Construct · 6 fields · 10 citations
One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.
● jingle · one name, six constructs Nearest construct by meaningcivic voluntarismcompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to involvement is civic voluntarism.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
The degree to which an attitude is anchored in the self, so that a message on the topic engages the person's identity and standing. Sherif and Cantril fixed ego-involvement in 1947 and later work in that tradition held that high involvement narrows the latitude of acceptance and makes people resist persuasion. Petty and Cacioppo redefined it in 1979 as personal relevance of the issue and showed it does the opposite of what Sherif predicted: relevance increases thinking about the message, so strong arguments persuade more and weak ones less. In the elaboration likelihood model of 1986, involvement is the main switch between the central and peripheral routes. It is a property of a person's relation to an issue, manipulated in the laboratory by telling students a policy will apply to their own campus.[1][2][3]
A person's perceived relevance of an object based on inherent needs, values, and interests (Zaichkowsky's 1985 definition), with the object usually a product class, an advertisement, or a purchase decision. She measured it with the Personal Involvement Inventory, twenty semantic-differential pairs summed to a single score, and showed the score split respondents into low and high groups whose information search and brand comparison differed. Laurent and Kapferer, in the same year, argued the single score hid five sources: interest, pleasure, sign value, risk importance, and risk probability, and built a profile instead. The construct imports the social-psychology idea and replaces the issue with a thing you can buy; the disagreement inside the field is whether that relevance has one dimension or five.[4][5]
The degree to which a person identifies psychologically with their job, or the degree to which job performance affects their self-esteem. Lodahl and Kejner offered both readings in 1965 and built a twenty-item scale that mixed them; Kanungo showed in 1982 that the scale also confounded involvement in a particular job with involvement in work in general, and with intrinsic motivation, and wrote separate ten-item measures for job and for work involvement defined strictly as cognitive identification. The construct is a disposition about one's present job, distinct from satisfaction, from commitment to the employer, and from the Protestant work ethic, and Kanungo's ten items are the standard measure.[6][7]
The amount of physical and psychological energy a student devotes to the academic experience, time on campus, hours studying, contact with faculty, participation in organisations. Astin fixed the term in 1984 and was explicit that it refers to what the student does, not what the student feels or thinks: a highly involved student is one who spends the time. He derived the theory from longitudinal data on persistence, where every form of involvement predicted staying in college and living off campus or working full-time predicted leaving. The construct is behavioural and additive, and it is the only meaning on this map measured in hours rather than in ratings.[8]
Psychological engagement with politics (interest, efficacy, information, and partisanship) treated as one of the things that explains political participation, alongside resources and recruitment. Verba, Schlozman, and Brady fixed the civic voluntarism model in 1995 from a national survey and found that time, money, and civic skills explain who takes part, that engagement adds to them, and that both are unequally distributed by class. Involvement here is an attitude cluster measured by questions about following public affairs and caring who wins; participation is the behaviour it helps predict. Writers who use involvement to mean voting and protest have merged the predictor with the outcome the model keeps apart.[9]
A patient's part in a treatment decision, on a spectrum from the paternalistic model, where the doctor decides, to the informed model, where the patient decides, with shared decision-making in between. Charles, Gafni, and Whelan fixed the middle model in 1997 with four conditions: both parties take part, both share information, both express preferences, and both agree on the decision. Involvement is a feature of an encounter between two people rather than a disposition of one, and the criterion is whether the patient's preferences entered the decision, not whether the patient was interested or spent time. Studies that measure patient involvement by asking how much the patient wanted to be involved have substituted a preference for the participation the model describes.[10]
Next
Combine items across the involvement scales to see whether the meanings separate empirically, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct