through omission in the form of tacit approval (Lucke 1995 ; Sauer et al. 2005 ; Schäfer and Keppler 2013 ).

In the context of societal behavior and agricultural livestock farming, it is particularly relevant to differentiate between the forms of acceptance based on attitudes and actions. As explained in the introduction, this differentiation becomes important because previous surveys consistently reveal a notable disparity between expressed attitudes towards agricultural livestock farming and actual behavioral patterns (Vermeir and Verbeke 2006 ; Statistisches Bundesamt et al. 2022 ). Given these circumstances, measuring both the attitude and action components of social acceptance regarding agricultural livestock farming is prudent. Since the definitional groundwork on acceptance and its components align with the intention-behavior gap in consumer behavior in agricultural livestock farming, we can reasonably assume the presence of content validity.

2.1.2 Theoretical basis

Having identified the constituent elements that define acceptance, it is valuable, from a theoretical perspective, to explore how this definition can be applied in contexts similar to the broad domain of social acceptance. Acceptance is a universal phenomenon with relevance across various domains, and it serves as a subject of inquiry in numerous research areas. Consequently, a wealth of studies exists that focus on the acceptance of diverse phenomena, including policy instruments (Kammermann and Ingold 2019 ), climate protection strategies (Engler et al. 2021 ), renewable energies (Westerlund 2020 ; Baur et al. 2022 ), wastewater reuse (Faria and Naval 2022 ), and food (Siegrist 2008 ), among others.

Within this context, noteworthy contributions have emerged from studies that initially embraced the concept of acceptance based on Lucke's definition and also captured the dynamics of change towards social acceptance, especially within the context of transformative industries (Hofinger 2001 ; Sauer et al. 2005 ; Schäfer and Keppler 2013 ). These studies provide valuable insights into the nuances of acceptance, particularly as it evolves in response to changing societal and environmental conditions.

Building upon qualitative research, the concept of acceptance can be further elaborated by distinguishing between multiple levels of acceptance or non-acceptance (Hofinger 2001 ; Sauer et al. 2005 ). These levels encompass various manifestations of both attitude and action components. In alignment with the framework proposed by Sauer et al. ( 2005 ), these types are defined as follows:

Opposition: Very high non-acceptance, which is expressed, among other things, in active actions directed against the acceptance object.

Rejection: Strong non-acceptance, expressed, among other things, in indirect behavior in everyday life or verbal expressions.

Indecision: Indecisiveness results from a lack of sufficiently active engagement with the subject, so no clear classification of the acceptance object can be made.

Indifference: Lack of subjective concern, so there is neither opinion on the subject nor interest in it due to a lack of engagement.

Sufferance: Very low level of acceptance, arises due to power interventions, and thus manifests itself primarily through inactivity due to a lack of alternative actions.

Arrangement: Low acceptance, linked to conditions, and only arises after a substantive discussion of the issue.

Agreement: High acceptance based on inner conviction, with no active action taken for this purpose apart from conscious support.

Commitment: Very high acceptance based on inner conviction, which is expressed primarily in active actions to promote the acceptance object.

Based on a synthesis of prior foundational research (Hofinger 2001 ) and related constructs such as tolerance (Walzer 1998 ; Forst 2013 ; Pollack et al. 2014 ), the various types of acceptance can be illustrated as a three-level continuum (Fig. 1 ). Within this framework, the evolution of acceptance can progress in the direction of increased acceptance or non-acceptance. Intermediate levels within this continuum represent a “form of suppression” and indicate a relatively lower degree of acceptance, which can manifest at either the action or the attitude level. Given the empirical utilization of this definition in numerous studies and its ability to distinguish similar forms of acceptance, the theoretical categorization into eight acceptance types along this three-level continuum appears to be both content valid and conceptually robust.

Eight acceptance types along a three-level continuum

The outermost levels, comprising opposition and rejection at one end and agreement and commitment at the other, denote the extreme points of the continuum, signifying non-acceptance and high acceptance, respectively. In contrast, levels 3 through 6, encompassing indecision, indifference, sufferance, and arrangement, situated in the middle, represent varying degrees of low acceptance. Importantly, these intermediate levels incorporate both non-acceptance and acceptance components, thus blending positive and negative aspects. Consequently, they can be interpreted as indicative of a low level of acceptance and signify transitional stages towards either higher acceptance or non-acceptance. Depending on whether the focus is on the action or attitude dimension, these stages may be arranged differently, and thus, they are not presented linearly on a continuous spectrum.

2.2 Face validity—item generation and piloting

Face validity serves as a method of evaluating the extent to which a measurement or assessment tool, on the surface, appears to measure its intended construct (American Psychological Association 1954 ). It relies on the judgments of experts or individuals who are likely to utilize the measurement instrument, seeking to determine whether the assessment “appears” to measure what it claims to measure.

The conceptualization of a scale with multiple types and levels offers the advantage of enabling a more nuanced and sensitive assessment of transformation processes. This approach allows for the documentation of variations within each type and shifts along the three-level continuum. According to traditional scale development processes (e.g., Brakus et al. 2009 ), a scale should measure a construct of interest using multiple items, which can later be aggregated into a latent variable to capture the multidimensional content comprehensively. However, in the case of acceptance, it is apparent from theoretical considerations that distinct, concrete forms of acceptance can be delineated. Consequently, adhering to the traditional scale design would require the creation of multiple subscales, each consisting of multiple items. Given the clear differentiation of the various forms of acceptance based on their action and attitude components, an alternative approach utilizing single items is also a viable consideration (Allen et al. 2022 ). However, in this scenario, ensuring that each type of acceptance is accurately and validly assessed with a single item becomes paramount.

While initial attempts have been made to assess acceptance tendencies using a single item (Gier and Krampe 2019 ), greater differentiation is still needed to align more comprehensively with the theoretical concept of acceptance. Adopting a scale featuring only one item per acceptance type would be more efficient in terms of time and, consequently, more satisfactory for the participants (Allen et al. 2022 ). The primary rationale behind this choice is to mitigate the risk of ambiguity, where items are associated not only with a single acceptance type but also multiple constructs or other constructs (Allen et al. 2022 ). This risk is relatively high, particularly because the acceptance construct overlaps with other constructs, such as tolerance. Hence, the decision was made to create only one item per type, ensuring that each type is represented by a distinct item to prevent any potential contamination of the construct.

By adopting this approach, the utmost consideration is to ensure that the items are as unambiguous as possible in their representation of the diverse types of acceptance. To evaluate this alternative approach to scale development and further enhance the content validity of the SAS, a comprehensive assessment of face validity was conducted. During the item generation phase, based on the theoretical model, we elaborate on how face validity was assessed through distinct expert evaluations: input from experts on one hand and consumers as the primary acceptance subjects on the other hand. In the subsequent iterative revision process, items were systematically refined and adjusted based on feedback. Ultimately, the scale underwent testing in smaller- and three larger-scale surveys to identify any remaining issues pertaining to item clarity or relevance. The resolution of these issues collectively shaped the final SAS, ensuring its adequacy in accurately representing the content area under examination.

2.2.1 Expert evaluation

The initial draft, featuring one item per type and the acceptance continuum, was introduced in spring 2020 to experts and representatives from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), specializing in social perception of agricultural livestock farming. During this workshop-style gathering, a total of 15 individuals participated, including representatives from three NGOs focused on animal welfare and sustainability, two delegates from federal agencies, and various experts in the field. The primary objective of this meeting was to comprehensively gather and describe all facets of social acceptance, including those related to agricultural practices in livestock farming, to shape the survey design effectively. The aim was to explore all possible factors contributing to improvements or declines in social acceptance of agricultural livestock farming. Participants were asked to assess the alternative approach compared to traditional scale development processes and single-dimensional conceptualizations of acceptance.

The feedback strongly favored a nuanced assessment of acceptance across multidimensional levels. The rationale behind this preference was that consumer acceptance appears to evolve. Therefore, crafting questions that capture corresponding trends would be beneficial, even if these changes are initially subtle. This approach would enable the tracking of social perceptions of intermediate successes. Additionally, feedback indicated that the sentence structure should more closely align the attitude and action components in all items to maintain consistency, as one item had a different sentence structure, which could inadvertently introduce biases. Consequently, adjustments were made to the items and sentence structures in response to this feedback.

Throughout the development of the scale, considerable effort was invested in formulating the items in a way that allows for the interchangeability of the acceptance object. However, it is crucial to ensure that when selecting the terms to be used in this scale, there is a precise understanding of what respondents associate with the term meant to represent the acceptance object. This critical aspect was also brought to light by experts during the initial evaluation session, where it became evident that the acceptance object lacked a clear definition. It remained unclear how respondents would interpret the term used, resulting in uncertainty in evaluating the items. This central concern in the development of the SAS prompted an exhaustive examination of terminologies and a comprehensive understanding of what respondents have in mind when confronted with specific terms. Results regarding these crucial preparatory investigations can be found in Mukhamedzyanova et al. ( 2021 ). Therefore, it is imperative that when utilizing this scale in other domains, the acceptance object is rigorously defined and, above all, a comprehensive understanding is reached regarding what respondents perceive when confronted with the term used.

The selection of terminology plays a pivotal role in contributing to the validity and credibility of a scale. This aspect was particularly underscored during the second round of evaluation involving experts in October 2022. Eleven participants were involved in the workshop, including four representatives from different NGOs, distinct from those in the initial round, yet still with a shared focus on animal welfare and sustainability within the food sector. Once again, representatives from politics and academia were in attendance. The central focus remained on the ethical assessment of the survey strategy and the content related to public attitudes towards agricultural livestock farming.

Extensive deliberations centered around the labels assigned to different types of acceptance and whether some types might imply socially desirable avoidance options. These discussions once again underscored the variability in how acceptability is interpreted. This reaffirmed the decision to adopt a nuanced concept of acceptability during the development process. Furthermore, it became evident that, for future reports utilizing the scale, the term “acceptance” carries a strong semantic impact. For instance, the term “conditional acceptance” used by Sauer et al. ( 2005 ) was modified, as the original label for the acceptance type invoked such a robust understanding of acceptance that it overshadowed the actual content of this type, which denotes low acceptance of the current state, maintained only under specific conditions. To enhance face validity, the term “arrangement” was selected instead. All labels for the types and levels and the initially formulated items underwent a thorough review to prevent potential bias from socially desirable phrasings.

2.2.2 Consumer pretest and piloting

In addition to expert evaluations, the comprehension of the scale was also assessed among consumers as primary acceptance subjects and subsequent respondents of this scale. Qualitative methods were initially employed to delve into consumers' interpretations of the scale. In a qualitative pretest involving n = 15 participants (male n = 4; M age = 30.73; SD = 12.38; vegetarian/vegan n = 2), various cognitive pretesting techniques were applied to assess the comprehensibility and validity of the items and terminology. In total, four methods were employed (Lenzner et al. 2015 ):

The “think-aloud method” is a cognitive technique employed to gain insights into an individual's thought process as they undertake the survey. In this method, participants are instructed to vocalize their thoughts and articulate their cognitive processes while answering the items of the SAS. The objective was to capture the participants' inner thoughts and decision-making procedures in real-time. Each item was read aloud to the participants with the following directive: “In the following question, please tell me everything that you are thinking about or that is on your mind before answering the question. Please also say things that may seem unimportant to you.” The verbalizations revealed that participants already possessed an understanding of the various gradations, and differences between the types of acceptance were intuitively recognizable.

