Research Article

DOI :10.26650/SP2022-820401   IUP :10.26650/SP2022-820401    Full Text (PDF)

Re-visiting Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI): Construct Validity of Benevolent Sexism and Measurement Invariance of ASI

Timuçin AktanBilge Yalçındağ

The ambivalent sexism theory states that sexism comprises hostile and benevolent beliefs and that benevolent sexism is a second-order factor consisting of protective paternalism, complementary gender differentiation and heterosexual intimacy. The subdimensions of benevolent sexism toward women have recently piqued people’s interest. The Turkish version of the ambivalent sexism inventory’s (ASI’s) construct validity should be reexamined in light of this apparent interest in contemporary studies. Accordingly, in the current study, the aim is to test the preferred structural model in which protective sexism was defined as a second-order factor consisting of protective patriarchy, complementary differentiation between genders and heterosexual intimacy. Moreover, measurement invariance analysis will be used to test the stability of the scale’s structure in different samples. The data of 1803 participants from different studies conducted between 2009 and 2019 (1194 women and 593 men, 16 unidentified) were merged. Findings of the confirmatory factor analyses indicated that the four-factor solution (i.e. hostile sexism and three subfactors of benevolence) fitted the data better than the other models (i.e. one-factor and two-factor models, and the preferred structural model). Explanatory factor analysis via exploratory structural equation modeling revealed a two-factor solution composed of benevolence and hostility, but the findings also underlined two psychometrically weak items. Finally, measurement invariance analyses demonstrated full invariance between private and public university samples, and an invariance between women and men samples except for sample means. Only the means of the samples differed in the women-men comparison, but in a theoretically predicted way, and men had higher scores in all subscales except for complementary gender differentiation. In sum, our findings provided significant support for the construct validity and measurement invariance of ASI while raising questions about the theoretical construct measured and the items needed to be revised.

DOI :10.26650/SP2022-820401   IUP :10.26650/SP2022-820401    Full Text (PDF)

Çelişik Duygulu Cinsiyetçilik Ölçeğinin (ÇDCÖ) Yeniden Gözden Geçirilmesi: Korumacı Cinsiyetçiliğin Yapı Geçerliliği ve ÇDCÖ'nün Ölçüm Değişmezliği

Timuçin AktanBilge Yalçındağ

Çelişik Duygulu Cinsiyetçilik kuramında, cinsiyetçiliğin düşmanca ve korumacı inançları içerdiği ve korumacı cinsiyetçiliğin korumacı ataerkillik, cinsiyetler arası tamamlayıcı farklılaştırma ve heteroseksüel yakınlıktan oluşan ikinci sıra faktör olduğu belirtmektedir. Kadınlara yönelik korumacı cinsiyetçiliğin alt boyutlarına yönelik ilgi ise yakın dönemde bir artış göstermiştir. Yakın dönem alan yazınında göze çarpan bu ilgi, Çelişik Duygulu Cinsiyetçilik Ölçeği’nin Türkçe versiyonunun yapı geçerliliğini tekrar gözden geçirilmesini önemli kılmaktadır. Bu doğrultuda, mevcut çalışmada , korumacı cinsiyetçiliğin korumacı ataerkillik, cinsiyetler arası tamamlayıcı farklılaştırma ve heteroseksüel yakınlıktan oluşan ikinci sıra faktör olarak tanımlandığı tercih edilen yapısal modeli test etmek amaçlanmıştır. Ayrıca, ölçüm değişmezliği analizi yapılarak ölçeğin yapısının farklı örneklemlerdeki kararlılığını incelemek de amaçlanmıştır. 2009-2019 yılları arasında farklı çalışmalarda yer almış 1803 katılımcının (1194 kadın, 593 erkek, 16 cinsiyetini belirtmeyen) verileri birleştirilmiştir. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi bulguları, dört faktörlü modelin (düşmanca cinsiyetçilik ve üç korumacılık türü), diğer modellerden (tek faktörlü model, iki faktörlü model ve “tercih edilen yapısal model”) daha iyi uyum gösterdiğine işaret etmiştir. Açıklayıcı yapısal eşitlik modellemesi temelinde yapılmış açıklayıcı faktör analizleri, korumacılık ve düşmanlık şeklinde iki faktörlü bir yapıya işaret etmiş, fakat ölçek içindeki iki maddenin psikometrik açıdan zayıf olduğunu göstermiştir. Son olarak, ölçüm değişmezliği analizleri, devlet ve vakıf üniversitesi örneklemleri arasında tam bir değişmezlik olduğunu; kadın ve erkek örneklerinde ise ortalama farkları dışında değişmezlik gözlendiğini göstermiştir. Kadın ve erkek karşılaştırmasında örneklemler arasında sadece ortalamalar açısından kuramsal olarak beklendik şekilde değişkenlik gözlenmiş ve erkeklerin cinsiyetler arası tamamlayıcı farklılaştırma dışındaki bütün alt ölçeklerde daha yüksek puanlara sahip olduğu bulunmuştur. Genel olarak bakıldığında, bulgular, çelişik duygulu cinsiyetçilik ölçeğinin yapı geçerliliği ve ölçüm değişmezliği ile ilgili önemli bir destek sağlamakla birlikte, ölçülen kuramsal yapının ve ölçek maddelerinin yeniden gözden geçirilmesi ile ilgili konulara dikkat çekmiştir.


