Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2024 DOI: 10.1111/sjop.

13018

Empirical Article
Construction and validation of a scale for assessing critical social justice
attitudes
OSKARI LAHTINEN
INVEST Flagship/Department of Psychology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland

Lahtinen, O. (2024). Construction and validation of a scale for assessing critical social justice attitudes. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology.

Two large studies (combined n = 5,878) set out to construct and validate a scale for assessing critical social justice attitudes. Studies assessed the
reliability, factor structure, model fit, and both convergent and divergent validity of the scale. Studies also examined the prevalence of critical social justice
attitudes in different populations and the scale’s correlations with other variables of interest, including well-being variables: anxiety, depression, and
happiness. Participants for Study 1 (n = 848) were university faculty and students, as well as non-academic adults, from Finland. Participants responded to
a survey about critical social justice attitudes. Twenty one candidate items were devised for an initial item pool, on which factor analyses were conducted,
resulting in a 10-item pilot version of critical social justice attitude scales (CSJAS). Participants for Study 2 were a nationwide sample (n = 5,030) aged
15–84 from Finland. Five new candidate items were introduced, of which two were included in the final, seven-item, version of CSJAS. The final CSJAS
scale had high reliability (a = 0.87, x = 0.88) and a good model fit (comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, root mean square
error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.04, standardized root mean residual [SRMR] = 0.01, v2 (14, 5024) = 132.8 (p < 0.001)) as well as convergent and
divergent validity. Overall, the study sample rejected critical social justice propositions, with strong rejection from men. Women expressed more than twice
as much support for the propositions (d = 1.20). In both studies, CSJAS was correlated with depression, anxiety, and (lack of) happiness, but not more so
than being on the political left was. The critical social justice attitude scale was successfully constructed and validated. It had good reliability and model fit.
Key words: Critical social justice attitudes, critical social justice, critical social justice attitude scale, anxiety, depression.
Oskari Lahtinen, INVEST Flagship/Department of Psychology, University of Turku, Turku FI-20014, Finland. Tel: +358 415158808; e-mail: polaht@utu.fi

INTRODUCTION 1. perceive people foremost as members of identity groups and as

In the 2010s and early 2020s, a particular variety of social justice being, witting or unwitting, perpetrators or victims of oppression
became a central topic of public discussion in the US and many based on the groups’ perceived power differentials; and
other Western countries. Aspects of this orientation towards social 2. advocate regulating how or how much people speak and how
justice have been discussed in the media under many names, for they act if there is a perceived power differential between
example, “intersectionality,” “antiracism,” and “wokeness.” speakers, and intervening in action or speech deemed
Political scientist Yascha Mounk termed this version of social oppressive
justice “the identity synthesis” (Mounk, 2023). Mounk, while
acknowledging the oppression minorities have faced in societies, These are henceforth referred to as the perception and
and the understandable desire to promote identities in order to regulation aspects of critical social justice attitudes. While critical
combat prejudice, describes the coming to prominence of an social justice (or intersectional or “woke”) discourse draws mainly
ideology that seeks to center identities in nearly every aspect of from dynamics within American society, reports indicate many
life. In a similar vein, author Tim Urban distinguished two varieties other Western countries have begun to see it becoming more
of social justice: liberal social justice (focusing on individual prevalent in their public discussion and institutions, for example,
rights) and social justice fundamentalism (focusing on group the UK, Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Australia, and
identities and with a more authoritarian flair; Urban, 2023). In the Sweden (Boztas, 2022; Hamilton, 2023; Lyons, 2021;
present study, “critical social justice attitudes” refer to this latter Pollara, 2023; Rozado, 2023; Sande, 2023; Smith, Boag, Keegan
kind. The study takes critical social justice to mean what Sensoy & Butler-Warke, 2023).
and DiAngelo (2017) described in the following way: This is true in Finland as well, where the arrival of a critical
social justice (often called “woke”) discourse has sparked much
A critical approach to social justice refers to specific debate in the media (e.g., Koskela, 2021; Parikka, 2022). This
theoretical perspectives that recognize that society is debate has been largely data-free and it can thus be considered a
stratified (i.e., divided and unequal) in significant and worthwhile question to study how prevalent these attitudes are.
far-reaching ways along social group lines that include race, Thus far, no reliable and valid instrument has existed to assess the
class, gender, sexuality, and ability. Critical social justice extent and prevalence of these attitudes in different populations.
recognizes inequality as deeply embedded in the fabric of Theoretically, critical social justice propositions derive in part
society (i.e., as structural), and actively seeks to change this. from various academic disciplines dealing with forms of
Having critical social justice attitudes (CSJA) can thus be said oppression, for example, intersectional feminism and critical race
to reflect a propensity to: theory (Bell, 1995; Crenshaw, 1990; Delgado & Stefancic, 2013).

© 2024 The Authors. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology published by Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use,
distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2 O. Lahtinen Scand J Psychol (2024)

These disciplines derive a portion of their underlying epistemology McNally, 2018; McGlashan & Fitzpatrick, 2018; Rogers, 2006;
from critical theory, postmodernism, and post-colonialism Sue, Capodilupo, Torino et al., 2007). In contemporary culture,
(Delgado & Stefancic, 2013; Mounk, 2023). A broader scope of most visibly in social media and university campuses, various
relevant fields would also encompass, but not be limited to, black people have now experienced different degrees of negative
feminism, queer theory, and transgender studies (Butler, 1990; repercussions both online and offline after saying or writing
Collins, 2020; Combahee River Collective, 2014). Ideas deriving something that caught the attention of online activists (da
from these theoretical continuums come together in the perception Silva, 2021; Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, 2023;
component of critical social justice attitudes. Ng, 2020).
Previously esoteric ideas in the mentioned fields have made it Taking these theoretical and contemporary cultural notions as a
into the mainstream recently, aided by best-selling authors (e.g., starting point Study 1 set out to create a psychometrically reliable
DiAngelo, 2018; Kendi, 2019). These disciplines point out and valid measure for assessing critical social justice attitudes. I
varieties of oppression that cause privileged people (e.g., male, then tested the scale in a university wide study. The aims for
white, heterosexual, cisgender) to benefit over marginalized Study 1 were to construct a pilot CSJA scale and measure
people (e.g., woman, black, gay, transgender). In critical race convergent validity via the scale’s correlation with a global CSJA
theory, some of the core tenets include that: (1) white supremacy item. Study 2 set out to refine and further validate the pilot
and racism are omnipresent and “colorblind” policies are not CSJAS created in Study 1 and replicate results in relation to scale
enough to tackle them; (2) people of color have their own unique reliability and factor structure. This plan was implemented via a
standpoint; and (3) races are social constructs (Delgado & large-sample nationwide study drafting its sample from readership
Stefancic, 2013). of Finland’s largest circulation newspaper. Both studies also
Queer theory on the other hand can be roughly summarized as performed exploratory analyses on the scale’s relationships with
a mechanism for problematizing boundaries of concepts and several variables. For instance, as critical social justice attitudes
categories like “man,” “woman,” “straight,” “gay,” etc. appear to mostly manifest in the political left, and because
(Butler, 1990; McCann & Monaghan, 2019). This process is identifying as being on the left has been seen to correlate with
called “queering,” and results, for example, in beliefs that there weaker mental health, the studies looked at whether having
are no real boundaries between men and women and that gender, critical social justice attitudes had a relationship with participants’
and possibly even sex, are social constructs. Queer theory and its mental health beyond that of simply being on the left
offshoot transgender studies influence, and are influenced by, (Bernardi, 2021; Gimbrone, Bates, Prins & Keyes, 2022).
trans activism (McCann & Monaghan, 2019). They also often go The studies were done in Finland with large samples. Since the
hand in hand with current race activism: the critical race theory- critical social justice phenomenon has been in the spotlight in
influenced black identity movement Black Lives Matter (BLM), recent years, determining how prevalent the attitudes are in the
for instance, explicitly state their aims to include “to dismantle general population and in academia was of public interest. Studies
cisgender privilege” and “to foster a queer-affirming network”, 1 and 2 set out to fill the need, construct a new measure to study
even though BLM is best known for its activism against racist the attitudes, and use it to determine the prevalence of CSJA in
policing (Mathews & Jones, 2022). Finland. However, the scale was designed to be used and
Intersectionality thus ties together different kinds of validated in other Western and possibly other populations as well.
oppression-related identity politics. Post-colonial theory derives
from post-modernism and aims at opposing colonialism in all
aspects of culture (Mishra & Hodge, 1991). Its most visible STUDY 1
manifestations in contemporary culture have included, for
example, attempts to “decolonize” university reading lists, that is, Method
make them less white and European in favor of marginalized Data files and a codebook for the study are posted online on
identities and attempts to get rid of statues of persons deemed Open Science Framework and are found here: (https://osf.io/
controversial (e.g., slave-owning founding fathers in the US) and k2qx9/files/osfstorage).
combating cultural appropriation (a privileged group adopting,
e.g., traditions or dress from an oppressed group). Participants and procedure. Study participants (n = 851) were
The regulating aspect to CSJA manifests most clearly in support staff (n = 382) and students (n = 266) of the (University of
to various challenges to speech and action. Often speech contested Turku) as well as staff (n = 11) and students (n = 53) of other
in this way can be seen to add to perceived oppression of Finnish universities, students of foreign universities (n = 2) and
marginalized identities, but is also typically legal and considered Finnish-speakers not associated with a university (n = 134). In
by others to be within the realm of a “marketplace of ideas” in a total there were 648 participants from (University of Turku) and
liberal democracy. These include combating microaggressions 714 from universities altogether. Three participants were removed
(small slights that are perceived to be offensive to marginalized for extremely anomalous answer patterns and claiming affiliation
people) and cultural appropriation, and attempting to enact safe with departments that do not exist at universities they claimed to
spaces (where speech is limited to what is considered inoffensive study or work in. The survey was administered via the Webropol
to marginalized people), attach trigger warnings to, for example, online survey service and distributed via internal mailing lists of
texts (warnings that the text may contain offensive depiction or (University of Turku).
language), and persuade people into declaring their gender Of the respondents 48.9% (415/848) were female, 44.7% male,
pronouns online (Arao & Clemens, 2013; Bellet, Jones & 1.3% classified themselves as “other,” and 5.1% declined to

© 2024 The Authors. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology published by Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Scand J Psychol (2024) Construction and validation of the critical social justice scale 3

answer. Average respondent age was 35.9 (26.0 for students, books, podcasts, newspaper articles, social media trends, and
44.3 years for faculty) years ranging from 18 to 74 years. Out of discussions with pilot testers of the items from different academic
the 714 university respondents, 406 gave voluntary additional disciplines (e.g., Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018; Pluckrose &
information about their department and/or faculty at the Lindsay, 2020; see complete list of items and their factor loadings
university. 74 (55 faculty, 19 students) were from science, in Table 1). Mainstream ideas from intersectional feminism, critical
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), 68 (11, 57) race theory, queer theory, and post-colonial theory were taken as a
from the department of social sciences (sociology, social policy, starting point, as well as items involving limiting speech that could
social work), 61 (51, 10) from medicine, 42 (3, 39) from political be termed problematic, hurtful, or coming from privilege. Twenty
science, 35 (6, 29) from psychology, 32 (20, 12) from humanities, candidate items were then devised based on sentiments commonly
29 (21, 8) from business, 21 (10, 11) from “other” social sciences appearing in contemporary culture and deriving from critical social
(e.g., philosophy), 20 (16, 4) from education, 17 (1, 16) from justice literature. Some items introduced reversed sentiments and
speech-language pathology, and eight (5, 3) from law school. were reverse-coded in analyses.
Four additional items of interest were included to assess qualities
Critical social justice attitude scale creation. Candidate items for adjacent to critical social justice ideas. Twenty items were to be
the scale were designed based on the most prevalent ideas in tested and the ones that did not perform well enough
critical social justice literature (e.g., Butler, 1990; Collins, 2020; psychometrically were then to be excluded. The scale was designed
Combahee River Collective, 2014; Crenshaw, 1990; Delgado & to have only one factor, measuring an underlying critical social
Stefancic, 2013; DiAngelo, 2018; Kendi, 2019; McCann & justice orientation, but should exploratory factor analysis indicate
Monaghan, 2019; Rothblum & Solovay, 2009) and its multiple factors, another factor solution could just as well be taken
manifestations in contemporary culture, including non-fiction as the scale’s proper form. Prior to collecting data, the 20 candidate

Table 1. Study 1 and 2: Candidate items and factor loadings for CSJAS (reversed items marked (r); altered wordings with superscript numbers)

Study 2 Study 1

Item 20-item 7 21-item 10

CSJAS1 If white people have on average a higher level of income than black people, it is because of racism.a 0.80 0.81 0.79 0.79
CSJAS2 University reading lists should include fewer white or European authors. 0.80 0.80 0.81 0.80
CSJAS3 Microaggressions* should be challenged often and actively. (* = verbal communication or act, which 0.80 0.78 – –
can be seen to reflect negative attitudes towards a minority group, regardless of original intent)
CSJAS4 Trans* women who compete with women in sports are not helping women’s rights. (* = born male, 0.76 0.73 0.77 0.79
identify as female)b (r)
CSJAS5 We don’t need to talk more about the color of people’s skin. (r) 0.60 0.62 0.62 0.62
CSJAS6 A white person cannot understand how a black person feels equally well as another black person.c 0.59 0.59 0.57 –
CSJAS7 A member of a privileged group can adopt features or cultural elements of a less privileged group. (r) 0.59 0.59 – –
CSJAS8 If a white person doesn’t admit they are racist, they are still probably racist. 0.65 – 0.59 –
CSJAS9 Trans* women are women. (* = born male, identify as female) 0.70 – 0.75 0.77
CSJAS10 We should have more safe spaces in society (=a space where agreed-upon rules aim to eliminate 0.79 – – –
prejudices, conflicts, criticism, or potentially offensive actions, ideas, or discussions).
CSJAS11 Content warnings do not need to be added to text that may cause people to experience disturbing 0.60 – – –
emotions. (r)
CSJAS12 Cisgender* people should state their gender pronouns in, for instance, their social media profiles 0.56 – – –
(* = people who feel they are the sex assigned in their birth)
CSJAS13 Every act is either racist or antiracist, and there are no alternatives. 0.53 – 0.48 –
CSJAS14 Limiting speech rights of privileged people is not justified. (r) 0.45 – 0.61 0.60
CSJAS15 There are two biological sexes in the human species. (r) 0.67 – 0.72 0.73
CSJAS16 You should not say things that might offend an oppressed person. 0.62 – 0.66 0.66
CSJAS17 The police are institutionally racist.d 0.68 0.67 0.62
CSJAS18 The ideas of Karl Marx should not have more influence in national politics. (r) 0.53 – 0.61 0.60
CSJAS19 Other people or structures are more responsible for my well-being than I myself am. 0.49 – 0.55 –
CSJAS20 Rioting or looting are not justified even if they are carried out by an oppressed person. (r) 0.47 – 0.48 –
CSJAS21 A black person can be racist. (r) – – 0.33 –
CSJAS22 There are no biological differences between men and women. – – 0.48 –
CSJAS23 Being fat should not be considered an identity and doctors are right to counsel fat patients to lose – – 0.45 –
weight.e (r)
CSJAS24 Feminism should also advance the rights of white women. (r) – – 0.03 –
CSJAS25 I don’t care about the ethnic origin of a person. (r) – – 0.11 –
CSJAS26 There has been significant progress in human rights within the last century. (r) – – 0.12 –

Note: Study wordings: a“If white people have on average a higher income than black people, it is because of oppression”; b“Transwomen in the Olympics
are not helping women’s rights”; c“A white person cannot understand how a black person feels”; d“The police are fundamentally a racist institution.”; and
e
“Being overweight should not be considered a lifestyle choice and doctors are right to counsel overweight patients.” Factors forced to load on the single
SJAS factor.

© 2024 The Authors. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology published by Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
4 O. Lahtinen Scand J Psychol (2024)