To assess whether participants could roughly assign the items to the acceptance levels, the “sorting technique” was employed. Participants were instructed to categorize the individual statements based on the strength of acceptance level, from non-acceptance to acceptance. Most participants were successful in ordering levels 1 and 2, as well as levels 7 and 8, to the first and last two levels of acceptance, respectively (n = 9 correct on item; n = 4 correct on level). However, the intermediate acceptance types posed more ambiguity. Depending on the criteria utilized for sorting (action or attitude), different sequences emerged. Only item 6 was most often sorted at the suggested position according to the theory (n = 7). This finding reinforced the three-level continuum outlined in the theoretical conceptualization.

In order to delve further into participants associated with specific terms, a “comprehension probing” exercise was carried out. This method is employed to assess an individual's comprehension of a particular word or text part and is intended to elicit thoughtful responses that provide insight into a deeper understanding of concepts. During the comprehension probing, critical and distinguishing aspects between the levels were examined separately to gain a linguistic understanding of participants' interpretations.

A similar objective was pursued through the use of “paraphrasing,” which was employed to explore the conceptualizations of the individual levels and differences between them (Lenzner et al. 2015 ). Participants were tasked with rephrasing the statements in their own words. Following this, participants were prompted to enumerate the points of differentiation between each statement. This exercise aimed to reconfirm the clarity of differences between the levels and types and identify the central distinguishing features emphasized by participants.

These cognitive pretests primarily served to acquire a better understanding and insight into consumers' perspectives. Formulations and terminologies could be adjusted and refined based on the insights garnered from these tests.

To quantitatively assess the scale and explore various analytical possibilities, two preliminary quantitative studies were conducted in 2020 (n = 396; M age = 35.8; SD = 15.05) and 2021 (n = 391; M age = 26.8; SD = 7.45). The results of these studies were previously presented at an international conference (Mukhamedzyanova and Gier 2021 ) and helped to evaluate the performance of the scale in real-world survey settings. The international perspective was particularly valuable for gaining insights into potential variations in the interpretation of acceptance on an international scale and for considering cultural factors.

It seems crucial to acknowledge that while acceptance is a universal concept, the differentiation of acceptance types may pose challenges when applied internationally due to potential terminological ambiguities. Therefore, it is imperative to underscore that the scale was originally developed for European and, more specifically, German language usage. Further efforts and research are warranted to explore cultural intricacies and validate the scale in other languages and cultural contexts. Lastly, throughout three extensive survey waves conducted in May and June 2021 (n = 2000; M age = 49.3; SD = 14.52), February and April 2022 (n = 2000; M age = 48.3; SD = 14.34), and July and September 2022 (n = 2004; M age = 48.3; SD = 14.26), the eight items comprising the SAS underwent various adjustments until the final items were chosen for the comprehensive validity assessment.

3 Social Acceptance Scale

In the subsequent section, we will present the final scale items of the SAS and provide instructions for their administration. Please note that the original items are in German, and the English items are translated-retranslated but not yet validated translations (Table 1 ). The individual statements within the scale are rated independently in randomized order. Each statement is assessed on an 11-point scale, ranging from 0, denoted as “Does not apply to me at all,” to 10, denoted as “Applies to me completely.” An 11-point scale was chosen to capture distinctions within individual acceptance types better. During the scale development process, the smallest scale point was designated as zero (0 to 10) based on feedback from respondents who did not agree at all with certain statements to encompass their complete disagreement.

The items within the SAS are deliberately formulated generically, allowing the acceptance object (in this case, “agricultural livestock farming”) to be interchangeable. This design ensures that the SAS can be applied to measure a wide range of socially relevant topics (e.g., energy policy). To clarify the reference object, the following information has been included in the question wording: “In the following statements, the term 'agricultural livestock farming' should be understood to mean: primarily practiced agricultural livestock farming according to legal minimum standards.” This terminology and definition were extracted from preliminary investigations (Mukhamedzyanova et al. 2021 ), and its addition ensures that respondents evaluate the same acceptance object.

3.1 Validation sample

To empirically evaluate the validity of the scale (Table 1 ), a comprehensive survey was conducted in April and May 2023, with the participation of a total of n = 2000 individuals. A market research institute facilitated the survey process. The participants were selected within the age range of 18–70 years, with specific quotas established to ensure representation across various demographic factors, including gender, age, regional origin, net household income, educational attainment, employment status, and dietary habits. These quotas were designed to align with the demographics of the German population. Minor deviations from the quotas were allowed when precise adherence was challenging.

Given the potential for socially desirable responses on the research topic, an additional sample purification process was implemented to mitigate potential biases. A social desirability scale (Kemper et al. 2012 ) was employed to identify individuals who provided excessively positive responses in a socially desirable manner (i.e., all items scored at the highest scale point). These individuals were excluded from the final sample, resulting in the removal of n = 130 cases. Additionally, individual cases were excluded to ensure the questionnaire's anonymity, particularly when there were fewer than five cases per response category (Sweeney 2002 ) for the demographic variables of gender and age (n = 2).

The revised sample consisted of n = 1,868 participants, with 48.8 % male and 51.2 % female respondents (self-assigned gender), and an average age of 47.88 years (SD = 14.45). Detailed information regarding the other demographic variables can be found in Table 2 . During the survey, the sample was stratified into four subcategories, each designed to collect specific information about a particular type of livestock (pig, cow, chicken, and chicken for egg production). The allocation of participants to these groups was conducted randomly. Additional details regarding the composition of the samples in each subsample can also be found in Table 2 .

3.2 Descriptive statistics

The descriptive analysis of the scale is presented, first for the acceptance object “agricultural livestock farming,” as defined earlier, and then separately for the four livestock categories: pig, cow, chicken, and chicken for egg production. This includes individual descriptions of the scale items, and the formation of factors based on theoretical and conceptual considerations. Footnote 1 The descriptive analysis of the SAS (Fig. 2 ) suggests some interesting findings:

In the context of the overall SAS evaluation of agricultural livestock farming, noteworthy distinctions among the SAS items (F(5.223, 9750.552) = 164.347, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.081) Footnote 2 and components (F(2.877, 5371.021) = 174.409, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.085) emerge. Notably, SAS 6 attains the highest mean score, and post-hoc analysis reveals its statistical superiority compared to SAS 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 (M Diff = 0.353 to 1.96; p < 0.001) and the three SAS components (M Diff = 0.406 to 1.468; p < 0.001). Nevertheless, it is essential to note that SAS 6 does not exhibit a statistically significant difference in comparison to SAS 3 and SAS 5. These 3 SAS items collectively signify that a substantial portion of respondents manifests a limited degree of acceptance, being trapped in a status quo situation due to various factors, such as a shortage of alternative behavioral options, ambivalence stemming from conflicting attitudes, or a temporary deferral of active non-acceptance granted in anticipation of an upcoming change. However, all three SAS items underscore a disposition characterized by diminished acceptance levels and a propensity to await forthcoming modifications.

Comparative analysis of the different livestock categories reveals that the agricultural livestock category focusing on chickens for egg production is the one with the most decreased acceptance component among all livestock categories studied (SAS acceptance: F(3, 135.4) = 1035.228, p = 0.014; η 2 = 0.006). Footnote 3 More specifically, the livestock category of chickens for egg production has significantly lower acceptance than the category of chickens for meat consumption (M Diff = – 0.48239; p = 0.031). Purely at the descriptive level, the highest score for this livestock category is found in SAS item 5, “sufferance,” in which the apparent acceptance of agricultural livestock farming with chickens for egg production appears to be based on the fact that there are no viable alternatives. This observation underscores a critical social attitude towards the acceptance of this particular livestock category.

In the context of all other forms of agricultural livestock farming, the analysis did not reveal any statistically significant differences in the SAS scores. Consequently, these distinctions must be examined and elucidated primarily at a descriptive level. Notably, some conspicuous variations emerge within agricultural livestock farming involving pigs, although they lack statistical significance. These differences manifest primarily in SAS 2 and SAS 7, which encapsulate expressions of (non-)acceptance in daily life, particularly in consumer choices such as purchase decisions. Such observations may indicate a critical acceptance status, suggesting that a considerable number of individuals have already moved beyond a mere transitional stance in their opinions and have opted for reduced consumption within this livestock category. Furthermore, agricultural livestock farming involving cows appears to exhibit the least critical acceptance status during the assessment period. Its acceptance component garners relatively high scores, with SAS 7 recording the highest mean score among all the assessed livestock categories. Nevertheless, it is imperative to emphasize that these interpretations remain exclusively descriptive, signifying no statistically significant deviations compared to the other livestock categories under investigation.

Mean values for the SAS components and items for agricultural livestock farming in general and per livestock category

These findings provide valuable insights into the public's perception of different types of agricultural livestock farming, with agricultural livestock farming with chickens for egg production and pigs appearing to face more significant challenges in terms of social acceptance.

Additionally, the assessment of the SAS for agricultural livestock farming was analyzed descriptively in relation to gender and age groups Footnote 4 (Figs. 3 and 4 ). The independent sample t-test analysis of gender groups revealed noteworthy patterns in respondents' levels of acceptance and non-acceptance Footnote 5 :

Generally, male respondents displayed significantly higher levels of acceptance of agricultural livestock farming acceptance compared to female respondents. This observation is supported by their significantly higher scores on both the acceptance component (t(1866) = – 5.207, p < 0.001, d = – 0.241) and the corresponding individual items (SAS 7: t(1866) = – 3.887, p < 0.001, d = – 0.18; SAS 8: t(1866) = – 5.198, p < 0.001, d = – 0.241).

However, it is essential to clarify that the higher rating of acceptance items among male respondents does not necessarily indicate a favorable view of agricultural livestock farming. Instead, it suggests a greater reluctance to non-acceptance, with the most pronounced agreement at the SAS 6 level. The additional significant preference for SAS 5 (t(1866) = – 2.66, p = 0.004, d = – 0.123) compared to female respondents implies a willingness to tolerate the prevailing status quo due to a perceived lack of viable alternatives.

Female respondents, on the other hand, appear to be more critical and decisive in their positions and behavior regarding non-acceptance. They achieved significantly higher scores on SAS 2 (t(1866) = 2.013, p = 0.022, d = 0.093) than male respondents. This suggests that they are more inclined to adjust their behavior in response to non-acceptance. Similar to male respondents, female respondents seem to await a change before granting a minimum level of acceptance.

Mean values for the components of SAS and items for agricultural livestock farming stratified by gender

Mean values for the components of SAS and items for agricultural livestock farming stratified by age groups

Overall, female respondents tend to exhibit a more critical and discerning assessment of social acceptance. In contrast, male respondents may be more accepting of the status quo or less likely to envision alternatives for change.

The analysis of age groups reveals distinctive patterns among different generational cohorts, highlighting significant intergenerational differences. Specifically, individuals born in 1971 and later tend to place a higher value on the intermediate component of acceptance. In contrast, individuals from the older generation, born between 1950 and 1970, exhibit higher mean scores on the acceptance component, indicating a greater inclination towards accepting practices in agricultural livestock farming. On the other hand, younger generations, especially those belonging to the millennial cohort (born between 1981 and 2000), display a more discerning and polarized attitude towards acceptance, as further elaborated below.