The ambivalent sexism theory contributes to our knowledge of sexism by emphasizing a more indirect form of sexism, benevolent sexism (BS), and its relation to hostility toward women, i.e., hostile sexism (HS, Glick & Fiske, 1996; 2001). Early studies put extensive effort on supporting the multidimensional nature of sexism by showing that BS and HS are distinct but related constructs, and that BS has three subdimensions, namely, protective paternalism (PP), complementary gender differentiation (CGD), and heterosexual intimacy (HI, Glick & Fiske, 1996; Glick et al., 2000). Current studies focused on BS and its relations to system justifying beliefs (Bohner et al., 2010; Jost & Kay, 2005). While these studies emphasize the importance of BS, their focus is limited to BS as a single construct, not its subcomponents. More recently, however, few studies indicated that subcomponents of BS have differing relations to sexist outcomes (Oswald et al., 2019; Salomon et al., 2020).

The limited interest in the subcomponents of BS might stem from incongruent findings regarding the construct validity of the ambivalent sexism inventory (ASI). The “preferred structural model” in which BS was defined as a second-order factor was supported in 16 nations, including Turkey (Glick et al., 2000). In the Portuguese and Basque versions of the scale, a four-factor model fitted the data better than alternatives (Costa et al., 2015; Ibabe et al., 2016). Similarly, Sakallı-Uğurlu (2002) observed a four-factor construct for the Turkish version. The present study aimed to reevaluate the construct validity of the Turkish version of the ASI and provide further support for the stability of the observed construct by conducting measurement invariance analyses. Thus, answers to the following research questions were sought:

RQ 1. How well is the theoretical construct validity of ASI?

RQ 2. What is the “natural construct” represented in ASI?

RQ 3. Does ASI have a stabile construct in different samples?


The data of 1803 participants (1194 women, 593 men and 16 unidentified) from different studies conducted between 2009 and 2019 were arranged. Excluding the participants with missing values on ASI final data set resulted in 1633 participants (see Table 1). Participants were asked to report their gender, major, parents’ education level and occupation via a demographic information form. Another scale of the study is the ASI, a 22-item Likert type scale with six response alternatives. Half of the items measure HS. The subcomponents of BS were PP (four items), CGD (three items), and HI (four items). Sakallı-Uğurlu (2002) adapted the scale to Turkish and reported acceptable reliabilities for BC (α =.78) and DC (α =.87).

For the first question of the study, CFAs were conducted to compare alternative models tested by Glick and Fiske (1996) to reveal whether the preferred structural model fit the present data as it did in the original study. For the second question, ESEM was conducted to examine the natural factor structure of the scale. “Psych” package in R was used for these analyses. Finally, “lavaan” and “semTools” packages were used to run invariance analysis for the third question. Following Putnick and Bornstein (2016), measurement invariance was examined by comparing four models: (a) configural, (b) weak/metric, (c) scalar/strong factorial, and (d) strict, residual invariance uniqueness.


CFA findings indicated that a four-factor model had better fit indices compared to alternatives (see Table 2).

The ESEM analyses revealed a two-factor structure (i.e., BS and HS) and raised questions about two items (See Table 3). Item 5 had loadings higher than .30 on both factors, and item 6 loaded on HS, instead of BS. 