items were piloted with five people in and outside of the research Table 2. Study 1 and 2: Candidate items for CSJAS in original Finnish
group. All piloters had a graduate degree, and they had backgrounds (reversed items marked (r); altered wordings with superscript numbers)
in diverse academic disciplines including philosophy, social science,
Item
psychology, medicine, and fine arts as well as an interest in critical
social justice phenomenology. The scale was edited based on their CSJAS1 Jos valkoihoisilla ihmisill€ a on keskim€ aa€rin korkeammat tulot
feedback. English translations of the items were provided by the kuin tummaihoisilla ihmisill€ a, se johtuu rasismista.a
author and a psychology researcher who is a native speaker of both CSJAS2 Korkeakoulujen kurssikirjallisuuden tulisi sis€ alt€a€
a v€ahemm€ an
valkoihoisia tai eurooppalaisia kirjailijoita.
Finnish and (American) English. In the study, the scale was offered
CSJAS3 Mikroaggressioihin (=verbaalinen viesti tai k€ ayt€os, jonka voi
in Finnish and items were translated for the manuscript. tulkita viestiv€
an negatiivisia asenteita v€ ahemmist€ oryhm€ a€
a
kohtaan, riippumatta alkuper€ aisest€
a tarkoituksesta) tulee
Data collection. All faculties of (University of Turku) received an puuttua usein ja aktiivisesti.
email asking university students and staff to answer a brief survey CSJAS4 Transnaiset*, jotka kilpailevat naisten kanssa urheilussa eiv€ at
on critical social justice attitudes and well-being. In addition, a naisten oikeuksia.b (* = syntynyt mieheksi,
edist€
students and staff from other universities as well as people not identifioituu naiseksi) (r)
CSJAS5 Ihonv€areist€a ei tarvitse puhua nykyist€ a enemp€ a€
a. (r)
affiliated with any university were allowed to answer, but the
CSJAS6 Valkoihoinen ihminen ei voi tiet€ a€a milt€
a tummaihoisesta
survey was not advertised to them in any way. The survey was in ihmisest€ a tuntuu yht€ a hyvin kuin toinen tummaihoinen
Finnish. All survey items had to be answered in order to proceed ihminen.c
(except for one anxiety item). CSJAS7 Etuoikeutetun ryhm€ an j€asen saa ottaa k€ aytt€o€
ons€a v€ahemm€ an
etuoikeutetun identiteettiryhm€ an piirteit€
a tai
Measures Critical social justice attitudes. Critical social justice kulttuurituotteita. (r)
attitudes were measured with 20 candidate items and four additional CSJAS8 Mik€ali valkoihoinen ihminen ei my€ onn€a olevansa rasisti, h€ an
on silti todenn€ ak€
oisesti rasisti.
items of interest designed for the study. All items were devised by
CSJAS9 Transnaiset* ovat naisia. (* = syntynyt mieheksi, identifioituu
the author, using feedback from pilot testers to fine-tune details in naiseksi)
phrasing. Answer options for these items were 1 = “completely CSJAS10 Yhteiskunnassa tulisi olla enemm€ an turvallisia tiloja (=tila,
disagree,” 2 = “somewhat disagree,” 3 = “somewhat agree,” and josta on sovituin s€ a€ann€oin pyritty poistamaan ennakkoluulot,
4 = “completely agree.” See Table 1 for a full list of items and konflikti, kritiikki tai potentiaalisesti loukkaavat teot, ideat tai
keskustelut).
Table 2 for a full list of the original Finnish items.
CSJAS11 Sis€
alt€
ovaroituksia ei tarvitse lis€ at€
a sellaisiin teksteihin, jotka
saattavat altistaa ihmisi€ a kokemaan h€ airitsevi€
a tunteita. (r)
Additional items. Four additional items were included to assess
CSJAS12 Cis-sukupuolisten* ihmisten olisi suotavaa ilmoittaa
attitudes or qualities that were thought to be critical social justice sukupuoli-identiteettiins€ a liittyv€
at pronominit esimerkiksi
attitude related, but not necessarily within the domain of the scale. someprofiileissaan. (* = ihminen, joka kokee olevansa
These items were “I think of myself as being in a good syntym€ ass€a m€a€ar€
atty€a sukupuoltaan)
socio-economic position,” “I have experienced significant CSJAS13 Jokainen teko on rasistinen tai antirasistinen ja muita
vaihtoehtoja ei ole.
oppression from others during my life,” “Other people and/or
CSJAS14 Etuoikeutetun ihmisen puheoikeutta ei ole oikein rajoittaa. (r)
structures are more responsible for my well-being than I am,” and CSJAS15 Ihmislajilla on kaksi biologista sukupuolta. (r)
“I think violence against politically dangerous people is justified.” CSJAS16 Ei tule sanoa asioita, joista sorrettu ihminen voi loukkaantua.
Answer options for these items were 1 = “completely disagree,” CSJAS17 Poliisi on rasistinen instituutio.d
2 = “somewhat disagree,” 3 = “somewhat agree,” and CSJAS18 Karl Marxin ideoilla ei tulisi olla nykyist€ a enemp€ a€
a
vaikutusvaltaa kotimaan politiikassa. (r)
4 = “completely agree.” One additional item, the global critical
CSJAS19 Muut ihmiset tai rakenteet ovat hyvinvoinnistani vastuussa
social justice attitude item, asked participants to self-assess their itse€
ani enemm€ an.
critical social justice orientation (“If my friend called me ‘woke’ in CSJAS20 Mellakointi tai ry€ ostely ei ole oikeutettua, vaikka sit€ a tekev€
a
good faith, I would agree with them, regardless of whether I kuuluisi sorrettuun v€ ahemmist€ o€
on. (r)
approve of the term or not.”) in order to compare the answer to CSJAS21 Tummaihoinen ihminen voi olla rasisti. (r)
CSJAS22 Miesten ja naisten v€ alill€
a ei ole biologisia eroja.
the score given by the CSJAS.
CSJAS23 Lihavuutta ei tule pit€ a€a el€
am€ antapavalintana ja l€ a€
ak€areiden
Anxiety. Anxiety was measured with the brief generalized anxiety on perusteltua valistaa lihavia. e (r)
CSJAS24 Feminismin tulisi ajaa my€ os valkoihoisten naisten asiaa. (r)
measure, the GAD-7 (Spitzer, Kroenke, Williams & L€owe, 2006).
CSJAS25 Ihmisen etnisell€ a alkuper€ all€
a ei ole minulle v€ ali€
a. (r)
It measures anxiety over the last two weeks with seven items CSJAS26 Ihmisoikeuksissa on tapahtunut merkitt€ av€a€a edistyst€a
(e.g., asking participants how often they have been bothered by viimeisten sadan vuoden aikana. (r)
“Not being able to stop or control worrying”), each with four
answer options ranging from 0 (“not at all”) to 3 (“nearly every Note: Study wordings: a“Jos valkoihoisilla ihmisill€a on keskim€a€arin
korkeammat tulot kuin tummaihoisilla ihmisill€a, se johtuu sorrosta”;
day”). Scores for GAD-7 range from 0 to 21. Minima for all of b
“Transnaiset olympialaisissa eiv€at edist€a naisten oikeuksia”; c“Valkoihoinen
the scales on the questionnaires were 1 (e.g., GAD-7 items ranged ihminen ei voi tiet€a€a milt€a tummaihoisesta ihmisest€a tuntuu”; d“Poliisi on
from 1 to 4) and scale sum scores were later transformed to start okohtaisesti rasistinen instituutio”; and e“Ylipainoa ei tule pit€a€a
l€aht€
from 0. The scale was internally consistent (a = 0.91, x = 0.91). el€am€antapavalintana ja l€a€ak€areiden on perusteltua valistaa ylipainoisia.”

Depression. Depression was measured with the Finnish

modification of the two-factor revised Beck depression inventory of five statements such as “How do you see the future?” with
(R-BDI; Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpel€a, Rantanen & Laippala, 1999). options ranging from 0 (“I am hopeful about the future”) to 4
The Finnish R-BDI has 13 items. The items consist of collections (“The future feels hopeless to me”). (a = 0.88, x = 0.88).

© 2024 The Authors. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology published by Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Scand J Psychol (2024) Construction and validation of the critical social justice scale 5

Happiness. Happiness was measured with a global happiness item analyzed factors 1, 2, and 3: 7.47 vs. 1.29, 1.69 vs. 1.24, and 1.09
from UN’s World Happiness Report, where participants are asked vs. 1.20). However, only three items (CSJAS24-26) had their
to rate their quality of life on a scale from 0 to 10 (Helliwell, strongest loading on the second factor. These three items would
Layard, Sachs & De Neve, 2020). not load on the common factor, even when confined to a single
factor. Thus, to simplify the scale, the three items were removed
Compliance with ethical standards. All procedures performed from the next EFA. Two more items (CSJAS22-23) were
involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical excluded based on item 22’s low ability to differentiate between
standards of the institutional and/or national research committee respondents (97.4% completely or somewhat disagree, 2.6%
and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments completely or somewhat agree) and a human error in the survey
or comparable ethical standards. As participants were adults and phrasing of item 23. One item (CSJAS21) had a substantially
the results anonymous, ethical board review was not required in lower factor loading than the rest of the items (0.33 vs. > 0.48)
Finland where the study was performed. Informed consent was and was discarded, resulting in 15 items with 42.2% of variance
obtained from all individual participants included in the study. explained by a single factor and loadings 0.47–0.81 (a = 0.91,
Before answering the survey, participants were presented with the x = 0.92).
following consent message: “The answers to this survey will be Next, five items with lowest factor loadings (CSJAS6,
used in a study on social justice attitudes and well-being. Your CSJAS8, CSJAS13, CSJAS19-20) were removed to optimize
answers will be saved and analyzed anonymously in the study. By scale length and variance explained by the factor. This resulted in
continuing to fill out the survey you indicate you have understood a 10-item scale (CSJAS1-2, CSJAS4-5, CSJAS9, CSJAS14-18)
the above and give your consent to your answers being used as with one factor (a = 0.90, x = 0.91; 49.2% of variance
anonymous research data.” explained, loadings 0.60–0.80; women: a = 0.86, x = 0.86;
Analysis plan. Interitem correlations were to be calculated for all 39.5%, 0.50–0.80; men: a = 0.89, x = 0.89; 46.6%, 0.49–0.82).
of the 20 candidate items and four additional items for the Confirmatory factor analysis for the 10-item, single-factor
CSJAS. Exploratory factor analyses (EFA, in SPSS) would be model indicated decent fit: CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, SRMR =
used to evaluate the factor structure of the scale and how 0.04, v2 (35, 848) = 229.5 (p < 0.001), root mean square
excluding some of the worst-performing items would affect the error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.08 (women: CFI = 0.94,
factor structure and reliability of the scale. The factor solution Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 0.93, SRMR = 0.04, v2 (35, 848) =
would be obtained using principal axis factoring and corroborated 112.5 (P < 0.001), RMSEA = 0.07; men: CFI = 0.96,
using parallel analysis. The rotation method was oblique (“direct TLI = 0.94, SRMR = 0.04, v2 (35, 848) = 109.3 (P < 0.001),
oblimin” in SPSS) to allow correlations between factors. The RMSEA = 0.08).
analysis plan was amended to confirm EFA with separate analyses
for men and women due to large gender differences in results. If Correlations, descriptive statistics, and t-tests. All final scale
feasible, the scale was expected to have reliability over x = 0.80 items for CSJAS were weakly positively correlated with anxiety
and explain at a minimum ≥50.0% of variance. Finally, (r = 0.16–0.22) and very weakly positively correlated with
confirmatory factor analyses (CFA, in R) would be used to depression (r = 0.06–0.14) and with lack of happiness (r = 0.01–
evaluate model fit for the scale. The scale was expected to have 0.10). Self-reporting as “woke” (global CSJA item) and CSJAS
comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.95 or better, standardized root items were strongly correlated (r = 0.62), indicating the scale had
mean residual (SRMR) < 0.05 and the scale be of economical convergent validity. Self-reporting as woke was also correlated
length, in the range of 7–11 items. Study subpopulations (faculty, with depression, anxiety, and (lack of) happiness. Anxiety,
students, non-university Finnish adults) would be compared to depression and (lack of) happiness were strongly correlated with
each other in terms of critical social justice attitudes and well- each other. Higher CSJAS scores were weakly correlated with
being. depression, anxiety, and lack of happiness in students (r = 0.39,
0.27, 0.17 for anxiety, depression, and happiness, respectively).
In faculty (0.17, 0.07, 0.06) and non-academic (0.19, 0.14,
RESULTS 0.11) respondents these correlations were very weak.
Scale reliabilities, EFAs, and CFAs Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) are
One of the additional four items (CSJAS19) was noticed to be displayed in Table 3 for all respondents, men, women, those who
moderately correlated with several scale items, and was included responded “other” for gender, students, faculty, non-academic
in the EFAs. The first reliability analysis was run for all 21 respondents, and the departments/faculties whose number of
candidate items (CSJAS1-2, CSJAS4-6, CSJAS8-9, CSJAS13-26, respondents exceeded n = 18. Overall, women (CSJAS: 1.44
Table 1) resulting in a = 0.89 and x = 0.94, already indicating [1.38–1.50]) scored around two times higher than men (CSJAS:
good reliability. The first EFA was run for 21 items to find out the 0.76 [0.70–0.83]) on CSJAS. Cohen’s d was 1.07 for the
scale’s factor structure and which items could possibly be difference between men and women indicating a large effect.
excluded to further improve the scale’s reliability. The items had Lowest well-being as well as highest CSJAS scores were in the
KMO = 0.95 and Bartlett’s sphericity v2 (210) = 6569.2, “other” category for gender, though with only n = 11
p < 0.001, indicating an excellent starting point for factor respondents. Social sciences students had low well-being and high
analyses, and these indices remained good-to-excellent throughout CSJAS scores relative to others, whereas psychology students had
analyses. Parallel analysis indicated two potential factors high CSJAS scores but moderate well-being. Non-academic
explaining 33.1% and 4.8% of variance (eigenvalues for parallel respondents and STEM students had the lowest CSJAS scores.