It is worth noting that the majority of generational cohorts show the highest mean score in scale item SAS 6, indicating a tendency towards anticipatory acceptance. However, younger cohorts demonstrate a level of critical ambiguity, as evidenced by the highest average scores in the 1981−1990 and 2001−2004 cohorts for scale item SAS 3. Additionally, within the millennial generation, there is a notable dichotomy and polarization, reflected in their high mean scores in both the non-acceptance and acceptance components, particularly in scale items SAS 1 and SAS 8. These specific items represent an active orientation characterized by either a strong rejection stance or a steadfast commitment to the object of acceptance (i.e., agricultural livestock farming).

4 Empirical validation of the scale

4.1 construct validity.

To empirically evaluate the validity of the SAS, the first step involves assessing its construct validity. Construct validity refers to the extent to which a measurement instrument accurately and effectively measures the theoretical construct or concept it intends to assess (American Psychological Association 1954 ). In this context, convergent construct validity was examined to assess how well the SAS aligns with other measurement instruments designed to measure the same underlying construct or concept, and whether they yield similar results or scores. Essentially, it explored whether different measures of the same construct demonstrate a strong positive correlation (Cronbach and Meehl 1955 ). In the case of the social acceptance construct, this study used three measures (a single-item acceptance measure, animal attitude, and political mobilization) to demonstrate that the various items and components within the construct reflect theoretically related constructs.

In addition to establishing relationships with other related constructs, the assessment of construct validity also involves exploring dimensionality. When individual items within the measurement instrument can be empirically linked to their respective subdimensions, this is known as achieving factorial validity. In the following analysis, the examination by evaluating factorial validity was initiated. Subsequently, the construct validity was assessed by examining its correlation with three constructs closely linked to the underlying dimension.

4.1.1 Factorial validity

To test whether the theoretical structure of social acceptance can be replicated with the SAS, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using the statistical software package SPSS version 29. EFA was chosen as it is a data-driven approach that does not assume a priori the number of factors. The principal axis factoring with promax rotation with Kaiser normalization was applied to identify underlying factors. Factor loadings, eigenvalues, scree plots, and the cumulative variance explained were examined to determine the appropriate number of factors to retain.

The results of the assumption testing indicated that the data met the requirements for conducting EFA. The sampling adequacy was sufficient, as evidenced by the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure for analysis (KMO = 0.716) and individual items (KMO > 0.609), and the correlation between items was suitable for factor analysis, as indicated by Bartlett's test (χ 2 = 4174.53, df = 28, p < 0.001).

The obtained eigenvalues reveal three components above Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and, in combination, explained 53.62% of the variance. The scree plot also shows an inflexion that justifies three components, leading to the final three component structure. Table 3 shows the factor loadings after rotation and communalities. The items that cluster on the same component suggest approximately the three-level continuum as theoretically proposed, except for item 6, which falls under the purview of the third component. A closer examination of its content reveals a comparatively lower degree of acceptance, conditional in nature. Consequently, it is less aptly categorized alongside the unequivocal acceptance items 7 and 8.

The unique positioning of item 6 within the SAS is implied by the results of four separate factor analyses conducted for each livestock category (Table 4 ). A three-component structure, as suggested by the scree plot, was consistently identified in all livestock categories. However, within the subsample of chickens used for egg production, the factor loading pattern of item 6 exhibited a distinctive characteristic. Specifically, it displayed simultaneous factor loadings on both the acceptance and intermediate components.

Based on the measures of factorial validity employed in our analysis, we have decided to treat item 6 as a distinct and specialized category. It represents a form of transformative acceptance in which the acceptance object is not unequivocally embraced but rather conditionally accepted, contingent upon the acceptance object undergoing desired changes to maintain acceptance.

4.1.2 Convergent validity—single-item measurement of acceptance

Our initial step in assessing convergent construct validity involved examining the correlations of individual social acceptance items and components with a single-item measurement of acceptance. This single-item measure asked participants a straightforward question: “To what extent do you agree with the following statement: I accept agricultural livestock farming?” Participants responded on a 7-point Likert scale, with the endpoints labeled as “Do not agree at all (1)” and “Fully agree (7).”

This analysis had two primary objectives. First, we aimed to investigate whether the two components, acceptance and non-acceptance, showed positive or negative correlations with participants' general perception of straightforward acceptance. Second, we sought to demonstrate that strong correlations existed at the item level with various facets of social acceptance differentiation. Such findings would suggest that a single-item acceptance measure would provide only a diluted representation of acceptance, potentially overlooking crucial nuances inherent in this multifaceted construct.

Our results revealed a significant, negative correlation between the single-item acceptance measure and the non-acceptance component (r = – 0.243, p < 0.001), as well as its constituent items, SAS 1 (r = – 0.111, p < 0.001) and SAS 2 (r = – 0.321, p < 0.001), indicating a negative association. What is particularly significant, however, is that all other SAS items exhibited significant positive correlations with the single-item acceptance measure. This suggests that the single-item acceptance measure aggregates multiple acceptance concepts, despite some of them carrying distinct and contextually nuanced meanings. Both the acceptance (r = 0.351, p < 0.001) and intermediate (r = 0.338, p < 0.001) components demonstrated positive correlations with the single-item acceptance measure, as well as with all SAS items separately (Table 5 ). The strongest correlation was observed with SAS 7 (r = 0.396, p < 0.001), with a notable correlation also evident with SAS 5 (r = 0.323, p < 0.001). Nevertheless, it is essential to acknowledge that SAS 5 represents a lower degree of acceptance, primarily due to its lack of alternatives and failure to convey the same level of acceptance as SAS 7.

4.1.3 Convergent validity—attitude and action dimension

To assess the convergent validity of the SAS, we selected two measures designed to evaluate its fundamental components: the attitude and action dimensions. In our analysis, we computed the average scores of the scale items of animal attitude and political mobilization for each participant and subsequently correlated them with the SAS components and individual SAS items.

For measuring the attitude component, we employed a modified version of the Animal Attitude Scale (AAS) (Herzog et al. 1991 ), focusing exclusively on items related to agricultural livestock farming. Footnote 6 This scale assessed individuals' attitudes towards agricultural livestock farming using a fully labeled 5-point agreement scale. Sample items included statements such as “I find people too sentimental who are against keeping animals for meat” and “The production of cheap meat, eggs, and dairy products justifies the keeping of animals in agricultural livestock farming under intensive conditions.”

To approximate the action component, we used a political mobilization scale (Moskalenko and McCauley 2009 ) designed to measure activism as a construct. Participants indicated their level of agreement on a fully labeled 5-point Likert scale with items assessing activism behaviors related to agricultural livestock farming. Examples included “It would be likely that I would donate money to an organization that advocates for agricultural livestock farming” and “It would be likely that I would volunteer for an organization that opposes agricultural livestock farming.”

Regarding attitude correlation, we hypothesized that, except for the non-acceptance component and its associated factors, all elements and components within the SAS would exhibit a positive correlation with assessments of attitude towards agricultural livestock farming. We based this hypothesis on the assumption that only the non-acceptance items overtly convey a negative perspective towards the acceptance object, which in this context is agricultural livestock farming. Therefore, we anticipated positive correlations for all other SAS items. Our correlation analysis confirmed significant positive correlations between the attitude assessment and both the acceptance and intermediate SAS components, as well as their individual items (SAS 3 to 8; Table 6 ). Notably, robust positive correlations were observed between AAS and SAS 4 (r = 0.395, p < 0.001) and SAS 5 (r = 0.419, p < 0.001). It is essential to note that the attitude scale displayed a negative correlation with the non-acceptance component of the SAS (r = – 0.102, p < 0.001). However, within their respective subcomponents, only a significant negative correlation was identified with the item of SAS 2 (r = – 0.193, p < 0.001).

The political mobilization scale was designed to capture the action component within the broader acceptance scale. We expected that the strong non-acceptance and acceptance components of the SAS would exhibit notably high correlations with the mobilization component. As anticipated, the most robust correlations were identified at the extreme ends of the SAS (SAS 1: r = 0.609, p < 0.001; SAS 8: r = 0.519, p < 0.001), as well as within the non-acceptance (r = 0.619, p < 0.001) and acceptance (r = 0.475, p < 0.001) components (Table 6 ).

It is noteworthy that all other items and the intermediate component also displayed significant positive correlations with the mobilization scale, although not as strong as those observed at the extremities of the SAS. This observation suggests that, specifically, the extreme cases could potentially serve as indicative markers for political mobilization and activism, whether in favor of or against the acceptance object.

4.2 Criterion validity and its relation to relevant measures

Criterion validity, an essential metric for evaluating the effectiveness of a test or assessment tool in predicting an individual's performance or behavior in a specific criterion or desired outcome (American Psychological Association 1954 ), quantifies the degree to which test scores are related to scores on a designated criterion. Ideally, a test demonstrates criterion validity when it can accurately predict “criterion” behavior, which refers to actions or outcomes outside the test setting.

In this study, due to the use of a comprehensive survey, we were limited to assessing concurrent validity exclusively. Concurrent validity, a subset of criterion validity, evaluates the extent to which scores obtained from a scale align with a relevant criterion measured simultaneously. The only criterion in this study that allows extrapolation to actual behavior outside the survey context relates to self-reported dietary habits, specifically whether individuals identify as vegetarian/vegan or not. To assess the concurrent validity of the SAS, a significance test was conducted to determine whether these two groups could be meaningfully differentiated based on their scores on the SAS.

With substantial sample sizes within each criterion category (non-vegetarian/non-vegan n = 1,749; vegetarian/vegan n = 119), a Welch's t-test was performed on each component and item of the SAS. The sample sizes provide a reasonable basis to assume the robustness of the underlying Welch's t-test, including independence, random sampling, and normality. Significant and practically meaningful differences between the vegetarian/vegan and non-vegetarian/non-vegan groups were observed (Table 7 ), particularly regarding the non-acceptance component (F(1, 133.99) = 130.92, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.067), as well as its two specific SAS items (SAS 1: F(1, 129.69) = 63.74, p < 0.001; η 2 = 0.044; SAS 2: F(1, 135.4) = 139.63, p < 0.001; η 2 = 0.067). In these cases, the vegetarian/vegan group displayed significantly higher scores than the non-vegetarian/non-vegan group. All other observed differences did not reach statistical significance or were associated with an effect size (η 2 ) of less than 0.01, indicating negligible practical relevance.

During the validation process, it would have been ideal to directly assess the predictive validity of the SAS concerning actual behavior. However, such an assessment was beyond the scope of the validation study. Nevertheless, the survey successfully captured certain pertinent constructs that may hold significance for acceptance among individuals and policymakers. Even though these constructs primarily reflect stated behaviors or attitudes, they have the potential to offer preliminary insights into the predictive capabilities of the SAS with regard to behavior.

In this context, three constructs were measured using validated scales, which could serve as approximations for relevant consumer behavior. These included perceived urgency (Weigel and Weigel 1978 ; Cruz and Manata 2020 ), ambivalence against meat consumption (Berndsen and Pligt 2004 ), and satisfaction with the government's performance concerning agricultural livestock farming (Proner and Proner 2011 ). To investigate whether the SAS can effectively distinguish between these constructs, we conducted median split Welch's t-tests for each SAS construct and its items. Significance levels and effect sizes were employed to assess the potential criterion validity of the SAS in approximating these constructs. The results tables are presented in the Supplementary Information (Tables S1 −S3).

