Current understandings of similarity with media characters often focus on visible attributes including gender and race, yet overlook deep-level characteristics such as personality, attitudes, and experiences. In the present research, we address this limitation and develop and validate the Character Recognizability Scale (CRS), which captures different ways in which audiences can recognize themselves in characters. Based on a previous interview study, we formulated 26 scale items. Subsequently, we conducted two studies. In Study 1, we used a sample of 219 university students in the Netherlands to conduct an exploratory factor analysis. We determined the reliability, as well as criterion and convergent validity of the entire scale and the retained factors. In Study 2, we used a sample of 247 respondents in the United States to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis and replicate the results of the reliability and validity analyses. Based on Study 1, we kept 20 items. In both studies, the overall CRS scale as well as its subscales for Personality Recognizability (CRS-p), Attitudinal Recognizability (CRS-a), and Experiential Recognizability (CRS-e) showed a good internal consistency. They also showed criterion validity through an association with perceived similarity. Finally, the CRS and its subscales correlated positively with media engagement and exposure measures, thus demonstrating convergent validity.
Current understandings of similarity with media characters often focus on visible attributes including gender and race, yet overlook deep-level characteristics such as personality, attitudes, and experiences. In the present research, we address this limitation and develop and validate the Character Recognizability Scale (CRS), which captures different ways in which audiences can recognize themselves in characters. Based on a previous interview study, we formulated 26 scale items. Subsequently, we conducted two studies. In Study 1, we used a sample of 219 university students in the Netherlands to conduct an exploratory factor analysis. We determined the reliability, as well as criterion and convergent validity of the entire scale and the retained factors. In Study 2, we used a sample of 247 respondents in the United States to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis and replicate the results of the reliability and validity analyses. Based on Study 1, we kept 20 items. In both studies, the overall CRS scale as well as its subscales for Personality Recognizability (CRS-p), Attitudinal Recognizability (CRS-a), and Experiential Recognizability (CRS-e) showed a good internal consistency. They also showed criterion validity through an association with perceived similarity. Finally, the CRS and its subscales correlated positively with media engagement and exposure measures, thus demonstrating convergent validity.
This study investigated perceptions of organizational change management among executive coaches working with British higher-education leaders and factors that make leaders effective when managing change. This basic qualitative research used semi-structured interviews with eight executive coaches selected through purposeful sampling. As main challenges to efficient, inclusive change management, participants mentioned leaders’ lack of a strategic vision or plan, lack of leadership and future leader development programs, and lack of clarity in decision-making. They recognized that leaders’ academic and professional profiles are positively viewed and said that, with coaching and support in leadership and strategic planning, these people can inspire the academic community and promote positive change. Additional emphasis was given to the role of coaching in the development of key soft skills (honesty, responsibility, resiliency, creativity, proactivity, and empathy, among others), which are necessary for effective change management and leadership in higher education. The paper’s implications have two aspects. First, the lessons of the actual explicit content of the coaches’ observations (challenges to efficient change management and views of leaders); second, the implications of these observations (how coaching can help and what leaders need).