© 2024 The Authors. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology published by Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
6 O. Lahtinen Scand J Psychol (2024)

Table 3. Study 1: Descriptive statistics for study populations secondary (15.4%) school or vocational degree (15.3%), and 222
(4.4%) only had secondary school training or less (211 N/A,
AN DE HA GS CSJAS
4.2%; 81 “other,” 1.6%). Political party preferences roughly
(0–21) (0–52) (0–10) (0–3) (0–3)
corresponded to a national Helsingin Sanomat newspaper poll the
All 4.43 10.81 7.62 1.33 1.13 same month, with some exceptions (Luukka, 2022). Of the
Men 3.57 10.30 7.68 0.96 0.76 respondents 11.8% said they do not vote (N/A 18.3%). Out of
Women 5.17 11.00 7.62 1.68 1.44 people who said they vote, the National Coalition Party had
Other 7.361 16.181 6.361 1.803 1.821
23.9% support (vs. 24.2% nationally), Finns 15.6% (vs. 17.3%)
Student 5.27 11.96 7.34 1.49 1.21
Soc 6.822 13.812 7.112 1.861 1.663 and Swedish People’s Party 2.6% (vs. 4.6%). Substantial
Pol 4.97 11.46 7.413 1.45 1.31 overrepresentation was seen for the Green Party (19.1% vs. 9.0%)
Psych 4.72 9.79 7.55 1.852 1.732 and Left Alliance (16.9% vs. 8.3%) and underrepresentation for
STEM 3.89 9.89 7.53 1.36 .75 the Social Democratic Party (10.0% vs. 19.0%) and Centre Party
Faculty 3.91 9.78 7.89 1.40 1.26
(3.4% vs. 10.4%). 8.5% said they support another party.
STEM 4.27 10.22 7.85 1.39 1.19
Med 4.22 10.08 7.86 1.39 1.20 One thousand two hundred twenty-six participants worked
Busin 2.24* 8.05* 7.90* 1.23 1.10 (n = 275) or studied (n = 951) at a university whereas 3,690 did
Hum 4.05 10.70 7.35 1.61 1.57 not (114 N/A). Biggest university representation was from
Non-acad 3.96 11.07 7.49 0.78* 0.56* University of Helsinki (n = 236), University of Turku (n = 110),
Low-CSJAS 3.98 10.30 7.68 – –
and University of Tampere (n = 102), followed by 85 from
High-CSJAS 5.973 12.543 7.413 – –
University of Eastern Finland, 79 from University of Jyv€askyl€a,
Note: Superscript for three subpopulations with highest score, asterisk for 76 from University of Oulu, and 15 from  Abo Akademi (378
subpopulation with lowest score (happiness reversed). AN = Anxiety; were from applied universities, 115 from technical universities, 93
DE = Depression; HA = Happiness; GS = Global CSJA; Soc = Social from “other” Finnish university, and 51 from a university abroad).
Sciences; pol = Political Sciences; psych = Psychology; med = Medicine;
Biggest fields were natural sciences/technical (n = 309; 205
busin = Business; hum = Humanities; non-acad = Non-Academic.
students, 52 faculty, 52 N/A), applied sciences (any; n = 225; 183
students, 23 faculty), humanities (n = 147; 98, 30), business/
The differences between student populations were mitigated, but economics (n = 118; 97, 4), social sciences (n = 98; 73, 15),
did not entirely disappear, when controlling for gender. Overall, political science/philosophy (n = 84; 61, 13), medicine (n = 83;
men rejected every critical social justice item on the scale, 49, 17), education (n = 75; 57, 12), law (n = 54; 43, 3), and
whereas women expressed support for half and rejected half (see psychology (n = 39; 30, 4), 81 “other.” Participants were from all
Table 4 for percentage support for each scale item by gender). over Finland with the most participants from Helsinki
A binary variable for CSJAS scores below (n = 656) and (n = 1,133), Uusimaa (n = 1,011), and Central Finland/
above (n = 192) the scale midpoint (1.5) was constructed for Pirkanmaa/H€ame (n = 1,010). The study was preregistered
t-tests. Respondents with high CSJAS scores were more anxious (redacted for peer review). Preregistration included the study
(t[569.2] = 5.32) and depressed (t[551.8] = 3.26) than respondents design and planned primary analyses.
with low CSJAS scores. They were also less happy (t[556.3] =
1.75) and more likely to report being in a good socio-economic Critical social justice attitude scale refinement. Five new items
position (t[663.7] = 4.32), having experienced less oppression were designed to be studied with the best performing 15 items
than other respondents (t[623.6] = 2.87) and to find violence from Study 1. New item creation was based on the observation
against “politically dangerous people” justified (t[689.9]) = 1.93). that items in the Study 1 reflected the propensity to perceive
Being more anxious and depressed and less happy was more oppression aspect of CSJA better than advocating regulation of
pronounced in high-CSJAS students relative to other high-CSJAS oppressive speech or actions aspect. These new items all reflected
respondents. Percentage-wise, differences between high-CSJAS the regulating aspect of CSJA. The aim was to investigate
and low-CSJAS students were 67.9% for anxiety, 32.5% for whether the new items would perform well when compared to
depression, and 4.5% for happiness. other CSJAS items. The new items were on microaggressions,
cultural appropriation, content warnings, safe spaces, and online
gender pronouns. English translations of the items were provided
STUDY 2 by the author and a psychology researcher as per Study 1. In the
study, the scale was in Finnish and items were translated for the
Method manuscript.
Participants and procedure. Study participants (n = 5,030) were Data collection. Data were collected using the Webropol online
2,634 (52.4%) men, 2,112 (42.0%) women, 120 (2.4%) people survey tool. In October 20, 2022 the highest circulation
with “other” gender, and 164 (3.3%) unwilling to specify a newspaper in Finland, Helsingin Sanomat, ran a story on Study 1.
gender. Participant ages ranged from 15 to 84 with mean at The story included a link to the Study 2 survey. This resulted in
41.2 years. Four participants were removed due to their very thousands of answers to the survey with a nationwide sample of
young age (11–14) and one participant for highly anomalous all ages, genders, and party preferences.
answers. 2,974 Of the participants (59.1%) had an academic
degree: bachelor’s (7.7%), master’s (26.0%), licentiate (2.1%) or a Measures Critical social justice attitudes. Critical social justice
doctoral degree (3.9%), 1,542 (30.7%) had either an upper attitudes were measured with the 15 best performing items from

© 2024 The Authors. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology published by Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Scand J Psychol (2024) Construction and validation of the critical social justice scale 7

Table 4. Study 1 and 2: CSJAS item answer distribution in percentages (1–5 in Study 2, 1–4 in Study 1; all items unreversed)

Men (%) Women (%)

Item 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

CSJAS1 If white people have on average a higher level of income than black . . . 51.6 29.1 5.4 10.5 3.4 19.0 24.7 8.0 35.9 12.4
CSJAS2 University reading lists should include fewer white or European authors. 55.4 22.4 12.5 6.7 3.0 21.0 21.9 17.7 23.4 15.9
CSJAS3 Microaggressions* are to be challenged often and actively. 44.8 23.9 8.3 16.1 6.8 13.2 15.5 8.1 33.4 29.8
CSJAS4 Trans* women who compete with women in sports are not 5.3 5.4 6.0 16.2 67.0 20.2 19.4 11.8 21.0 27.7
helping . . . (r)
CSJAS5 We don’t need to talk more about the color of people’s skin. (r) 8.6 11.6 10.4 24.5 44.9 20.1 26.6 9.1 22.5 21.7
CSJAS6 A white person cannot understand how a black person feels equally 30.6 29.4 7.3 22.3 10.5 9.3 17.9 5.3 33.1 34.4
well . . .
CSJAS7 A member of a privileged group can adopt features or cultural . . . (r) 6.7 8.5 11.7 26.1 47.0 13.7 27.6 16.7 25.7 16.4
CSJAS8 If a white person doesn’t admit they are racist, they are still probably . . . 69.2 17.1 5.3 5.6 2.8 37.6 27.4 10.9 19.1 4.9
CSJAS9 Trans* women are women. (* = born male, identify as female) 40.4 21.9 7.9 19.0 10.8 13.4 14.3 8.2 26.8 37.3
CSJAS10 We should have more safe spaces in society. 42.6 19.4 13.5 14.0 10.4 12.7 12.2 12.8 25.0 37.3
CSJAS11 Content warnings do not need to be added to written text that 49.7 20.8 7.2 15.3 7.0 18.6 32.1 7.6 20.7 21.0
may . . . (r)
CSJAS12 Cisgender* people should state their gender . . . 71.6 10.4 12.3 3.0 2.7 47.9 18.8 19.2 8.2 5.8
CSJAS13 Every act is either racist or antiracist and there are no other 88.3 6.8 2.4 1.3 1.2 66.0 22.9 5.7 4.0 1.5
alternatives.
CSJAS14 Limiting speech rights of privileged speakers is not justified. (r) 10.1 7.2 3.9 14.4 64.4 10.1 25.5 8.0 23.8 32.7
CSJAS15 There are two biological sexes in the human species. (r) 7.3 6.0 2.3 16.0 68.4 20.4 21.1 4.7 22.1 31.6
CSJAS16 You should not say things that might offend an oppressed person. 34.8 30.4 5.8 20.7 8.3 9.7 22.5 5.8 35.0 27.0
CSJAS17 The police are institutionally racist. 75.6 14.9 2.7 4.3 2.6 46.8 27.7 7.3 13.6 4.6
CSJAS18 The ideas of Karl Marx should not have more influence in 6.7 8.1 16.0 13.0 56.3 5.1 14.7 32.3 19.2 28.7
national . . . (r)
CSJAS19 Other people and/or structures are more responsible for my 53.9 30.2 6.6 7.0 2.3 32.6 42.0 10.4 13.2 1.8
well-being . . .
CSJAS20 Rioting or looting are not justified even if they are carried out by 2.1 3.4 1.9 10.2 82.4 1.9 6.0 3.0 19.3 69.9
an . . . (r)
CSJAS21 A black person can be racist. (r) 89.2 5.8 1.3 3.7 x 72.8 20.0 5.1 2.2 x
CSJAS22 No biological differences exist between men and women. 87.9 10.6 1.3 0.3 x 70.8 26.5 1.7 1.0 x
CSJAS23 Being fat should not be considered an identity and doctors are . . . (r) 5.3 9.0 33.5 52.2 x 5.5 19.0 46.5 28.9 x
CSJAS24 Feminism should also advance the rights of white women. (r) 4.7 2.9 24.8 67.5 x 2.4 3.9 32.3 61.4 x
CSJAS25 I don’t care about the ethnic origin of people. (r) 12.4 11.3 30.3 45.9 x 2.4 16.1 37.8 43.6 x
CSJAS26 There has been significant progress in human rights within the 8.4 4.7 19.3 67.5 x 4.3 3.4 30.8 61.4 x
last . . . (r)

Note: Items CSJAS1-20: 1“completely disagree”; 2“somewhat disagree”; 3“not agree, not disagree”; 4“somewhat agree”; and 5“completely agree.”
CSJAS21-26: 1“completely disagree”; 2“somewhat disagree”; 3“somewhat agree”; and 4“completely agree.”; x = option “not agree, not disagree” not
available in Study 1.

Study 1 and five additional new items (CSJAS3, CSJAS7, scores were later transformed to start from 0. The scale was
CSJAS10-12; Table 1) designed for the study. All items were internally consistent (a = 0.94, x = 0.91).
devised by the author, using feedback from pilot testers to
Depression. Depression was measured with a single item devised
fine-tune details in phrasing. Answer options for these items were
for the study: “I have experienced symptoms of depression during
1 = “completely disagree,” 2 = “somewhat disagree,” 3 = “not
the last month.” Its scale ranged from 1 = “Not at all” to
agree, not disagree”, 4 = “somewhat agree,” and 5 = “completely
5 = “Very much.”
agree.” New items were based on contemporary social media
conversation, news items, podcasts, popular books, and academic Happiness. Happiness was measured with a global happiness item
discourse on topics the items cover (e.g., Arao & Clemens, 2013; from UN’s World Happiness Report, where participants are asked
Bellet et al., 2018; McGlashan & Fitzpatrick, 2018; Rogers, 2006; to rate their quality of life on a scale from 0 to 10 (Helliwell
Sue et al., 2007). et al., 2020).

Anxiety. Anxiety was measured with the brief generalized anxiety Other additional items. Participants were asked for their gender,
measure, the GAD-7 (Spitzer et al., 2006). It measures anxiety their year of birth, their level of education, whether they study or
over the last 2 weeks with seven items (e.g., asking participants work at a university, which one and which field, party they
how often they have been bothered by “Not being able to stop or typically vote for, are they politically left or right (1 = “very
control worrying”), each with four answer options ranging from 0 much left,” 2 = “somewhat left,” 3 = “in the center,”
(“not at all”) to 3 (“nearly every day”). Scores for GAD-7 range 4 = “somewhat right,” 5 = “very much right”), how liberal/
from 0 to 21. Minima for all of the scales on the questionnaires conservative they are (1 = “liberal,” 2 = “somewhat liberal,
were 1 (e.g., GAD-7 items ranged from 1 to 4) and scale sum somewhat conservative,” 3 = “conservative,” 4 = “radical”; when

© 2024 The Authors. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology published by Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
8 O. Lahtinen Scand J Psychol (2024)

calculating correlations, option 4 was excluded as it can refer to expected to have model fit of CFI = 0.95 or better, SRMR <
both left and right radicalism), how much they appreciate 0.05, and RMSEA = 0.06 or lower, have economical scale length
democracy, capitalism, the welfare state, individualism, and three with preferably 7–11 items, have good content validity with
prominent public persons (Greta Thunberg, Barack Obama, and J. diverse items representing the main aspects of the item pool, and
K. Rowling; scale in all appreciation items from 1 to 5, “not at at least two items measuring both aspects of CSJA (perception
all” to “very much”). The following questions from the previous and regulation). EFA and CFA would also be replicated in two
CSJAS study were also included: “I have experienced significant halves of a file split at random (n = 2,515 for each), with EFA on
oppression from others,” “I think violence against politically the other half and CFA on the other. Study subpopulations
dangerous people is justified,” “If my friend called me ‘woke’ in (genders, education level, different party preferences, left–right,
good faith, I would agree with them, regardless of whether I liberal–conservative, students vs. others, university vs. non-
approve of the term or not”; global critical social justice attitude university) would be compared to each other in terms of critical
item). social justice attitudes and well-being. Finally, the procedure
would be compared to preregistration to point out possible
Compliance with ethical standards. As with Study 1, all changes to protocol.
procedures performed involving human participants were in
accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or
national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Results
declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical Scale reliabilities, EFAs, CFAs, and item refinement. The first
standards. Similar to Study 1, as participants were adults and the reliability analysis was run for all 20 items (15 best performing
results anonymous, ethical board review was not required in items used in Study 1 and five new items; CSJAS1-20, Table 1)
Finland where the study was performed. Informed consent was resulting in a = 0.93, x = 0.93. The items had KMO = 0.97 and
obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Bartlett’s sphericity v2 (190) = 36126.2, p < 0.001 indicating a
Before answering the survey, participants were presented with the good starting point for EFA, and these indices remained good-
same consent message as in Study 1: “The answers to this survey to-excellent throughout analyses. The first exploratory factor
will be used in a study on social justice attitudes and well-being. analysis was run for the 20 items and indicated two factors
Your answers will be saved and analyzed anonymously in the (40.9% and 3.2% of variance explained) with loadings 0.45–0.80.
study. By continuing to fill out the survey you indicate you have Each item’s correlations with control variables (left–right, liberal–
understood the above and give your consent to your answers conservative) were then compared to the item’s correlation with
being used as anonymous research data.” the global CSJA item. Four items had ≥ 0.05 higher correlations
with the left–right axis than with global CSJA and were
Analysis plan. Interitem correlations were to be calculated for the discarded: “Other people and/or structures are more responsible
highest loading 15 items from Study 1 CSJAS study and the five for my well-being than I myself am” (r = 0.45 vs. 0.34), “Rioting
new candidate items for the Critical Social Justice Attitude Scale. or looting are not justified even if they are committed by an
Scale reliabilities measured in Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s oppressed person” (0.38 vs. 0.29), “The ideas of Karl Marx
omega were to be evaluated for each version of the scale starting should not have more influence in national politics” (0.55 vs.
from 20 items. Correlations versus control variables (left–right 0.49), and “The police are institutionally racist” (0.51 vs. 0.46;
and liberal–conservative axes) were to be compared with CSJAS17-20). No items had higher correlations with the liberal–
correlations to the global CSJA item, and, to increase the scale’s conservative axis than with the global CSJA item. Two items,
divergent validity, items with highest relative correlations with “Microaggressions* are to be challenged often and actively”
control variables were to be cut from the scale (cutoff was set at (CSJAS3), “You should not say things that might offend an
≥ 0.05 the item’s correlation with global CSJA). oppressed person” (CSJAS16) were noticed to be very similar in
Exploratory factor analyses (EFA, in SPSS) would then be used their content, rendering one of them redundant. The former item
to evaluate the factor structure of the scale and how excluding performed better in EFA and the latter item was discarded.
some of the worst-performing items would affect the factor Finally, a possible content problem was identified with another
structure and reliability of the scale. The factor solution would be item, “There are two biological sexes in the human species”
obtained using principal axis factoring and corroborated using (CSJAS15): it is possible to support this claim for reasons not
parallel analysis, with the final scale expected to explain at least having to do with CSJA, namely for a different scientific
50.0% of scale variance and have reliability above x = 0.80. interpretation of the definition of biological sex (to include
Rotation method was oblique (“direct oblimin” in SPSS) to allow chromosomal or hormonal anomalies, for instance). Additionally,
correlations between factors. The analysis plan was amended to the claim that there are multiple biological sexes (instead of
confirm EFA with separate analyses for men and women due to genders) is not central to critical social justice. This item was
large gender differences in results. discarded from analyses. Exploratory factor analysis was then run
Finally, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA, with the lavaan for the resulting items.
package in R, using maximum likelihood [ML] estimation) would The remaining 14 items formed a unifactorial scale (parallel
be used to evaluate model fit for the final scale. Analysis plan was analysis: 0.92 vs. 1.09), explaining 44.1% of variance, with
amended to include inspecting residual correlations to arrive at loadings 0.45–0.80 (a = 0.92, x = 0.92). EFAs were then run
the best fitting model with optimal length, if item removal was dropping the worst performing item each time until 11 items
consistent with retaining content validity. The final scale was remained, with 49.2% of variance explained and loadings 0.60–

© 2024 The Authors. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology published by Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Scand J Psychol (2024) Construction and validation of the critical social justice scale 9