4.2.1 Perceived urgency

To gain early insights into potential issues and identify critical acceptance objects in their development, it is valuable to consider perceived urgency as a criterion that the SAS could effectively differentiate. Perceived urgency was assessed using a fully labeled 5-point Likert scale, where participants were asked to rate their perceived urgency concerning agricultural livestock farming on three items (Weigel and Weigel 1978 ; Cruz and Manata 2020 ). Sample items included statements such as “The federal government will have to take tough measures to change agricultural livestock farming because few people will adjust their consumption patterns to do so” and “I would be willing to make personal sacrifices to change agricultural livestock farming, even if the immediate results of doing so are not directly apparent.”

During the reliability checks, one item had to be removed to ensure adequate internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha coefficient α > 0.7; average explained variance proportion > 0.5; and factor loadings > 0.5). The scale items were then averaged for each participant to construct the perceived urgency factor and facilitate the subsequent median split analysis (Median = 4).

The results of the Welch's t-test indicated that, despite small effect sizes, the non-acceptance and intermediate components of the SAS can effectively and significantly distinguish differences in perceived urgency concerning agricultural livestock farming. Notably, SAS 5 appears particularly effective in discriminating between individuals who perceive high or low urgency regarding agricultural livestock farming, with individuals perceiving lower urgency scoring higher on this specific item. Therefore, when perceived urgency regarding the acceptance object is high, the tolerance or acquiescence (SAS 5) tends to be lower.

4.2.2 Ambivalence against meat consumption

As discussed in the introduction, we explored the disparity between self-reported meat consumption and actual meat purchases. The criterion of vegetarian/vegan dietary already demonstrated that the SAS can effectively differentiate between vegetarian/vegan groups and meat consumers. However, an early indicator of a potential shift in meat consumption may be the perception of conflict experienced by consumers during meat consumption. To measure this perceived conflict, participants were asked to express their attitude towards eating meat on a 7-point scale, ranging from “Feel no conflict at all (1)” to “Feel maximum conflict (7).”

In analyzing the results of the median split on this item (Median = 5) using Welch's t-test, it became evident that the non-acceptance component, and more specifically, SAS 2, played a significant role in differentiating individuals in relation to this factor. Those who reported feeling a greater conflict with meat consumption scored significantly higher on these components of the SAS, and this differentiation was associated with a substantial effect size.

4.2.3 Satisfaction with the government performance in agricultural livestock farming

A critical aspect for policy considerations is the assessment of respondents' satisfaction with the government's performance in the context of agricultural livestock farming. This assessment was conducted at the beginning of this survey, with participants asked to express their level of satisfaction with the federal government's current performance regarding agricultural livestock farming using a 5-point Likert scale. However, a substantial number of respondents provided ratings at the midpoint of the scale (point 3). To ensure a more distinct analysis, cases falling within this midpoint were excluded, and the extreme cases, specifically those who rated their satisfaction at scale points 1, 2, and 4, 5, were exclusively analyzed.

Subsequently, a Welch's t-test was conducted to compare these two groups based on their satisfaction levels with government performance concerning agricultural livestock farming. The results revealed that the acceptance and indifference components of the SAS, along with their respective items, were effective in distinguishing between individuals who reported satisfaction and those who did not regarding the government's performance in this domain. Specifically, individuals who expressed satisfaction tended to score higher on the indifference and acceptance items within the SAS. However, it is noteworthy that the effect size for the SAS 6 item was less substantial compared to the intermediate and acceptance items. This implies that these particular items, particularly those within the acceptance and indifference components, hold specific relevance for policymakers aiming to assess the current satisfaction levels of respondents in the context of agricultural livestock farming and government performance.

5 Discussion

The introduced SAS of this study represents a pioneering methodology for quantifying distinctions in acceptance, offering valuable insights into the early identification of pivotal developments. This paper has elucidated the comprehensive process undertaken to develop the scale, highlighting how each phase significantly enhanced its content validity. Subsequent construct validation procedures have substantiated the scale's capacity to categorize its constituent elements in alignment with its theoretical underpinnings.

Of paramount significance for the prospective utility of the scale is the examination of criterion validity, which, within the scope of this contribution, could only be approximated using pertinent constructs. Our analysis underscores that it is chiefly the extremities of the scale that may unveil preliminary indications of critical developments, often associated with the propensity for mobilization. Particularly noteworthy in this context is the non-acceptance component, which appears to be especially relevant. We posit that longitudinal or panel surveys may facilitate the detection of critical developments or acceptance objects that may pose challenges over time.

Conversely, the intermediate component of the scale appears to denote contentment with the prevailing circumstances. Notably, the assessment of SAS 6 seems less aligned with this contentment. It may, instead, indicate a decline in satisfaction when a perceptible change is underway but has yet to translate into activism. This observation is consonant with the content of the respective scale item, suggesting a temporal divergence between the perception of change and the onset of activism.

6 Future research and limitations

Nevertheless, to affirm the applicability and predictive capability of the SAS, additional validation studies are indispensable, with a particular emphasis on scrutinizing criterion validity beyond the confines of survey responses. Unfortunately, this investigation could not be pursued within the current survey's scope, and the evaluation of potential criteria was confined to assessments conducted within the same testing session. A prospect research lies in conducting empirical behavioral studies, incorporating variables pertinent to purchasing behaviors, participation in organizational affiliations, or engagement in demonstrations against acceptance objects.

Moreover, it is imperative to explore the converse perspective, encompassing an assessment of engagement in activities aimed at fostering an understanding of agricultural livestock farming. Ideally, the SAS should find routine application in survey monitoring, thereby demonstrating its efficacy in the early detection of pivotal developments and discerning which acceptance objects carry particular social significance. This entails comparative evaluations across diverse acceptance objects in the context of agricultural livestock farming and extending the scale's utility to alternative application domains. Such a strategy permits the investigation of socially relevant thematic areas undergoing transformative processes, for instance, the energy market transformation, with the SAS serving as a tool for measuring acceptance dynamics during these transformations.

Furthermore, the SAS demonstrates its versatility by enabling the detection of changes both within scale levels and across constituent components. While the scale predominantly assesses enduring general attitudes that exhibit at least moderate stability over time, a pertinent avenue for future research resides in probing its capacity to capture short-term fluctuations, such as those observed during interventions. It is conceivable that future research may consider and validate using a shorter scale point length, potentially substituting the current 11-point scale with a 5- or 7-point scale division. To date, the scale has solely undergone evaluation based on average values aggregated across various studies; however, alternative analytical methods warrant exploration in forthcoming research endeavors. This includes exploring potential relationships between levels of acceptance and non-acceptance to detect potential imbalances that could signal shifts in social sentiment.

In conclusion, the continued validation and broad adoption of the proposed SAS within the scientific community represent critical steps towards its refinement and broader applicability, with research outcomes poised to enrich its future development and utility.

The item SAS 6 is not included in the intermediate component, as explained below in the factorial validation.

Differences between the eight SAS items and SAS components were analyzed separately with a repeated-measures ANOVA, being robust against normality violations due to the large sample size (Schmider et al. 2010 ). Since the sphericity assumption could not be assumed (items: Mauchly’s W = 0.353, χ 2 (27) = 1942.79, p < 0.001; components: Mauchly’s W = 0.935, χ 2 (5) = 125.978, p < .001) a Greenhouse–Geisser correction was applied. The post-hoc pairwise comparisons were adjusted with Bonferroni correction.

Differences between the livestock categories were analyzed with Welch’s ANOVA per SAS item and component.

A differentiation per regional origin can be found in the Supplementary Information (Fig. S1).

Only significant differences are discussed.

To assess the applicability and reliability of the scale, we evaluated internal consistency reliability using Cronbach's alpha coefficient, with the coefficients for each scale indicating satisfactory levels (α > 0.7). To further validate the single-factor structure underpinning the scales, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted. The results confirmed a single-factor structure with a proportion of average explained variance exceeding 0.5 and factor loadings greater than 0.5.

Allen MS, Iliescu D, Greiff S (2022) Single item measures in psychological science. Eur J Psychol Assess 38:1–5

Article Google Scholar

American Psychological Association (1954) Technical recommendations for psychological tests and diagnostic techniques. Psychol Bull 51:1–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0053479

Baur D, Emmerich P, Baumann MJ, Weil M (2022) Assessing the social acceptance of key technologies for the German energy transition. Energy Sustain Soc 12:1–16

Google Scholar

Berndsen M, van der Pligt J (2004) Ambivalence towards meat. Appetite 42:71–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-6663(03)00119-3

Article PubMed Google Scholar

BPB Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (2020) Einkommen privater Haushalte, Nach Einkommensgruppen (netto) und Einkommensquellen (brutto), 2018. https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/zahlen-und-fakten/soziale-situation-in-deutschland/61754/einkommen-privater-haushalte/ . Accessed 5 Oct 2023

Brakus JJ, Schmitt BH, Zarantonello L (2009) Brand experience: what is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? J Mark 73:52–68

Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (2022) Bericht zur Markt-und Versorgungslage mit Fleisch 2022

Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (2020) Empfehlungen des Kompetenznetzwerks Nutztierhaltung. https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/_Tiere/Nutztiere/200211-empfehlung-kompetenznetzwerk-nutztierhaltung.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3 . Accessed 5 Oct 2023

Christoph-Schulz I, Hartmann M, Kenning P, et al (2018) SocialLab – Nutztierhaltung im Spiegel der Gesellschaft. Springer International Publishing

Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE (1955) Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull 52:281

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Cruz SM, Manata B (2020) Measurement of environmental concern: a review and analysis. Front Psychol 11:363

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Manag Inform Syst 13:319–340

Destatis Statistisches Bundesamt (2019a) Bevölkerung nach Bildungsabschluss in Deutschland. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bildung-Forschung-Kultur/Bildungsstand/Tabellen/bildungsabschluss.html#fussnote-5-104098 . Accessed 5 Oct 2023

Destatis Statistisches Bundesamt (2019b) Statistisches Jahrbuch-Deutschland und Internationales. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Querschnitt/Jahrbuch/statistisches-jahrbuch-2019-dl.pdf?__blob=publicationFile . Accessed 5 Oct 2023

Destatis Statistisches Bundesamt (2020) Bevölkerungsbeschreibung auf Grundlage des Zensus 2011. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoelkerung/Bevoelkerungsstand/Publikationen/Downloads-Bevoelkerungsstand/bevoelkerungsfortschreibung-2010130207005.html . Accessed 5 Oct 2023

Engler D, Groh ED, Gutsche G, Ziegler A (2021) Acceptance of climate-oriented policy measures under the COVID-19 crisis: an empirical analysis for Germany. Clim Policy 21:1281–1297

European Commission (2016) Special Eurobarometer 442: Attitudes of Europeans towards Animal Welfare

Faria DC, Naval LP (2022) Wastewater reuse: Perception and social acceptance. Water Environ J 36:433–447

Forst R (2013) Toleration in conflict: Past and present. Cambridge University Press

Frank P, Brock C (2018) Bridging the intention–behavior gap among organic grocery customers: The crucial role of point-of-sale information. Psychol Mark 35:586–602. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21108

Garcia-Cuerva L, Berglund EZ, Binder AR (2016) Public perceptions of water shortages, conservation behaviors, and support for water reuse in the US. Resour Conserv Recycl 113:106–115

Gier NR, Krampe C (2019) Ein Maß für Kundenzufriedenheit - Wie misst man die gesellschaftiche Akzeptanz der Nutztierhaltung? Fleischwirtschaft 26–28

