1. Anomie: Issues of Measurement
Ekaterina Lytkina,
Laboratory for Comparative Social Research National Research University Higher School of Economics,
Russia, Moscow
Christian Welzel,
Russia, St. Petersburg,
Leuphana University, Germany

2. Contents How anomie’s being measured in large cross- country surveys?
Are these means satisfactory?
Is that possible to separate between anomie and alienation?
Can the existing scales measure anomie?

3. NORMLESSNESS MEANINGLESSNESS
ANOMIE
NORMLESSNESS
Traditional Durkheimean concept: absence of norms and values, weakening of the role of the normative and value regulation, when the society is incapable of restricting constantly growing desires of the individuals (Durkheim 1912)
MEANINGLESSNESS
Cognitive disorientation, devaluation of the importance of the previous experience, lower degree of the possibility of planning the future, dominance of situational identifications (Legge et al 2008: 253)
Incapability for the individual to estimate what to believe in, lack of the simplest standards of clarity in the process of decision making, as well as low predictability about the outcomes of actions (Seeman 1982: 786)

4. Data: World Value Survey, Wave 6 – Russia (N=2500)
Special Scale Introduced by Swader & Kosals (2011) and applied for the Russian and Kazakhstan sub-samples

5. How’s anomie being measured (EVS, WVS)
DON’T KNOW SCALE
(Swader &Kosals 2011)
MORALITY SCALE (EVS, WVS)
Anomie Scale (Swader&Kosals 2011) WVS 2011, 2 countries* - 4 Scales
Zhao & Cao 2010 (WVS) Anomie Index – 10 scales
claiming state benefits which you are not entitled to
avoiding a fare on public transport
cheating on tax if you have the chance
Buying something which you knew was stolen
someone accepting a bribe in the course of their duties
V58. To what extent do you agree with the statement: I don’t have enough possibilities to make an influence on solving the problems we all face today.
V59. To what extend to you agree with the statement: I often feel lonely
V60. To what extend to you agree with the statement: Life has become so difficult that I often don’t have any idea what I should do
V61. To what extend to you agree with the statement: In order to move forward people often have to break rules
V62. To what extend to you agree with the statement: I don’t like my job
Cao et al (EVS + WVS)
claiming state benefits which you are not entitled to
cheating on tax if you have the chance
someone accepting a bribe in the course of their duties

6. What about Theory?
The Scale applied by Zhao & Cao 2010 is addressed in literature as morality scale.
The Scale of Swader & Kosals 2011 measures not only anomie but also alienation and job (un)satisfaction.
Besides…
Scalar consistency?
No check for scalar reliability (1st case)
New scale (2nd case)
Cronbach’s Alpha
Zhao & Cao 2010 – 0,772
Swader & Kosals 2011 – 0,338

7. Swader, Kosals 2011 Statistics 1 factor model Chi-Square 50.223 df 5 p
0.0000
RMSEA
0.060
Pclose RMSEA
0.119
CFI
0.958
TLI
0.917
SRMR
0.029
POWERLESSNESS
0.589 (.018) 1
0.069 (.01)
0.575 (.023)
SOCIAL ISOLATION F1
1.984 (.164)
MEANINGLESSNESS
2.623 (.224)
0.298 (.029)
0.998 (.098)
NORMLESSNESS
0.509 (.016)
1.166 (.126)
0.702 (.025)
JOB SATISFACTION

8. Possibility of Splitting the Measurement
Statistics
1 factor model
2 factors: N2=
Meaninglessness +
Normlessness
Powerlessness
+ Normlessness
Chi-Square
50.223
50.201
19.731 df 5 4 p
0.0000
0.0006
RMSEA
0.060
0.068
0.040
Pclose RMSEA
0.119
0.033
0.809
CFI
0.958
0.957
0.986
TLI
0.917
0.894
0.964
SRMR
0.029
0.017
Mertonian concept of anomie?

9. Zhao & Cao 2010 Statistics 1 factor model Chi-Square 421.598 df 5 p
0.0000
RMSEA
0.184
Pclose RMSEA
0.000
CFI
0.893
TLI
0.786
SRMR
0.053 F2
Not paying for public transport
Bribery
Tax cheating
Buying stolen things 
Claiming for state benefits one is not entitled to
3.215 (.119) 1
2.632 (.16)
1.028 (.04)
4.461 (.156)
0.604 (.025)
1.534 (.053)
1.121 (.039)
2.497 (.107)
0.841 (.032)
1.538 (.066)

10. + correlations Statistics With correlations Chi-Square 6.991 df 2 p
0.0303
RMSEA
0.032
Pclose RMSEA
0.851
CFI
0.999
TLI
0.994
SRMR
0.006 F
Not paying for public transport
Bribery
Tax cheating
Buying stolen things 
Claiming for state benefits one is not entitled to
1.98 (.175) 1
3.877 (.231)
(.142)
0.89 (.042)
4.187 (.169)
0.397 (.021)
1.878 (.058)
0.981 (.035)
0.909 (.052)
2.067 (.182)
0.569 (.072)
0.511 (.027)
2.367 (.08)
Interesting: negative correlation between claiming for state benefits and tax cheating

11. Final Model Statistics Chi-Square 199.988 df 31 p 0.0000 RMSEA 0.047
POWERLESSNESS
0.589 (.018) 1
0.069 (.01)
Statistics
Chi-Square df 31 p
0.0000
RMSEA
0.047
Pclose RMSEA
0.802
CFI
0.967
TLI
0.952
SRMR
0.033
SOCIAL ISOLATION
1.990 (.165) F1
0.574 (.023)
2.622 (.224)
0.299 (.029)
MEANINGLESSNESS
1.001 (.098)
NORMLESSNESS
0.509 (.016)
1,171 (.126)
0.701 (.018)
JOB SATISFACTION
(.014) F2
Not paying for public transport
Bribery
Tax cheating
Buying stolen things 
Claiming for state benefits one is not entitled to
1.979 (.175) 1
-0.87 (0.142)
0.891 (.042)
4.182 (.169)
0.397 (.021)
3.877 (.23)
1.877 (.058)
0.979 (.035)
0.908 (0.052)
2.08 (.182)
0.511 (.027)
0.572 (0.072)
2.367 (0.08)

12. Conclusions
The factors are almost orthogonal. Each measurement was loaded on each factor – thus we see that different concepts are measured as well.
The measurement of Zhao & Cao is less valid than that of Swader and Kosals. For Russia more in-depth analysis is required.

13. Thank you! ekaterina.lytkina@gmail.com