0.80 (including CSJAS1-11, discarding CSJAS12-14; a = 0.91, with loadings 0.58–0.80 (a = 0.87, x = 0.87). CFA indicated
x = 0.92). Confirmatory factor analysis was thus run for a single good fit: CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.04, SRMR =
factor model with 11 items. CFA indicated moderate fit: 0.02, v2 (14, 4073) = 119.7 (p < 0.001).
CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.02, v2 (44, Answer distributions for male and female participants are
5,024) = 832.3 (p < 0.001). As the v2 statistic was fairly high, shown in Table 4. Overall, male support for scale items was much
residual correlations were inspected for the items. Four items with lower than female. Regarding the extent to which select study
the highest residual correlation with other items were removed subpopulations accepted, felt neutral about, or rejected scale
one at a time (CSJAS8-11), resulting in a seven-item scale items, people with “other” gender, Left Alliance voters, Green
explaining 50.2% of variance, with loadings 0.59–0.81 (a = 0.87, Party voters, and female social science students accepted most
x = 0.88). CFA indicated good fit: CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, scale propositions. Men and male medicine students rejected all
RMSEA = 0.04, SRMR = 0.01, v2 (14, 5024) = 132.8 (p < 0.001). but one scale item and male humanities students and Finnish
For comparison, the also seven-item, well-established and much voters rejected all scale items (Table 5).
used GAD-7 anxiety questionnaire had CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.95, Two items (CSJAS4 and CSJAS6) had wording issues that were
RMSEA = 0.09, SRMR = 0.03, v2 (14, 5004) = 617.2 identified when revising the scale with help from outside
(p < 0.001), a somewhat worse fit. evaluators, and their wordings were modified slightly after
Splitting the file into an EFA half and CFA half gave nearly the collecting the data for the study. CSJAS4, “A white person cannot
same results: one factor explained 49.8% of variance and had understand how a black person feels” was modified to “A white
0.60–0.81 factor loadings in the EFA half and CFI = 0.995, person cannot understand how a black person feels equally well as
TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.03, SRMR = 0.01, v2 (14, 2513) = another black person” CSJAS6, “Trans women in the Olympics
49.6 (p < 0.001) in the CFA half. Also, separate analyses for are not helping women’s rights”, was modified to refer to sports in
women (a = 0.90, x = 0.90; 1 factor: 43.5%, 0.56–0.72) and general and clarifications were added to indicate the definition of
men (a = 0.79, x = 0.79; 1 factor: 38.8%, 0.44–0.79) gave the trans women and that they were competing with women: “Trans*
same factor structure. When evaluating genders separately, model women who compete with women in sports are not helping
fit was good for women (CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.98, RMSEA = women’s rights. (*=born male, identify as female)” (Table 1). A
0.05, SRMR = 0.02, v2 (14, 2112) = 76.2 (p < 0.001)) and men very slight modification was also applied to the last word in
(CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.04, SRMR = 0.02, v2 CSJAS1, “If white people have on average a higher level of
(14, 2633) = 72.1 (p < 0.001)). income than black people, it is because of oppression”, which was
Next, university students and teaching/research staff at changed to the more specific formulation “racism.” Definitions for
universities (n = 951) were compared with people who currently microaggressions (CSJAS3) and cisgender (CSJAS12) were
were not students or teaching/research staff (n = 4,079). In the moved to be at the end of the item and marked with *.
university sample, the scale accounted for 55.5% of variance,
with loadings 0.64–0.84 (a = 0.90, x = 0.90). CFA indicated Correlations, descriptive statistics, and t-tests. All final scale
excellent fit: CFI = 0.998, TLI = 0.996, RMSEA = 0.02, items for CSJAS were again weakly positively correlated with
SRMR = 0.01, v2 (14, 951) = 21.8 (p < 0.001). In the anxiety (r = 0.17–0.28) and depression (r = 0.13–0.24), and very
non-university sample, the scale accounted for 48.9% of variance, weakly positively correlated with lack of happiness (r = 0.06–

Table 5. Study 2: Agree/in-between/reject CSJAS items by participant group (reversed items marked (r); alternate wordings with superscript numbers)

Item O LA SSF GP W UTA MSF A MSM NC M HM F

CSJAS1 If white people have on average a higher level of + + +/ +/ +/ +/ +/

income than . . .
CSJAS2 University reading lists should include fewer white + + +/ +/ +/ +/
or . . .
CSJAS3 Microaggressions* are to be challenged often and + + + + + +/ +/ +/
actively.
CSJAS4 Trans* women who compete with women in sports are + + +/ +/ +/ +/ +/
not . . . (r)
CSJAS5 We don’t need to talk more about the color of people’s + + + +/ +/ +/ +/ +/
skin. (r)
CSJAS6 A white person cannot understand how a black person + + + + + +/ +/ +/ +/ +/ +/
feels . . .
CSJAS7 A member of a privileged group can adopt features +/ +/ +/ +/ +/ +/ +/
or . . . (r)
Agreeing with items, total 6 6 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
In-between, total 1 1 4 5 5 7 6 3 1 1 1 0 0
Rejection of items, total 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 6 6 6 7 7

Note: O = Other Gender; LA = Left Alliance; SSF = Social Sciences Student Female; GP = Green Party; W = Women; UTA = University of Tampere
teachers/researchers; MSF = Medical Student Female; A = All; MSM = Medical Student Male; NC=National Coalition; M = Men; HM = Humanities
Student Male; F = Finns.

© 2024 The Authors. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology published by Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
10 O. Lahtinen Scand J Psychol (2024)

0.14; Table 6). CSJAS1, “If white people have on average a t-tests. Large differences were noted between high-CSJAS and
higher income than black people, it is because of racism”, had the low-CSJAS participants in anxiety and depression (t(3038.9)
largest positive correlations with anxiety and depression, and the = 17.00, and t(3127.0) = 13.72), and a moderate difference in
largest negative correlation with happiness. Self-reporting as happiness, belief that political violence is justified, and personal
“woke” and CSJAS items were again strongly correlated experiences in oppression (t(3506.1) = 6.44, t(3665.4) = 3.11,
(r = 0.70), indicating the scale had convergent validity. and t(3571.1) = 5.24). Looking at genders separately, results
Self-reporting as woke had substantially lower correlations with involving mental health held regardless of gender. High-CSJAS
left–right (r = 0.55) and liberal–conservative (r = 0.43) axes men felt political violence was more justified, and expressed they
indicating the scale had divergent validity. Self-reporting as woke had experienced more oppression, than low-CSJAS men.
was also weakly correlated with anxiety and depression, and very However, this did not hold for women as much, with a small
weakly with lack of happiness. Anxiety, depression, and lack of effect for political violence and next to none for oppression.
happiness were, again, moderately-to-strongly correlated with Differences in mental health scores were likely to a large part due
each other. However, being on the political left had similar or to being on the political left, which had similar or slightly higher
slightly higher negative mental health correlations than CSJAS correlations with anxiety, depression, and lack of happiness than
and the global CSJA item. Being politically liberal had weaker CSJAS scores had.
positive correlations with anxiety and depression, and negative All variables had < 10% missing data, except for left–right and
with happiness, than CSJAS or being politically left had. liberal–conservative axes, voting preference, and global critical
Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) are social justice item, which had < 20% missing and an item that
displayed in Tables 7–9 for all respondents, men, women, those was only meant for university staff and students (73.9% missing).
who responded “other” for gender, students, faculty, The seven scale items for CSJAS had < 5% of data missing.
non-academic respondents, and select party voter, student, and Missing data were ML-estimated in CFAs and excluded pairwise
faculty subpopulations. Taken together, the sample cautiously in other analyses.
rejected critical social justice attitudes, with CSJAS score (0–4)
for all being 1.55 [1.52–1.58]. Women had more than twice Preregistration. Preregistration for the study listed four
higher CSJAS scores (2.13 [2.09–2.17] vs. 1.03 [1.00–1.06]); nondirectional hypotheses which to investigate: (1) whether model
Cohen’s d: 1.20), and much higher self-reported “wokeness” (2.11 fit and reliability for CSJAS are good; (2) CSJAS correlations
[2.05–2.17] vs. 1.11 [1.06–1.17]; Cohen’s d = 0.76) than men. with well-being variables; (3) possible changes to the scale from
Men had modestly better well-being. Lowest well-being, highest five additional items; and (4) investigate how political preferences
CSJAS scores, and strongest belief in political violence being and opinions relate to CSJAS. EFAs and CFAs were carried out
justified were in the “other” category for gender. Female social as planned, though the investigation in the study was much
sciences students had high CSJAS scores and low well-being broader than planned in the preregistration as genders were
relative to other participants. Male business, law, and medical looked at in separate analysis and the file was also split into EFA
students, and female STEM, education, and humanities faculty and CFA halves for further model confirmation. Left–right and
had the highest well-being. Finns voters and male STEM faculty liberal–conservative axes were used for divergent validity
had the lowest CSJAS scores. evaluation, which was not explicated in the preregistration. All
A binary variable for CSJAS scores below (n = 3,239) and data used in the study are openly available at (https://osf.io/
above (n = 1,785) the scale midpoint (2.0) was constructed for pbtjm).

Table 6. Study 2: Interitem CSJAS correlations and correlations with other study variables

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 CSJAS GS L-R L-C AN DE HA VI OP

C1 0.68 0.62 0.59 0.50 0.47 0.45 0.82 0.60 0.63 0.47 0.28 0.24 0.14 0.06 0.11
C2 0.61 0.58 0.50 0.47 0.47 0.81 0.59 0.59 0.45 0.26 0.21 0.11 0.05 0.10
C3 0.59 0.45 0.48 0.47 0.81 0.63 0.55 0.44 0.27 0.20 0.08 0.05 0.08
C4 0.47 0.40 0.43 0.77 0.56 0.55 0.43 0.25 0.20 0.08 0.04 0.08
C5 0.36 0.39 0.70 0.44 0.44 0.35 0.17 0.16 0.08 0.07 0.06
C6 0.37 0.68 0.46 0.42 0.33 0.21 0.16 0.08 0.06 0.01
C7 0.67 0.44 0.41 0.28 0.17 0.13 0.06 0.04 0.06
CSJAS 0.70 0.67 0.52 0.30 0.25 0.12 0.07 0.09
GS 0.55 0.43 0.28 0.22 0.12 0.06 0.10
L-R 0.48 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.05 0.15
L-C 0.18 0.16 0.09 0.02 0.07
AN 0.70 0.54 0.15 0.26
DE 0.63 0.12 0.25
HA 0.10 0.24
VI 0.11
OP

Note: C1 = CSJAS Item Number 1 etc.; GS = Global CSJA; L-R = Left–Right; L-C = Liberal Conservative; AN = Anxiety; DE = Depression;
HA = Happiness; VI = Violence Justification; OP = Oppression Experience.

© 2024 The Authors. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology published by Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Scand J Psychol (2024) Construction and validation of the critical social justice scale 11

Table 7. Study 2: Descriptive statistics for select subpopulations

AN DE HA VI OP GS CSJAS L-R L-C CAP IND JKR

(0–21) (0–4) (0–4) (0–4) (0–4) (0–4) (0–4) (0–4) (0–2) (0–4) (0–4) (0–4)

All 4.19 0.95 7.51 0.76 1.37 1.60 1.55 2.03 0.77 2.03 2.24 2.00
Men 3.33 0.80 7.55 0.78 1.26 1.11 1.03 2.41 0.90 2.42 2.46 2.09
Women 5.07 1.07 7.53 0.68 1.42 2.11 2.13 1.64 0.63 1.60 1.98 1.97
Other 7.061 1.831 6.511 1.421 2.511 2.882 2.742 0.61* 0.25 0.93 1.97 0.89*
Student All 4.79 1.11 7.23 0.75 1.39 1.71 1.61 1.95 0.68 1.99 2.20 1.93
STEM M 3.76 0.83 7.31 0.75 1.16 1.07 0.96 2.52 0.913 2.41 2.47 1.98
STEM F 6.09 1.28 7.22 0.78 1.38 2.45 2.02 1.70 0.54 1.84 2.21 1.74
Med M 2.29 0.77 7.69 0.24 0.81 1.17 1.18 2.43 0.83 2.72 2.56 2.09
Med F 5.24 1.29 7.20 0.33 1.33 1.76 1.83 1.76 0.80 1.95 1.79 2.603
Busin M 2.91 0.79 7.65 0.69 1.00 0.94 0.91 2.833 0.82 3.101 2.691 2.14
Busin F 3.88 0.71 7.63 0.923 0.95 1.95 1.87 2.14 0.45 2.50 2.43 2.30
Hum M 4.13 1.25 6.562 0.68 1.55 0.83 0.90 1.97 0.81 2.31 2.72 2.07
Soc M 3.56 1.383 7.13 0.942 1.883 1.27 1.11 2.31 1.132 1.94 1.80 2.712
Soc F 6.892 1.34 6.983 0.57 1.77 2.67 2.54 1.19 0.35 1.23 1.66 1.83
Ed F 4.66 1.10 7.38 0.48 1.38 2.37 2.17 1.70 0.68 1.55 1.51 1.92
Faculty All 3.71 0.82 7.71 0.62 1.25 1.63 1.71 1.76 0.68 1.97 2.15 2.14
STEM M 3.26 0.77 7.03 0.89 1.17 1.00 0.82 2.47 0.90 2.31 2.613 1.91
STEM F 3.60 0.54* 8.08 0.23 0.77* 1.42 1.74 1.42 0.67 2.31 1.92 2.54
Soc F 4.64 1.18 7.91 0.60 1.18 (1.78) 2.31 1.40 0.57 1.55 1.36* 1.80
Ed F 3.13 0.90 8.50* 0.20* 1.10 (2.00) 2.73 1.33 0.50 1.50 2.00 2.30
Hum F 4.08 0.62 8.31 0.69 1.922 (3.00)1 2.61 1.00 0.44 1.00 1.54 2.911
Non-acad All 4.12 0.93 7.54 0.75 1.38 1.58 1.54 2.05 0.79 2.02 2.24 2.00
Low-SJAS 3.44 0.80 7.61 0.71 1.28 1.07 0.87 2.44 0.95 2.33 2.40 2.20
High-SJAS 5.96 1.31 7.27 0.86 1.58 2.84 2.801 1.10 .32 1.29 1.86 1.60
Left Alliance 6.133 1.432 7.09 0.923 1.75 2.693 2.693 0.64 .28* 0.87* 1.69 1.57
Green Party 5.28 1.13 7.40 0.64 1.25 2.60 2.47 1.28 0.34 1.59 1.97 1.81
Nat Coalition 2.75* 0.56 8.05 0.66 0.95 1.03 1.03 3.022 0.913 2.932 2.682 2.39
Finns 3.12 0.74 7.51 0.79 1.39 0.57* 0.59* 3.071 1.371 2.643 2.53 2.20

Note: Superscript for three groups with highest score, asterisk for group with lowest score (happiness reversed). Parentheses when n < 10. Item
abbreviations same as in Table 6 plus CAP = Capitalism; IND = Individualism; JKR = J. K. Rowling. Med = Medicine; busin = Business; soc. = Social
Sciences; ed. = Education; hum = Humanities; Non-Acad = Non-Academic.

Table 8. Study 2: CSJAS score (0–4) among participant groups 1 scale was devised from a total of 26 candidate items. The CSJAS
had good-to-excellent psychometric properties: high reliability and
All Male Female Other
a factor structure that had good fit in confirmatory factor analyses.
All 1.55 1.03 2.13 2.74 The scale was strongly correlated with self-reported “wokeness,”
Secondary school degree 1.72 1.16 2.21 2.92 indicating convergent validity. The scale also explained variance
Vocational degree 1.27 0.91 1.91 2.28 in self-reported “wokeness” unexplained by related concepts, left–
High-school degree 1.53 1.10 2.09 2.73 right and liberal–conservative axes, indicating divergent validity.
Applied Sciences degree 1.49 0.98 2.09 3.15
In the study samples, the scale’s psychometric performance was at
Bachelor’s degree 1.75 1.18 2.27 (2.59)
Master’s degree 1.71 1.04 2.21 2.84 least as good as those of standard psychiatric instruments for
Doctoral degree 1.60 1.13 2.29 (1.62) measuring anxiety and depression. The best model fit was in an
Left Alliance 2.69 2.31 2.77 3.21 academic subpopulation, but the model fit well with in the general
Green Party 2.47 1.90 2.71 2.71 population as well.
SDP 1.94 1.47 2.23 (2.29)
The studies also assessed how having critical social justice
SPP 1.76 1.27 2.30 –
Centre Party 1.23 0.94 1.68 – attitudes relates to well-being variables. Many authors have
National Coalition 1.03 0.81 1.51 (2.71) previously linked critical social justice attitudes to poorer mental
Finns 0.59 0.52 0.83 (0.71) well-being in their work implicitly, but have not studied them
directly (e.g., Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018). In our samples (Study 1
Note: Scores in parentheses when n < 10; “–” when n = 1 or 0.
and Study 2), having high CSJAS scores was linked to anxiety,
depression, and a lack of happiness. However, Study 2 indicated
that this lower level of mental well-being was mostly associated
DISCUSSION with being on the political left and not specifically with having a
The purpose of Study 1 and 2 was to construct a scale for high CSJAS score. The association between lower mental health
assessing critical social justice attitudes. A pilot scale was and supporting the political left is in line with what other studies
constructed in Study 1 and it was then used as a basis for have found prior to this one (Bernardi, 2021; Gimbrone
developing the final scale in Study 2. In the end, a seven-item et al., 2022).

© 2024 The Authors. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology published by Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
12 O. Lahtinen Scand J Psychol (2024)

Table 9. Study 2: CSJAS score (0–4) among participant groups 2

All Male Female Other HU UTU UTA UEF Tech

University student 1.61 1.04 2.18 2.71 1.83 1.71 1.81 1.80 1.27
University teacher/researcher 1.71 1.17 2.28 (1.52) 2.00 1.56 2.17 (1.23) 1.07
University, not teacher/researcher 1.67 1.06 2.24 – 1.34 (1.57) – (1.71) 1.69
Students
Business 1.13 0.91 1.87 (0.24) (2.37) 1.17 (0.93) (1.43) 0.82
Natural sciences 1.23 0.96 2.02 (1.69) 1.18 1.77 0.93 0.97 1.37
Medicine 1.45 1.18 1.83 – (1.18) (1.32) (2.31) (1.76) –
Law 1.55 0.92 1.95 – 1.61 (0.43) – 1.83 –
Applied Sciences 1.56 1.04 2.07 (3.35) – – – – –
Humanities 1.91 0.90 2.33 (3.23) 2.02 1.88 (2.18) 1.26 –
Psychology 1.90 (1.18) 2.06 (3.50) (1.52) (2.36) – (3.10) –
Political science and philosophy 2.05 1.60 2.35 (2.43) 1.60 2.08 2.38 (2.53) –
Education 2.05 1.51 2.17 (2.48) 2.13 (1.98) (2.18) (2.12) –
Social sciences 2.26 1.11 2.54 (3.52) 2.50 (1.82) 2.17 (2.84) –

Notes: Values in parentheses when n < 10; “–” when n = 1 or 0. HU = Helsinki University; UTU = University of Turku; UTA = University of Tampere;
UEF = University of Eastern Finland.