Herzog HA, Betchart NS, Pittman RB et al (1991) Gender, sex role orientation, and attitudes toward animals. Anthrozoos 4:184–191. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279391787057170

Hofinger G (2001) Denken über Umwelt und Natur. Umweltpsychologie 5:10–27

Ingold K, Stadelmann-Steffen I, Kammermann L (2019) The acceptance of instruments in instrument mix situations: citizens’ perspective on Swiss energy transition. Res Policy 48:103694

Kammermann L, Ingold K (2019) Going beyond technocratic and democratic principles: stakeholder acceptance of instruments in Swiss energy policy. Policy Sci 52:43–65

Kemper CJ, Beierlein C, Bensch D, et al (2012) Eine Kurzskala zur Erfassung des Gamma-Faktors sozial erwünschten Antwortverhaltens: Die Kurzskala Soziale Erwünschtheit-Gamma (KSE-G)

Ladak A, Anthis JR (2022) Animals, food, and technology survey: 2021 update. PsyArXiv

Lenzner T, Neuert C, Otto W (2015) GESIS Survey Guidelines Kognitives Pretesting. https://doi.org/10.15465/gesis-sg_010

Lucke D (1995) Akzeptanz. Legitimität in der „Abstimmungsgesellschaft“. Leske + Budrich, Opladen

Moosbrugger H, Kelava A (2020) Qualitätsanforderungen an Tests und Fragebogen („Gütekriterien “). Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion 13–38

Moskalenko S, McCauley C (2009) Measuring political mobilization: The distinction between activism and radicalism. Terror Polit Viol 21:239–260

Mukhamedzyanova R, Gier NR (2021) Social acceptance scoring: first steps towards a novel quantification of acceptance in transitive sectors. ACR N Am Adv 49:933

Mukhamedzyanova R, Gier NR, Berkes J, et al (2021) “Landwirtschaftliche Nutztierhaltung” Begriffsdefinition zum zentralen Untersuchungs-objekt im Projekt SocialLab 2 . Braunschweig

Pollack D, Müller O, Rosta G, et al (2014) Zwischen Akzeptanz und Ablehnung: Überlegungen zu einem Modell religiöser Toleranz. Grenzen der Toleranz: Wahrnehmung und Akzeptanz religiöser Vielfalt in Europa 125–154

Proner H (2011) Operationalisierung. Ist keine Antwort auch eine Antwort? Die Teilnahme an politischen Umfragen 167–184

Sauer A, Luz F, Suda M, Weiland U (2005) Steigerung der Akzeptanz von FFH-Gebieten. Bundesamt für Naturschutz 1–200

Schäfer M, Keppler D (2013) Modelle der technikorientierten Akzeptanzforschung - Überblick und Reflexion am Beispiel eines Forschungsprojekts zur Implementierung innovativer technischer Energieeffizienz-Maßnahmen. Diskussion Paper ZU Berlin 34:1–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1988.tb30180.x

Schmider E, Ziegler M, Danay E et al (2010) Is it really robust? Reinvestigating the robustness of ANOVA against violations of the normal distribution assumption. Methodology 6:147–151. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000016

Siegrist M (2008) Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products. Trends Food Sci Technol 19:603–608

Article CAS Google Scholar

Statistisches Bundesamt, Thünen-Institut, Deutscher Jagdverband, BLE (414) (2022) Versorgungsbilanz Fleisch: https://www.bmel-statistik.de/ernaehrung-fischerei/versorgungsbilanzen/fleisch . Accessed 9 Oct 2023

Sweeney L (2002) k-anonymity: A model for protecting privacy. Internat J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl-Based Syst 10:557–570

United Nations (2016) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n15/291/89/pdf/n1529189.pdf?token=ROh3Ju2AVUUsnEVyeG&fe=true

Vermeir I, Verbeke W (2006) Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer “attitude - Behavioral intention” gap. J Agric Environ Ethics 19:169–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3

Walzer M (1998) Über Toleranz. Von der Zivilisierung der Differenz, Hamburg

Weigel R, Weigel J (1978) Environmental concern: the development of a measure. Environ Behav 10:3–15

Westerlund M (2020) Social acceptance of wind energy in urban landscapes. Technol Innov Manag Rev 10:49–62

Download references

Acknowledgements

The elucidations presented herein have benefited significantly from extensive dialogues and exchanges with our colleagues, whose insights and contributions we sincerely appreciate. We extend our gratitude to all the collaborators involved in the collaborative initiative “SocialLab II – Akzeptanz durch Innovation” with special recognition for our supervisor, Prof. Dr. Peter Kenning, and our colleagues at the Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelm-Universität Bonn, in particular, Dr. Johannes Simons.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Nadine R. Gier-Reinartz and Regina Harms have contributed equally.

Authors and Affiliations

Chair of Business Administration, Especially Marketing, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany

Nadine R. Gier-Reinartz & Regina Harms

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nadine R. Gier-Reinartz .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

This research received financial support from the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Consumer Protection (Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft), based on a resolution of the Deutsche Bundestag. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 36 KB)

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Gier-Reinartz, N.R., Harms, R. Social Acceptance Scale—development of an instrument for the differentiated measurement of social acceptance in agricultural livestock farming. J Consum Prot Food Saf (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00003-024-01490-z

Download citation

Received : 12 October 2023

Revised : 12 October 2023

Accepted : 18 January 2024

Published : 16 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00003-024-01490-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Social Acceptance Scale (SAS)
Social Acceptance
Transformative Sectors
Agricultural Livestock Farming
Measurement Instrument
Validation Process
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

UConn Today

School and College News
Arts & Culture
Community Impact
Entrepreneurship
Health & Well-Being
Research & Discovery
UConn Health
University Life
UConn Voices
University News

April 16, 2024 | Ziba Kashef

Q&A: Meet the School of Social Work Ph.D. Student Emily Loveland

Loveland’s research examines food insecurity and food benefits for low-income families through a human rights lens.

Photo of unidentified group of people sorting donated food in boxes.

"A human rights approach stands in stark contrast to that by saying everyone has a right to food." (Adobe Stock)

Emily Loveland is a Ph.D. candidate at the UConn School of Social Work (SSW). She teaches courses on Macro Practice and Human Rights and Social Work.

What is the topic of your dissertation?

A. My dissertation looks at SNAP, or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, through a human rights lens, critically examining that program. Traditionally, I think SNAP policy is informed by issues of worth and worthiness, self-sufficiency and the rhetoric of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. I take a critical approach, bringing a human rights lens into it by talking to people who are directly impacted by food insecurity so that we can more closely align people’s experiences with the policies and programs that are meant to solve those challenges.

How does a human rights lens affect how you look at SNAP and food insecurity more generally?

A. Typically, when we look at policies in the United States, we use what I call a needs-based or a charity-based approach. What are your basic needs? With food, if people are not using SNAP, they are often using food pantries or soup kitchens to help make ends meet. That’s what I mean by a charity-based approach. A human rights approach stands in stark contrast to that by saying everyone has a right to food. It’s really a progressive contrast to the current way that we’re looking at policies and programs by saying food is both a basic need and something that everyone has a human right to.

It’s supplemented by what’s called the legal human rights instruments. There are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , International Covenants and international human rights principles. These are concepts – like universality – that support everyone’s right to adequate food or participation; that everyone who is affected by issues of food should be involved in the decision-making process around policies and programs related to securing the right to adequate food. That’s what my dissertation tries to do – bring folks who are affected by food insecurity to the table.

How are you conducting your research?

A. It’s two-pronged: One piece is a human rights policy analysis, which contains a qualitative document review and also a quantitative secondary data analysis. The second prong is a case study design where I am conducting in-depth, semi-structured interviews with individuals who are eligible for SNAP but not using SNAP benefits, as well as individuals who are advocates or volunteers that assist with SNAP processing. That’s getting at that human rights principle of participation and getting folks who are directly affected by food insecurity involved in talking about how they might better envision achieving food security and economic security.

What is the state of food insecurity in Connecticut right now?

A. Food insecurity rates have varied substantially. According to Feeding America, in Connecticut, 1 in 10 individuals face hunger. Food insecurity increases and decreases with the economy. We’re facing an increase in economic instability right now, so we’re bound to see increased rates of food insecurity and SNAP use as well.

Do you have preliminary findings to share?

A. In terms of my human rights policy analysis, I found that states are able to implement a fair level of control over SNAP participants. In my qualitative document review I found repeated references to terms like “impose,” “allow,” “permit” and “eligible food,” which highlight how regulations make SNAP eligibility conditional.

From my case study design, I found that policies were really incongruent with people’s lived experiences. Specifically, people’s interactions with case workers were a bit fraught. Though not always, at times case workers were either lacking empathy or rude or even attempting to wield power over the participant. Advocates I interviewed – social workers or people working in nonprofit settings, like a soup kitchen or a food pantry – were a critical lifeline to accessing SNAP benefits because they help people navigate this really challenging social safety net.

What is the impact you hope to have with your findings?

A. I want to offer recommendations to the Connecticut Department of Social Services (DSS), but I also want to investigate what’s going on with these policies and interactions with case workers. Are case workers shutting down because they don’t know how to apply these policies that are incongruent with people’s lived experiences? Perhaps instead of trying to interpret the policy so it best fits a person’s circumstance, case workers make the easiest choice.

Another factor I thought about was empathy interventions. Can you train eligibility workers at DSS on how to be more empathetic so that they can apply policies in a way that achieves the goals of an anti-hunger program? To that end, I think I would have to talk to eligibility case workers first to hear their perspectives regarding interactions with SNAP participants. For my next steps, I would like to work with eligibility staff to parse out what’s going on when they sit down with a SNAP applicant and try and apply these challenging policies to a person’s circumstances. Is it that we need to improve the role of empathy in these interactions or are other factors at play?

You are defending your dissertation this summer. What are your plans after UConn?

A. I’m actively on the academic job market. I plan to teach macro social work, thinking about policy and continuing this research. Wherever I go, I would love to replicate this work, talking to SNAP participants and case workers to see how we can improve these interactions.

If you were talking to a group of prospective Ph.D. students, what would you say about your experience at UConn?

A. I came back to UConn after earning my MSW in Policy Practice to pursue the Ph.D. program because I love the close-knit, collaborative environment. I found that the program was rigorous and collaborative, which is really unique for an R1 school. I can’t recommend it enough.

Recent Articles

April 16, 2024

Samantha Gove ’24, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences

Read the article

Aerial view of the Student Union Mall. (Sean Flynn/UConn Photo)

UConn Adopting Okanagan Charter, Commits to Health Promoting Practices

A woman wearing a pink ribbon for breast cancer awareness meets with a physician.

UConn Professor to Study Impact of Social Factors on Accelerated Aging in Breast Cancer Survivors

Kindle Store
Kindle eBooks
Politics & Social Sciences

Promotions apply when you purchase

These promotions will be applied to this item:

Some promotions may be combined; others are not eligible to be combined with other offers. For details, please see the Terms & Conditions associated with these promotions.

Highlight, take notes, and search in the book
In this edition, page numbers are just like the physical edition

Buy for others

Buying and sending ebooks to others.

Select quantity
Buy and send eBooks
Recipients can read on any device

These ebooks can only be redeemed by recipients in the US. Redemption links and eBooks cannot be resold.