Findings supported measurement invariance between public and private university samples for 2-Factor and 4-Factor models (see Table 4). Comparing women and men samples, partial measurement invariance was supported for both factorial solutions (see Table 5). In line with the previous studies, men were more sexist in all sub-constructs, except for CGD (see Table 6).


The findings of CFAs provided sound support for the construct validity of ASI, and specifically for the four-factor model. Therefore, future studies investigating multivariate relations of the subfactors of BS with sexist outcomes should consider not defining benevolence as a second-order variable in their models (Ibabe et al., 2016).

The natural factor structure of ASI was revealed by ESEM to be made up of HS and BS. However, this research raises concerns regarding the psychometric properties of items 5 and 6. Item 5 may be as strongly associated with PP as it is with HS among younger generations. Item 6 may elicit romantic beliefs rather than sexism. As a result, future research should reconsider the meaning conveyed in ASI items to adapt the scale for younger generations.

Findings related to measurement invariance indicated that 2-Factor and 4-Factor solutions were stable between public and private university samples, and between women and men samples. These findings encourage the fact that BS should be considered in detail. Rather than focusing on as a whole, focusing on the different parts of BS may provide a better understanding of its implications. 

PDF View


  • Abrams, D., Viki, G. T., Masser, B. ve Bohner, G. (2003). Perceptions of stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 111-125. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.111 google scholar
  • Angelone, D. J., Cantor, N. Marcantonio, T. ve Joppa, M. (2021). Does sexism mediate the gender and rape myth acceptance relationship? Violence Against Women, 27(6-7), 748-765. doi:10.1177/1077801220913632 google scholar
  • Angelone, D. J., Mitchell, D. ve Smith, D. (2018). The influence of gender ideology, victim resistance, and spiking a drink on acquaintance rape attributions. Journal Interpersonal Violence, 33(20), 3186-3210. doi:10.1177/0886260516635318. google scholar
  • Asparouhov, T. ve Muthen, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16(3), 397-438. doi:10.1080/10705510903008204 google scholar
  • Barreto, M. ve Ellemers, N. (2005). The burden of benevolent sexism: How it contributes to the maintenance of gender inequalities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(5), 633642. doi:10.1002/ejsp.270 google scholar
  • Barreto, M., Ellemers, N., Piebinga, L. ve Moya, M. (2010). How nice of us and how dumb of me: The effect of exposure to benevolent sexism on women’s task and relational self-descriptions. Sex Roles, 62(7-8), 532-544. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9699-0 google scholar
  • Bohner, G., Ahlborn, K. ve Steiner, R. (2010). How sexy are sexist men? Women’s perception of male response profiles in the ambivalent sexism inventory, Sex Roles, 62(7-8), 568-582. doi:10.1007/ s11199-009-9665-x google scholar
  • Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fir indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464-504. doi:10.1080/10705510701301834 google scholar
  • Costa, P., Oliveira, R., Pereira, H. ve Leal, I. (2015). Adaptaçâo dos ınventarios de sexismo moderno para portugal: O ınventario de sexismo ambivalente e o ınventario de ambivalencia em relaçâo aos homens. Psicologia Reflexao e Critica, 28(1), 126-135. doi:10.1590/1678-7153.201528114 google scholar
  • Dumont, M., Sarlet, M. ve Dardenne, B. (2010). Be too kind to a woman, she’ll feel incompetent: Benevolent sexism shifts self-construal and autobiographical memories toward incompetence. Sex Roles, 62(7-8), 545-553. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9582-4 google scholar
  • Eagly, A. H. ve Mladinic, A. (1994). Are people prejudiced against women? Some answers from research on attitudes, gender stereotypes, and judgments of competence. European Review of Social Psychology, 5(1), 1-35. doi:10.1080/14792779543000002 google scholar
  • Eckes, T. (2002). Paternalistic and envious gender stereotypes: Testing predictions from the stereotype content model. Sex Roles, 47(3/4), 99-114. doi:10.1023/A:1021020920715 google scholar
  • Exp6sito, F., Moya, M. C. ve Glick, P (1998). Sexismo ambivalente: Medici6n y correlatos, Revista de Psicologia Social, 13(2), 159-169. doi: 10.1174/021347498760350641 google scholar
  • Formiga, N. S., Golveia, V. V. ve Santos, M. N. D. (2002). Ambivalent sexism inventory: Its adaptation and correlation with gender. Psicologia Em Estudo, 7(1), 103-111. doi: 10.1590/S1413-73722002000100013 google scholar
  • Glick, P. ve Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491-512. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491 google scholar
  • Glick, P. ve Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justification. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109-118. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109 google scholar
  • Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., Adetoun, B., Osagie, J. E., Akande, A., Alao, A., Brunner, B., Willemsen, T. M., Chipeta, K., Dardenne, B., Dijksterhuis, A., Wigboldus, D., Eckes, T., Six-Materna, I., Exp6sito, F.,... L6pez, W. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 75(5), 763-775. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763 google scholar
  • Glick, P., Sakallı-Ugurlu, N., Ferreira, M. C. ve Aguiar de Souza, M. (2002). Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward wife abuse in Turkey and Brazil. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 292-297. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00068 google scholar