Critical social justice attitudes were somewhat prevalent in indicate the items’ proper wording, but the ones used in the
women, but not so much in men. Men rejected all but one item in studies may have resulted in slightly biased answers.
the final CSJA scale, whereas women were cautiously supportive Third, both study respondents were somewhat more educated
of scale items. Overall, study samples rejected the phenomenon than Finns are on average, due to having samples from a
with the 5,030 participants in Study 2, on average, agreeing with university and based on the readership of the Helsingin Sanomat
0 items, in-between about three items, and rejecting four items, newspaper. Sampling based on newspaper readership may have
even though left-wing party supporters were overrepresented in resulted in other forms of selection bias as well. There was also
the sample. In addition to CSJAS scores, this is also seen in overrepresentation of people who supported left-wing parties,
somewhat low self-reported “wokeness.” People who supported which probably biases the results in the direction of stronger
left-wing parties and female university students in social sciences, social justice attitudes somewhat. Fourth, the study would have
education, and humanities, as well as people with “other” gender, benefitted from the inclusion of a measure of socially desirable
were the most in support of the scale items. This indicates that, at responding, given many items involve ethics or social justice,
least in Finland, what Yascha Mounk called “the identity which to many respondents are not neutral topics. Fifth, due to
synthesis,”, Tim Urban “social justice fundamentalism” and others questionnaire length concerns, depression in Study 2 was
“intersectionality” or “wokeness” seems to currently be a measured with a single item. Ideally this study would have
gendered phenomenon with little to no support from men and employed the R-BDI as Study 1 did, and the single item measure
moderate support from women. What accounts for this gender may have compromised reliability of the depression scores in
difference can perhaps be investigated in future studies. Study 2.
The critical social justice attitudes scale has now been validated
in two large scale studies and can be used by other researchers to
Limitations and future directions assess levels of CSJA in populations of interest. At least in the
Some limitations should be noted. First, there were no previous two studies thus far conducted with the scale, support for CSJA
critical social justice attitude scales to be used to assess has been somewhat low overall, though the attitudes are relatively
convergent validity. Thus, a self-reported global critical social popular in several female subpopulations (e.g., social sciences
justice attitude item was used instead. A problem with this item students) and among left-wing party supporters. This was the case
was that 169 out of 848 respondents (19.9%) in Study 1 and 400 in Finland and other researchers can look at how things are in
out of 5,030 respondents (8.0%) in Study 2 reported they did not various other populations of interest.
understand the meaning of the term “woke” and their answer was Informed consent to participate in the study was obtained from
not used in analyses involving the global CSJA variable. all subjects. The data that support the findings of this study are
However, the item was strongly (r = 0.62 and 0.70 in Study 1 openly available in OSF at https://osf.io/k2qx9/.
and 2, well above the r = 0.5 threshold given by Abma, Rovers
and van der Wees (2016) correlated with CSJAS which in itself
gave proof of convergent validity. It also had robust positive REFERENCES
correlations with all of the individual CSJAS items. Second, the Abma, I.L., Rovers, M. & van der Wees, P.J. (2016). Appraising
wording of a scale item (CSJAS6) had to be corrected after the convergent validity of patient-reported outcome measures in systematic
studies and there was an error in the Finnish grammar of reviews: Constructing hypotheses and interpreting outcomes. BMC
Research Notes, 9, 226.
CSJAS23 that may have affected responses to it. Very slight Arao, B. & Clemens, K. (2013). From safe spaces to brave spaces. In
modifications were also made to other items after the studies. The L.M. Landreman (Ed.), The art of effective facilitation: Reflections
English and Finnish versions of the items in Tables 1 and 2 from social justice educators (pp. 135–150). Taylor & Francis.

© 2024 The Authors. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology published by Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Scand J Psychol (2024) Construction and validation of the critical social justice scale 13

Bell, D.A. (1995). Who’s afraid of critical race theory. Luukka, T. (2022). Keskustan kannatus romahti historiallisen matalaksi.
Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Law Review, p. 893. https:// Helsinki: Helsingin Sanomat. Retrieved 8, March 2024, from https://
doi.org/10.4324/b23210-4. www.hs.fi/politiikka/art-2000009124299.html
Bellet, B.W., Jones, P.J. & McNally, R.J. (2018). Trigger warning: Lyons, H. (2021). Belgian minister condemns the spread of “American
Empirical evidence ahead. Journal of Behavior Therapy and wokeness”. Brussels: The Brussels Times. Retrieved 8, March 2024,
Experimental Psychiatry, 61, 134–141. from https://www.brusselstimes.com/186911/belgian-minister-condemns-
Bernardi, L. (2021). Depression and political predispositions: Almost the-spread-of-american-wokeness
blue? Party Politics, 27, 1132–1143. Mathews, S.A. & Jones, D. (2022). Black lives matter at school: Using the
Boztas, S. (2022). Justice minister slams wokeism, extreme right and 13 guiding principles as critical race pedagogies for Black citizenship
conspiracy theorists in democracy speech. Amsterdam: Dutch News. education. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 47, 15–28.
Retrieved 8, March 2024, from https://www.dutchnews.nl/2022/09/ McCann, H. & Monaghan, W. (2019). Queer theory now: From
justice-minister-slams-wokeism-extreme-right-and-conspiracy-theorists- foundations to futures. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
in-democracy-speech/ McGlashan, H. & Fitzpatrick, K. (2018). ‘I use any pronouns, and I’m
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble, feminist theory, and psychoanalytic questioning everything else’: Transgender youth and the issue of
discourse. Feminism/Postmodernism, 327, 324–340. gender pronouns. Sex Education, 18, 239–252.
Collins, P.H. (2020). Defining black feminist thought. In C. McCann, S. Mishra, V. & Hodge, B. (1991). What is post ( ) colonialism? Textual
Kim & E. Ergun (Eds.), Feminist theory reader (pp. 278–290). New Practice, 5, 399–414.
York, NY: Routledge. Mounk, Y. (2023). Identity trap: A story of ideas and power in our time.
Combahee River Collective. (2014). A black feminist statement. Women’s London: Penguin.
Studies Quarterly, 42, 271–280. Ng, E. (2020). No grand pronouncements here. . .: Reflections on cancel
Crenshaw, K. (1990). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity culture and digital media participation. Television and New Media, 21,
politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 621–627.
43, 1241–1299. Parikka, V. (2022). Yliopistojen “woke-hulluuden” takana on my€ os aito
da Silva, J.A.T. (2021). How to shape academic freedom in the digital huoli. Helsinki: Helsingin Sanomat. Retrieved 8, March 2024, from
age? Are the retractions of opinionated papers a prelude to “cancel https://www.hs.fi/kaupunki/helsinki/art-2000009174713.html
culture” in academia? Current Research in Behavioral Sciences, 2, Pluckrose, H. & Lindsay, J.A. (2020). Cynical theories: How activist
100035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crbeha.2021.100035. scholarship made everything about race, gender, and identity—And
Delgado, R. & Stefancic, J. (2013). Critical race theory: The cutting edge. why this harms everybody. Durham, NC: Pitchstone Publishing.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Pollara. (2023). Is Canada woke? How Canadians feel about “culture
DiAngelo, R. (2018). White fragility: Why it’s so hard for white people to war” terms and issues. Toronto: Pollara Strategic Insights.
talk about racism. Boston: Beacon Press. Rogers, R.A. (2006). From cultural exchange to transculturation: A review
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. (2023). Spotlight Database. and reconceptualization of cultural appropriation. Communication Theory,
Retrieved 8, March 2024, from https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/ 16(4), 474–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00277.x.
campus-deplatforming-database Rothblum, E.D. & Solovay, S. (2009). The fat studies reader. New York,
Gimbrone, C., Bates, L.M., Prins, S.J. & Keyes, K.M. (2022). The politics NY: New York University Press.
of depression: Diverging trends in internalizing symptoms among US Rozado, D. (2023). The great awokening as a global phenomenon arXiv
adolescents by political beliefs. SSM-Mental Health, 2, 100043. https:// preprint arXiv:2304.01596.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmmh.2021.100043. Sande, B. (2023). D€ or €
arf€ ar Stockholmare mer woke € an lantisar.
Hamilton, C. (2023). Wake up, lefties, and reject wokeness. Sydney: Stockholm: Fokus. Retrieved 8, March 2024, from https://www.fokus.
Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 8, March 2024, from https://www. se/veckans-fokus/darfor-ar-stockholmare-mer-woke-an-lantisar/
smh.com.au/national/wake-up-lefties-and-reject-wokeness-20230705- Sensoy, O. & DiAngelo, R. (2017). Is everyone really equal?: An
p5dltn.html introduction to key concepts in social justice education. New York,
Helliwell, J.F., Layard, R., Sachs, J. & De Neve, J.E. (2020). World NY: Teachers College Press.
happiness report 2020. New York: Sustainable Development Solutions Smith, D.S., Boag, L., Keegan, C. & Butler-Warke, A. (2023). Land of
Network. woke and glory? The conceptualisation and framing of “wokeness” in
Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpel€a, M., Rantanen, P. & Laippala, P. (1999). UK media and public discourses. Javnost – The Public, 30, 513–533.
Finnish modification of the 13-item Beck Depression Inventory in Spitzer, R.L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J.B. & L€ owe, B. (2006). A brief
screening an adolescent population for depressiveness and positive measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7.
mood. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 53, 451–457. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166, 1092–1097.
Kendi, I.X. (2019). How to be an antiracist. New York, NY: One world. Sue, D.W., Capodilupo, C.M., Torino, G.C., Bucceri, J.M., Holder, A.,
Koskela, M. (2021). Ylen Marja Sannikka -ohjelma her€atti keskustelun Nadal, K.L. et al. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life:
cancel-kulttuurista, wokesta ja callouttaamisesta – lue t€ast€ a, mist€
a Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62, 271–286.
termeiss€a on kyse. Helsinki: Yle. Retrieved 8, March 2024, from Urban, T. (2023). What’s our problem? A self-help book for societies. New
https://yle.fi/a/3-12199882 York, NY: Wait But Why.
Lukianoff, G. & Haidt, J. (2018). The coddling of the American mind:
How good intentions and bad ideas are setting up a generation for Received 29 May 2023, Revised 26 February 2024, accepted 1 March
failure. London: Penguin. 2024

© 2024 The Authors. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology published by Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.