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

To view this video download Flash Player

The A-Z of Social Research: A Dictionary of Key Social Science Research Concepts 1st Edition, Kindle Edition

- Answers the demand for a practical, fast and concise introduction to the key concepts and methods in social research

- Supplies students with impeccable information that can be used in essays, exams and research projects

- Demystifies a field that students often find daunting

ISBN-13 978-0761971320
Edition 1st
Sticky notes On Kindle Scribe
Publisher SAGE Publications Ltd
Publication date March 21, 2003
Language English
File size 2373 KB
See all details
Kindle (5th Generation)
Kindle Keyboard
Kindle (2nd Generation)
Kindle (1st Generation)
Kindle Paperwhite
Kindle Paperwhite (5th Generation)
Kindle Touch
Kindle Voyage
Kindle Oasis
Kindle Scribe (1st Generation)
Kindle Fire HDX 8.9''
Kindle Fire HDX
Kindle Fire HD (3rd Generation)
Fire HDX 8.9 Tablet
Fire HD 7 Tablet
Fire HD 6 Tablet
Kindle Fire HD 8.9"
Kindle Fire HD(1st Generation)
Kindle Fire(2nd Generation)
Kindle Fire(1st Generation)
Kindle for Windows 8
Kindle for Windows Phone
Kindle for BlackBerry
Kindle for Android Phones
Kindle for Android Tablets
Kindle for iPhone
Kindle for iPod Touch
Kindle for iPad
Kindle for Mac
Kindle for PC
Kindle Cloud Reader

Editorial Reviews

About the author, product details.

ASIN ‏ : ‎ B00L18Y5S8
Publisher ‏ : ‎ SAGE Publications Ltd; 1st edition (March 21, 2003)
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 21, 2003
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 2373 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
Print length ‏ : ‎ 359 pages
#393 in Social Science Methodology
#637 in Education Research (Kindle Store)
#742 in Social Science Research

Customer reviews

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

Sort reviews by Top reviews Most recent Top reviews

Top reviews from the United States

Top reviews from other countries.

Amazon Newsletter
About Amazon
Accessibility
Sustainability
Press Center
Investor Relations
Amazon Devices
Amazon Science
Sell on Amazon
Sell apps on Amazon
Supply to Amazon
Protect & Build Your Brand
Become an Affiliate
Become a Delivery Driver
Start a Package Delivery Business
Advertise Your Products
Self-Publish with Us
Host an Amazon Hub
› See More Ways to Make Money
Amazon Visa
Amazon Store Card
Amazon Secured Card
Amazon Business Card
Shop with Points
Credit Card Marketplace
Reload Your Balance
Amazon Currency Converter
Your Account
Your Orders
Shipping Rates & Policies
Amazon Prime
Returns & Replacements
Manage Your Content and Devices
Recalls and Product Safety Alerts
Conditions of Use
Privacy Notice
Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
Your Ads Privacy Choices

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

Political typology quiz.

Notice: Beginning April 18th community groups will be temporarily unavailable for extended maintenance. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

Where do you fit in the political typology?

Are you a faith and flag conservative progressive left or somewhere in between.

Take our quiz to find out which one of our nine political typology groups is your best match, compared with a nationally representative survey of more than 10,000 U.S. adults by Pew Research Center. You may find some of these questions are difficult to answer. That’s OK. In those cases, pick the answer that comes closest to your view, even if it isn’t exactly right.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Find My Rep

The A-Z of Social Research A Dictionary of Key Social Science Research Concepts

Robert Lee Miller - Queen's University Belfast, UK
John D Brewer - Trinity College, Ireland
Description

- Answers the demand for a practical, fast and concise introduction to the key concepts and methods in social research

- Supplies students with impeccable information that can be used in essays, exams and research projects

- Demystifies a field that students often find daunting

An innovative and engage approach to social research

I like this book. There are some interesting sections e.g. Grounded theory. However the layout is not easy yo navigate - topics are not necessarily where you would expect to find them.

This text provides concise definitions of terminology encountered by students undertaking research. The text would benefit from updating some of the suggestions for further reading.

this book is not up to date in my opinion...needs a revised edition

A very useful reference point for students and novice researchers.

Terminology that ALL researchers need!

Preview this book

For instructors, purchasing options.

Please select a format:

Order from:

VitalSource
Amazon Kindle
Google Play

Related Products

With SAGE Research Methods, researchers can explore their chosen method across the depth and breadth of content, expanding or refining their search as needed; read online, print, or email full-text content; utilize suggested related methods and links to related authors from SAGE Research Methods' robust library and unique features; and even share their own collections of content through Methods Lists. SAGE Research Methods contains content from over 720 books, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and handbooks, the entire “Little Green Book,” and "Little Blue Book” series, two Major Works collating a selection of journal articles, and specially commissioned videos.

What’s Endangering Gen Z’s Ability to Invest and The Easy Way to Avoid It

E very generation has to learn financial lessons in their own way, and these are influenced by different economic factors and social trends. However, Gen Z may be the first generation to really make their investing decisions based on something their parents and grandparents did not: social media.

Read Next: 13 Cheap Cryptocurrencies With the Highest Potential Upside for You

Explore More: 6 Genius Things All Wealthy People Do With Their Money

According to a recent economic report, Gen Z is very driven by social media influence when making investing decisions. This can lead to FOMO (fear of missing out) and risky suggestions that could cost Gen Z what money they’ve managed to make in their young lives.

Experts explain some time-tested strategies for Gen Z to invest instead of jumping on hot social media trends, given their much longer time horizon, and potential to take on somewhat greater risks than older generations .

Sponsored: Protect Your Wealth With A Gold IRA. Take advantage of the timeless appeal of gold in a Gold IRA recommended by Sean Hannity.

Invest Early

What Gen Zers have going for them is the ability to start early and take advantage of compound interest for a long time, according to David Blain, a chartered financial analyst (CFA) with BlueSky Wealth Advisors .

“Even small amounts can grow significantly over time, which is a concept I emphasize to all younger investors,” Blain said. “This principle was clearly illustrated when discussing the benefits of saving $25 a week, showing how such small, consistent investments can build a considerable nest egg over time, offering a more stable and secure financial future than chasing after the latest investment fad on social media.”

For You: 10 Valuable Stocks That Could Be the Next Apple or Amazon

Invest Fixed Amounts

Secondly, Blain said that the strategy of “dollar-cost averaging” can significantly reduce the risk of market timing, which he called “a common trap for less experienced investors.”

“By investing a fixed amount regularly, regardless of market conditions, one can lower the average cost per share over time, which is a crucial strategy in the uncertain investment climate that often affects Gen Z investors influenced by social media.”

Do Your Research

Blain shared a critical lesson from his military background that he said applies to investing, which is “facing the world boldly, not blindly,” adding, “This means conducting thorough research and due diligence before making investment decisions, rather than blindly following the recommendations found on social media.”

A well-thought-out plan based on clear goals and risk tolerance is essential for long-term success in investing, he said.

Avoid Quick Wins

Blain recommended Gen Z avoid “the lure of quick wins, celebrated and often exaggerated on social media,” and instead focus on solid, time-tested investment principles like early savings, diversified portfolios and regular investing.

“[A] disciplined approach to investing, grounded in knowledge and thorough planning, will always outperform the erratic swings of social media trends.”

Establish Good Credit

Gen Zers are also in the prime age range to establish good credit, according to Diane Bourdo, a certified financial planner (CFP) and president of The Humphreys Group .

“As your credit score dictates your eligibility for anything from buying a new home to taking out a business loan, it’s incredibly important to build up good credit. A couple tips for keeping your credit score up are to always be sure to pay your credit card bill on time and to keep your outstanding balance below 30 percent of your credit limit.”

Overprepare For Retirement

Bourdo said that instead of spending money on flashy investments, Gen Z should save a year’s salary for retirement: “If Gen Z and Millennials can learn anything from previous generations, it’s to over-prepare when it comes to retirement planning,” Bourdo said. “If your employer doesn’t offer retirement benefits, it’s your responsibility to open up an IRA or a 401k, both of which allow you to invest money for retirement.”

Establish a Rainy Day Fund

Otherwise known as an emergency fund, Bourdo urged Gen Z to start this type of savings now. “If an emergency happened, would you be prepared?” she asked. “Nobody can predict if and when an emergency will occur, but you can ensure that you’re prepared in case of the worst. Whether your car breaks down or a global pandemic breaks out, having a rainy day fund ensures that you’re not caught completely off-guard.”

Appreciate that Money is a Tool

Money is important, Bourdo acknowledged but at the end of the day, it is just a tool. “It’s critical to understand the value of money, to be smart with your finances and to think about the future as much as you think about the present, but try not to let money control your life,” she said.

Be Consumer Debt Free

Another wise move Gen Z can make instead of risky investments, Bourdo said, is striving to stay out of consumer debt.

“We understand that some debt might follow you into your 30s, from student loans to personal business loans, but consumer debt should be a worry of your past,” Bourdo said.

“By the time you reach 30, you should be capable of budgeting and living within your means. If you can’t afford a fancy car, you shouldn’t be buying a fancy car. If you need to open up a new credit card to afford that trip to Cabo, you can’t afford that trip to Cabo.”

Gen Z is poised to make smart decisions if they listen to financial professionals and avoid seemingly hot trends and bad advice that finds its way onto social media.

We use cookies

Necessary cookies.

Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and can only be disabled by changing your browser preferences.

Analytics cookies

Analytical cookies help us improve our website. We use Google Analytics. All data is anonymised.

Hotjar and Clarity

Hotjar and Clarity help us to understand our users’ behaviour by visually representing their clicks, taps and scrolling. All data is anonymised.

Undergraduate study
2024 Degree programmes A‑Z

Undergraduate

Common Law LLB

Note that the Common Law LLB is not accredited by the Law Society of Scotland and is therefore not suitable for any applicant who wishes to have the option of practising law in Scotland.

Applicants should apply for either the Common Law LLB or the Scots Law LLB, not both, since we will only make an offer of a place on one LLB degree. Students wishing to practise law in Scotland (or Scotland and elsewhere) are expected to apply for the Scots Law LLB . Once admitted, transfer between programmes is not permitted by the College of Social Science regulations.

The Common Law degree is designed for you if you plan to practise law in common law jurisdictions such as England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Canada and India. It is not suitable if you wish to enter the legal profession in Scotland. The Common Law curriculum offers intellectual depth and has a range of flexible options.

September start
Session dates
Common Law LLB (Hons): M100 4 year degree
Glasgow: Gilmorehill campus
Joint degree options
Study abroad available

Register your interest for more information

Thank you for registering

Something went wrong, please try again

Find out more about how to apply

Law at Glasgow

Which law degree is right for me.

The School of Law offers:

Scots Law LLB: If you intend to practice in Scotland as a solicitor or advocate you should apply for the Scots Law LLB.
Common Law LLB: If you intend to practice law in a Common Law jurisdiction such as England & Wales, Northern Ireland, Canada, or India you should apply for the Common Law LLB.

Why study Law?

Law is a subject that is relevant to everyone because it affects all our daily lives. It is an academic discipline that attracts students who are interested in how society is regulated, what the aims of regulation should be and how successful it is in achieving them.

The University of Glasgow prides itself on developing world changers and a knowledge and understanding of law and legal systems is one of the important ways in which people can seek to make a difference. This might be through changes to legal policy or practice, or in helping people to solve everyday problems or avoid future disputes.

What kinds of skills do I need to study law?