  • Greenwood, D. ve Isbell, L. M. (2002). Ambivalent sexism and the dumb blonde: Men’s and women’s reactions to sexist jokes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 341-350. doi: 10.1111/1471-6402. t01-2-00073 google scholar
  • Hooper, D. Coughlan, J. ve Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining google scholar
  • model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60. doi: 10.21427/D7CF7R google scholar
  • Hu, L. ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 google scholar
  • Ibabe, I., Arnoso, A. ve Elgorriaga, E. (2016). Ambivalent sexism inventory: Adaptation to Basque population and sexism as a risk factor of dating violence. The Spanish Journal of Psychology19(E78), 1-9. doi:10.1017/sjp.2016.80 google scholar
  • Jorgensen, T. D., Pornprasertmanit, S., Schoemann, A. M., Rosseel, Y., Miller, P., Quick, C., Garnier-Villarreal, M., Selig, J., Boulton, A., Preacher, K., Coffman, D., Rhemtulla, M., Robitzsch, A., Enders, C., Arslan, R., Clinton, B., Panko, P., Merkle, E., Chesnut, S., ... Johnson, A. R. (2021). semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling. semTools/semTools.pdf google scholar
  • Jost, J. T. ve Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 498-509. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.498 google scholar
  • Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guildford Press. google scholar
  • Klonoff, E. A. ve Landrine, H. (1995). The Schedule of Sexist Events: A measure of lifetime and recent sexist discrimination in women’s lives. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19(4), 439-472. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1995.tb00086.x. google scholar
  • Kuchynka, S. L., Salomon, K., Bosson, J. K., El-Hout, M., Kiebel, E., Cooperman, C. ve Toomey, R. (2018). Hostile and benevolent sexism and college women’s STEM out- comes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42(1), 72-87. doi:10.1177/0361684317741889 google scholar
  • Lee, T. L., Fiske, S. T., Glick, P. ve Chen, Z. (2010). Ambivalent Sexism in close relationships: (Hostile) Power and (benevolent) romance shape relationship ideals, Sex Roles, 62(7-8), 583-601. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9770-x google scholar
  • Marsh, H. W. ve Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confimatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97(3), 562-582. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.97.3.562 google scholar
  • Masser, B. M. ve Abrams, D. (2004). Reinforcing the glass ceiling: The consequences of hostile sexism for female managerial candidates. Sex Roles, 51(9/10), 609-615. doi:10.1007/s11199-004-5470-8 google scholar
  • Matteson, A. V. ve Moradi, B. (2005). Examining the structure of the Schedule of Sexist Events: Replication and extension. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(1), 47-57. doi:10.1111/j.0361-6843.2005.00167.x google scholar
  • Moya, M., Glick, P., Exp6sito, F., de Lemus, S. ve Hart, J. (2007). It’s for your own good: Benevolent sexism and women’s reactions to protectively justified restrictions, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(10), 1421-1434. doi: 10.1177/0146167207304790 google scholar
  • Oswald, D. L., Baalbaki, M. ve Kirkman, M. (2019). Experiences with benevolent sexism: Scale development and associations with women’s well-being. SexRoles, 80(5-6), 362-380. doi:10.1007/ s11199-018- 0933-5 google scholar
  • Paladino, M. P., Zaniboni, S., Fasoli, F., Vaes, J. ve Volpato, C. (2014). Why did Italians protest against Berlusconi’s sexist behaviour? The role of sexist beliefs and emotional reactions in explaining women and men’s pathways to protest. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53(2), 201-216. doi:10.1111/bjso.12023 google scholar
  • Putnick, D. L. ve Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71-90. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004 google scholar
  • Revelle, W. (2017) Using the psych package to generate and test structural models. google scholar
  • Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36. doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i02 google scholar
  • Russell, B. L. ve Trigg, K. Y. (2004). Tolerance of sexual harassment: An examination of gender differences, ambivalent sexism, social dominance, and gender roles. Sex Roles, 50(7-8), 565-573. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000023075.32252.fd google scholar
  • Sakallı, N. (2001). Beliefs about wife beating among Turkish college students: The effects of patriarchy, sexism, and sex differences. Sex Roles, 44(9-10), 599-610. doi:10.1023/A:1012295109711 google scholar
  • Sakallı-Uğurlu, N. (2002). Çelişik Duygulu Cinsiyetçilik Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 17(49), 47-58. doi:10.31828/tpd13004433 google scholar
  • Salomon, K., Bosson, J. K., El-Hout, M., Kiebel, E., Kuchynka, S. L. ve Shepard S. L., (2020). The Experiences with Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (EASI). Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 42(4), 235-253. doi:10.1080/01973533.2020.1747467 google scholar
  • Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. ve Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74. google scholar
  • Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74. google scholar
  • Swim, J. K. (1997). Overt, covert, and subtle sexism: A comparison between the Attitudes Toward Women and Modern Sexism scales. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(1), 103-118. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00103.x google scholar
  • Twenge, J. M. (1997). Attitudes toward women, 1970-1995: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(1), 35-51. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00099.x google scholar
  • Wiener, R. L., Hurt, L., Russell, B., Mannen, K. ve Gasper, C. (1997) Perceptions of sexual harassment: The effects of gender, legal standard, and ambivalent sexism. Law and Human Behavior, 21(1), 7193. doi:10.1023/A:1024818110678 google scholar


Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format



Aktan, T., & Yalçındağ, B. (2022). Re-visiting Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI): Construct Validity of Benevolent Sexism and Measurement Invariance of ASI. Studies in Psychology, 42(1), 199-230.


Aktan T, Yalçındağ B. Re-visiting Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI): Construct Validity of Benevolent Sexism and Measurement Invariance of ASI. Studies in Psychology. 2022;42(1):199-230.


Aktan, T.; Yalçındağ, B. Re-visiting Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI): Construct Validity of Benevolent Sexism and Measurement Invariance of ASI. Studies in Psychology, [Publisher Location], v. 42, n. 1, p. 199-230, 2022.

Chicago: Author-Date Style

Aktan, Timuçin, and Bilge Yalçındağ. 2022. “Re-visiting Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI): Construct Validity of Benevolent Sexism and Measurement Invariance of ASI.” Studies in Psychology 42, no. 1: 199-230.

Chicago: Humanities Style

Aktan, Timuçin, and Bilge Yalçındağ. Re-visiting Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI): Construct Validity of Benevolent Sexism and Measurement Invariance of ASI.” Studies in Psychology 42, no. 1 (May. 2022): 199-230.

Harvard: Australian Style

Aktan, T & Yalçındağ, B 2022, 'Re-visiting Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI): Construct Validity of Benevolent Sexism and Measurement Invariance of ASI', Studies in Psychology, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 199-230, viewed 26 May. 2022,

Harvard: Author-Date Style

Aktan, T. and Yalçındağ, B. (2022) ‘Re-visiting Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI): Construct Validity of Benevolent Sexism and Measurement Invariance of ASI’, Studies in Psychology, 42(1), pp. 199-230. (26 May. 2022).


Aktan, Timuçin, and Bilge Yalçındağ. Re-visiting Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI): Construct Validity of Benevolent Sexism and Measurement Invariance of ASI.” Studies in Psychology, vol. 42, no. 1, 2022, pp. 199-230. [Database Container],


Aktan T, Yalçındağ B. Re-visiting Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI): Construct Validity of Benevolent Sexism and Measurement Invariance of ASI. Studies in Psychology [Internet]. 26 May. 2022 [cited 26 May. 2022];42(1):199-230. Available from: doi: 10.26650/SP2022-820401


Aktan, Timuçin - Yalçındağ, Bilge. Re-visiting Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI): Construct Validity of Benevolent Sexism and Measurement Invariance of ASI”. Studies in Psychology 42/1 (May. 2022): 199-230.


Published Online06.04.2022


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.