You will need to be prepared to read a lot of material. Studying law involves reading cases, legislation, official reports and academic opinion about them. This will require you to be able to find relevant information quickly, to pick out what is important and to remember it.

Studying law is not, however, just about gathering information. It is also about analysing facts and putting them into context to be able to provide a reasoned argument about what the law is on a matter. Solving a legal problem requires close attention to detail, an excellent grasp of legal principles and appropriate legal authority, clarity of thought and the ability to think logically and communicate effectively.

Throughout our law degrees you will develop skills in research, managing information, writing, oral presentation, providing critical analysis of law and legal policy, problem solving and working independently and with others.

What kinds of opportunities does the Law School offer?

As well as benefiting from excellent teaching, our law students are able to take advantage of many other opportunities to widen their skills and experiences.These include study abroad for the whole or part of third year. We have strong links with employers and offer a number of events involving law firms and other organisations who are invited to provide information and advice. It is also possible to take part in voluntary placement schemes in the community such as in the Citizens Advice Bureau and Law Centres. We have a very long and successful tradition of competitive mooting (presenting arguments in mock trials), nationally and internationally.

About the Law School

The Law School is located in the Stair Building on the main University Campus on University Avenue, where you will find academic and administrative staff. Some classes are held here, although a wide range of teaching rooms is used across the campus. The Stair Building also houses the Sir Alexander Stone Court Room (which is used for mooting) and the Law Workshop (a study space and an additional library resource to the main library).

Programme structure

The Bachelor of Laws (LLB) Common Law programme is an exacting intellectual discipline and offers a thorough grounding in key areas of the law. The degree can be studied to Ordinary level, requiring three years of full-time study, or to Honours level in four years of full-time study.

We also offer a two-year accelerated programme for those who have a previous degree.

Initially you will study the following core modules:

Common law system & method
Constitutional law
Law of tort
Criminal law of England & Wales
Law of contract.

In the following year, you will study core modules in:

European Union law
Jurisprudence
Law & government
Equity & trusts
Foundations of evidence law.

You can take option modules in years 1 and 2, covering topics such as:

Public international law
Roman law of property & obligations
Commercial law
Business organisations.

Years 3 and 4

Admission to Honours takes place at the end of the second year. If you progress to Honours (years 3 and 4) you can choose from a wide range of individual courses available each year.

Law with Languages

There are many opportunities for you to study law with languages. A language may be studied throughout the four years of the degree (the Law with Languages programme). Language study is an integrated part of the degree, with your language skills carefully developed during your first two years of study. This assists to prepare you for year 3, where you will study law in a partner university abroad, where teaching and learning take place in your chosen language (French, German, Italian or Spanish).

Two-year Common law LLB (Accelerated)

The Common Law LLB two-year Ordinary degree is designed for graduates who plan to practise law in a jurisdiction beyond Scotland. The Accelerated LLB allows graduates in other disciplines to obtain a Common Law Ordinary degree in two years rather than four years.

Joint degree/Law with Languages/and Accelerated students will cover some of the core modules at different stages of their degrees. There may be in some limited cases timetable clashes. We nevertheless endeavour, where we can, to avoid these or if possible, provide alternatives.

Course details

Initially you will study:

COMMON LAW SYSTEM AND METHOD
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
LAW OF TORTS
CRIMINAL LAW OF ENGLAND AND WALES
LAW OF CONTRACT

In the following year, you will study:

EUROPEAN UNION LAW
JURISPRUDENCE
LAW AND GOVERNMENT
EQUITY AND TRUSTS
FOUNDATIONS OF EVIDENCE LAW

Students can take optional courses in Years 1 and 2 covering topics such as:

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
ROMAN LAW OF PROPERTY & OBLIGATIONS 1
COMMERCIAL LAW (COMMON LAW)
BUSINESS ORGANISATIONS

Programme alteration or discontinuation The University of Glasgow endeavours to run all programmes as advertised. In exceptional circumstances, however, the University may withdraw or alter a programme. For more information, please see: Student contract .

Our international links

We have an extremely successful and popular study abroad programme. Currently more than 60% of our Honours students in a normal year take the opportunity to spend all or part of the third year studying law in another country. Many others participate in a summer school or other academic activity abroad.

These exchange and short-term mobility options are available through our Law with Languages or Legal Studies programmes (see next page) or at English-speaking institutions in Europe, North and South America, Australia, New Zealand, China and Singapore. Students may also take part in summer schools or the comparative law project.

In all cases study abroad is integrated into the degree and does not involve an additional year of study.

Entry requirements

For entry in 2024.

You should refer to the entry requirements for both subjects and the degree award when applying for a joint honours degree programme . The higher entry requirement (where applicable) and additional requirements must be met for both subjects.

Summary of entry requirements for Common Law

SQA Higher entry requirements

AAAAB is the minimum requirement from S5 to be reviewed for an S6 offer
Offers are not guaranteed to applicants who meet the minimum from S5
Typically offers will be made at AAAAAA by end of S6. B at Advanced Higher is equivalent to A at Higher
Additional requirements: Higher English
Additional requirements: Advanced Higher English or Humanities subject
Higher Mathematics at A recommended
Satisfactory completion of LNAT .

SQA Higher adjusted entry requirements* (by end of S6 or S6)

MD20 : ABBBB (also other target groups*)
MD40 : AAABB (ABB S5 minimum for consideration)*
Additional requirements: Higher English, Advanced Higher English or Advanced Higher Humanities subject or Higher Mathematics at A recommended. LNAT . Successful completion of Reach or Top-Up.

* See Access Glasgow for eligibility .

A-level standard entry requirements

Additional requirements: A-level Humanities and GCSE English Language and English Literature at A or 7. LNAT .

IB standard entry requirements

Additional requirements: HL Humanities and SL English at 6. LNAT .

Admissions guidance

Find out more about entry requirements and alternative qualifications

English language

For applicants whose first language is not English, the University sets a minimum English Language proficiency level.

English language requirements

International english language testing system (ielts) academic module (not general training).

6.5 with no sub-test under 6.0.
Tests must have been taken within 2 years 5 months of start date. Applicants must meet the overall and subtest requirements using a single test.

Common equivalent English language qualifications

All stated English tests are acceptable for admission to this programme:

TOEFL (ib, my best or athome)

90 with minimum R 20, L 19, S 19, W 23.
Tests must have been taken within 2 years 5 months of start date. Combined scores from two tests taken within 6 months of each other can be considered.

PTE (Academic)

60 with minimum 59 in all sub-tests.

Glasgow International College English Language (and other foundation providers)

Tests are accepted for academic year following sitting.

University of Glasgow Pre-sessional courses

Cambridge english qualifications.

Cambridge Advanced English (CAE): 176 overall, no subtest less than 169
Cambridge Proficiency in English (CPE): 176 overall, no subtest less than 169

School Qualifications

iGCSE English or ESOL 0522/0500, grade C
International Baccalaureate English A SL5 or HL5
International Baccalaureate English B SL6 or HL5
SQA National 5 English or ESOL, grade B
SQA Higher English or ESOL, grade C
Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education, English Language grade 4
West African Examination Council, Senior Secondary School Certificate, English grade C6

Alternatives to English Language qualification

Undergraduate degree from English speaking country (including Canada if taught in English)
Undergraduate 2+2 degree from English speaking country
Undergraduate 2+2 TNE degree taught in English in non-English speaking country
Masters degree from English speaking country
Masters degree (equivalent on NARIC to UK masters degree) taught in English in non-English speaking country.

For international students, the Home Office has confirmed that the University can choose to use these tests to make its own assessment of English language ability for visa applications to degree level programmes. The University is also able to accept an IELTS test (Academic module) from any of the 1000 IELTS test centres from around the world and we do not require a specific UKVI IELTS test for degree level programmes. We therefore still accept any of the English tests listed for admission to this programme.

Pre-sessional courses

The University of Glasgow accepts evidence of the required language level from the English for Academic Study Unit Pre-sessional courses. We also consider other BALEAP accredited pre-sessional courses:

School of Modern Languages & Cultures: English for Academic Study
BALEAP guide to accredited courses

What do I do if...

my language qualifications are below the requirements?

The University's School of Modern Languages and Cultures offers a range of Pre-sessional courses to bring you up to entry level. The course is accredited by BALEAP, the UK professional association for academic English teaching.

my language qualifications are not listed here?

Please contact External Relations

If you require a Tier 4 student visa, your qualification must be one of the secure English language tests accepted by UK Border Agency:

UK Border Agency Tier 4 English Language requirements
UKBA list of approved English language tests [pdf]

Visa requirements and proof of English language level

It is a visa requirement to provide information on your level of English based on an internationally recognised and secure English language test. All test reports must be no more than 2 years old . A list of these can be found on the UK Border Agency website . If you have never taken one of these tests before, you can get an initial idea of your level by using the Common European Framework self-assessment grid which gives you a level for each skill (e.g. listening B1/writing B2 etc.) However, please note that this is not a secure English language test and it is not sufficient evidence of your level of English for visa requirements.

Further information about English language: School of Modern Languages & Cultures: English for Academic Study

Career prospects

The flexibility of the LLB (Common Law) at Glasgow, together with the emphasis on developing the key skills required by employers and the opportunities available to study abroad and to take part in placement opportunities, means that the degree provides a sound general foundation for a range of careers. These include the Civil Service, local government, journalism, industry and commerce, international institutions, administration, banking, insurance, social work and the police service.

For those seeking to work as a lawyer in England and Wales, or Northern Ireland, the LLB (Common law) will provide an invaluable foundation in the academic study of law.

If you intend to become a barrister in England and Wales, the LLB (Common Law) satisfies the Bar Standards Board requirements regarding the academic component of training based on a law degree. After completing our degree, you would then undertake the ‘vocational stage’ of training, which requires completion of a postgraduate Bar course. The final step in qualifying as a barrister involves a period of full-time training for one year (‘pupillage’). The LLB (Common law) is also a recognised degree for the purposes of qualifying in Northern Ireland (the Bar course at the Institute of Professional Legal Studies, Belfast).

If you intend to become a solicitor, the LLB (Common law) is currently recognised for the purposes of qualifying as a solicitor in Northern Ireland (the Solicitor course at the Institute of Professional Legal Studies, Belfast). If you intend to become a solicitor in England and Wales, the Solicitors Regulation Authority has introduced a new, independent, centralised assessment called the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE). For law degrees starting in 2023 the requirements to become a solicitor now include:

A degree in any subject or a qualification or experience that is equivalent to a degree, such as a solicitor apprenticeship.
Passing the SQE 1 and SQE2 assessments.
Two years’ full time (or equivalent) qualifying work experience.
Passing character and suitability requirements.

The LLB (Common Law) is also a recognised degree in jurisdictions such as India and is foundational for those seeking entry to the legal profession in a range of other jurisdictions such as Canada.

To qualify for legal practice, you must pass additional examinations in the appropriate legal system before proceeding to professional training and qualification. These requirements will vary according to the intended jurisdiction for professional practice.

Degrees and UCAS codes

When applying you will need to know the UCAS code for the subject or subject-combination that you wish to apply to:

Fees and funding

Tuition fees

How and when you pay tuition fees depends on where you’re from: see Tuition fees for details.

Scholarships

The University is committed to supporting students and rewarding academic excellence. That's why we've invested more than £1m in additional scholarship funding in recent years.

College of Social Sciences Deans' Award

The College of Social Sciences is offering two scholarships worth £10,000 each towards tuition fees for academically excellent students wishing to study an Undergraduate programme within the College’s programme portfolio for 2024 entry.

Undergraduate Excellence Scholarship

The University of Glasgow has a number of Undergraduate Excellence Scholarships available to new International and EU students for 2024 entry. The scholarship is awarded as a tuition fee discount of £7,000 per year of study and is subject to satisfactory progress for consecutive years of study.

EU Welcome Award

The University of Glasgow continues to be committed to ensuring a strong relationship with our existing and future EU students, and supporting EU talent to make their home at the University of Glasgow.

We appreciate the challenging financial implications that have arisen for our European applicants, and are therefore delighted to offer the EU Welcome Award to new incoming EU students starting an undergraduate programme for Academic Session 2024-25. The scholarship is awarded as a tuition fee discount of £5,000 for every year of study and is subject to satisfactory progress for consecutive years of study. This discount cannot be combined with another University scholarship.

Applicants that completed a Study Abroad year, Exchange programme or International Summer School at the University of Glasgow and therefore eligible for the Alumni discount could be granted the EU Welcome Award as well.

RUK Excellence Scholarship

The RUK Excellence Scholarship of £1,000 for each year of study will be awarded to first degree new entrants who have attained academic excellence in one sitting at A Level (or equivalent).

RUK Access Bursary

The bursary supports talented students who may not be able to take their place at University for reasons of financial hardship. It is available to new entrant full-time, undergraduate students of the University of Glasgow who are fully registered for the up coming academic session, ordinarily domiciled in England, Wales or Northern Ireland and paying annual tuition fees of £9,250 per annum.

James McCune Smith Undergraduate Scholarship

The University of Glasgow has up to 30 undergraduate scholarships available for students of African/African-Caribbean backgrounds. The scholarship supports students who could face financial difficulties taking up their place to study at the university. The value of the scholarship is £2,000, paid in instalments for year one of undergraduate study. The scholarship is open to new applicants to the university for 2024 entry. Current students who have previously been in receipt of the award may reapply, however, preference will be given to applicants entering their first year of study.

Beaconhouse Schools

The University of Glasgow offer a 15% discount on the first year of tuition fee to students from Beaconhouse Schools and who enrol on an undergraduate programme at the University of Glasgow. The discount does not apply to Veterinary Medicine, Medicine and Dentistry programmes.

Undergraduate Talent Scholarships

The University of Glasgow is awarding c.50 undergraduate Talent Scholarships to support students who could face financial difficulties in taking up their place to study at the University for 2024 entry. The value of each scholarship is typically £1,500 p.a. for each year of the degree programme, subject to satisfactory progress. Talent Scholarships are available to students entering any of the University's Colleges.

Dental School students are eligible for a Talent Scholarship in their first year of study only. They are eligible for the NHS Dental Student Support Grant in the following years.

Republic of Ireland (RoI) Access Bursary

Glasgow has a long and proud tradition of providing financial support to talented students who, for reasons of financial hardship, might not be able to take a place at university. Our RoI Access Bursary is part of our commitment to continue to attract and support students from a diverse range of backgrounds. For 2023 entry , the RoI bursary will be up to £2,000 for your first year of study and £1,000 for continuing years.

Payments of the RoI Access Bursary will be detailed in your Award Letter.

The RoI Access Bursary will be awarded as a cash payment.
The RoI Access Bursary will be paid in 10 instalments from October until July; this award is based on household income
The RoI Access Bursary will only be awarded in years where tuition fees of £9,250 apply

Please see here for up to date information and criteria for 2024 entry.

Republic of Ireland (RoI) Excellence Scholarship

The RoI Excellence Scholarship of £1,000 for each year of study will be awarded to first degree entrants who have attained at Irish Higher grades H1, H1, H1, H2, H2 from the Irish Leaving Certificate for 2023 entry . Dentistry, Medicine and Veterinary Medicine applicants are not eligible for this award.

The RoI Excellence Scholarship will be processed as a cash payment.
The RoI Excellence Scholarship will be paid in 2 instalments.
The first payment will be in October and the second payment will be in February.

These payments will be credited to the UK bank account held on your MyCampus profile; therefore, it is vital that this is up to date at the start of the session. By submitting your bank details on the MyCampus system , you are confirming that you agree with the terms and conditions of the award.

Please see here for further information and eligibility criteria for 2024 entry.

Cowrie Foundation Scholarship

The University of Glasgow and The Cowrie Scholarship Foundation (CSF) will offer a scholarship to support Black African and Caribbean heritage applicants from socio-economically challenged backgrounds. Applicants must be ordinarily resident in the UK and commencing an undergraduate study in the academic year 2024-25

The Cowrie Scholarship Foundation wants to fund 100 Black British students through UK universities in the next decade. More information on the Foundation can be found here .

Sanctuary Scholarships

The University of Glasgow is offering up to 20 Sanctuary Scholarships for applicants to the University, who have been forced to travel to the UK for humanitarian reasons and are facing challenges in progressing onto Higher Education. The scholarship is open to prospective undergraduate and postgraduate taught students at the University of Glasgow applying for entry in September 2024/25. Please note that you must have applied to the University before submitting an application for this scholarship. The scholarship will meet the cost of tuition fees for the duration of your programme, for applicants who are unable to access mainstream funding through Student Awards Agency Scotland (SAAS) or Student Finance . The Sanctuary Scholarship also provides a £5,000 per year stipend, to assist with study costs. In addition, if the eligibility criteria for university accommodation is met, this will also be provided for the duration of your degree, if required. For more information on the accommodation criteria, please see the Accommodation Services section on the website.

Undergraduate students with refugee status (or equivalent) and access to funding, are eligible to apply for the scholarship and would receive the £5,000 stipend towards study costs only, if successful.

Postgraduate Taught Masters students with refugee status (or equivalent) and access to funding, are eligible to apply for the scholarship and would receive the £5,000 stipend towards study costs and a partial tuition fee waiver, to cover any shortfall not met by your Postgraduate Masters tuition fee loan.

The Clan Gregor Society Prize

The Clan Gregor Society is offering an award to new entrants to the University of Glasgow who descend from Clan Gregor. Prospective students will be asked to submit an application highlighting areas of consideration such as academic excellence and financial need. The award is open to both Undergraduate and Postgraduate applicants for 2024 entry.

The scholarships above are specific to this programme. For more funding opportunities search the scholarships database

How to apply

Applicants should apply for either the Common Law LLB or the Scots Law LLB, not both, since we will only make an offer of a place on one LLB degree. Students wishing to practise law in Scotland (or Scotland and elsewhere) are expected to apply for the Scots Law LLB. Once admitted, transfer between programmes is not permitted by the College of Social Science regulations.

With the exception of applicants to the LLB (Accelerated), applicants to all LLB degrees who do not already hold an undergraduate degree are required to take the Law National Admissions test (LNAT) by 14 February 2024.

The LNAT results of students will be taken into account in deciding whether to make offers of places on the Common Law LLB along with the entry requirements described above.

The LNAT is run by a consortium of UK universities and comprises an on-screen test (95 minutes) and essay questions (40 minutes). It is designed to assess verbal reasoning skills and command of written English. The test can be taken by applicants at centres throughout the UK and overseas.

For information on how to sit the test, together with practice papers, see lnat.ac.uk .

Full-time students must apply through the Universities & Colleges Admissions Service ( UCAS ).

SQA applicants who are eligible for our Widening Participation programmes are encouraged to participate in one or more of these programmes, including Summer School, to support your application and the transition to higher education.

Widening Participation

International students to Arts, Engineering, Law, Nursing, Science, and Social Sciences can also apply using The Common Application: however, if applying to more than one UK university, we recommend using UCAS. Applications to Dentistry, Education, Medicine, and Veterinary Medicine must be made through UCAS.

Application deadlines

16 October : if including Dentistry, Medicine, Veterinary Medicine or also applying to Oxford or Cambridge
31 January : all other UK applicants (unless otherwise stated on the UCAS website)
30 June : international students.

We do not usually accept any applications after these deadlines.

It's your responsibility to ensure the accuracy of your application before submission. Requests to correct application content, change degree programme or change college of entry, will not be accepted after these deadlines. This policy is in place to ensure fairness and consistency to all applicants, and no exceptions will be made.

Apply at www.ucas.com or through your school or college
Contact UCAS on 0871 468 0468
Apply at commonapp.org (international students to certain areas only)
Apply via UCAS

Times & Sunday Times Good University Guide [Law]

Subject league tables

Guardian University Guide [Law ]

Complete University Guide [Law]

Times Higher Education World University Rankings [Law]

QS World University Rankings [Law & Legal Studies]

Related programmes

Common Law (graduate entry) [LLB]
Scots Law [LLB]
Scots Law (graduate entry) [LLB]

the a z of social research

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS

You are here

The A-Z of Social Research A Dictionary of Key Social Science Research Concepts

Preview this book

Select a Purchasing Option

Internet Archive Audio

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Save Page Now

The A-Z of social research : a dictionary of key social science research concepts

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

DOWNLOAD OPTIONS

IN COLLECTIONS

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)

You are here

The A-Z of Social Research A Dictionary of Key Social Science Research Concepts

Preview this book

For instructors

Order from:

Related Products

A-Z of Social Research

Create a new list

Book Details

Wikipedia citation

Items related to The A-Z of Social Research: A Dictionary of Key Social...

Other Popular Editions of the Same Title

Top Search Results from the AbeBooks Marketplace

THE A-Z OF SOCIAL RESEARCH: A DI

The A-Z of Social Research

The A-Z of Social Research : A Dictionary of Key Social Science Research Concepts

Article Contents

The A–Z of Social Research, Robert Miller and John Brewer (eds), London, Sage, 2003, pp. xv + 346, 0 7619 7132 7, £60 hdbk, 0 7619 7133 5, £19.99 pbk

Article PDF first page preview

Affiliations

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Social Acceptance Scale—development of an instrument for the differentiated measurement of social acceptance in agricultural livestock farming

Cite this article

1 Introduction

2 Evaluating the validity of the theoretical framework

2.1 Content validity-definition and theoretical basis

2.1.1 Definition

2.1.2 Theoretical basis

2.2 Face validity—item generation and piloting

2.2.1 Expert evaluation

2.2.2 Consumer pretest and piloting

3 Social Acceptance Scale

3.1 Validation sample

3.2 Descriptive statistics

4 Empirical validation of the scale

4.1.1 Factorial validity

4.1.2 Convergent validity—single-item measurement of acceptance

4.1.3 Convergent validity—attitude and action dimension

4.2 Criterion validity and its relation to relevant measures

4.2.1 Perceived urgency

4.2.2 Ambivalence against meat consumption

4.2.3 Satisfaction with the government performance in agricultural livestock farming

5 Discussion

6 Future research and limitations

Acknowledgements

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Additional information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 36 KB)

About this article

Share this article

UConn Today

Q&A: Meet the School of Social Work Ph.D. Student Emily Loveland

Recent Articles

Samantha Gove ’24, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences

UConn Adopting Okanagan Charter, Commits to Health Promoting Practices

UConn Professor to Study Impact of Social Factors on Accelerated Aging in Breast Cancer Survivors

Buy for others

Image Unavailable

The A-Z of Social Research: A Dictionary of Key Social Science Research Concepts 1st Edition, Kindle Edition

Editorial Reviews

Customer reviews

Top reviews from the United States

Regions & Countries