Psychometric Properties and Factorial Structure of General Mattering Scale,Anti-Mattering Scale,and Fear of Not Mattering Inventory Within the Palestinian Context

Abstract

The current study examined the psychometric properties and correlates of three measures assessing individual differences in mattering among people from Palestine assessed in January, 2024. This study uniquely considers mattering as a resource and feelings of not mattering as a risk factor among people experiencing traumatizing life circumstances. Our sample consisted of 950 Palestinian adults (305 men and 645 women). They completed the General Mattering Scale, the Anti-Mattering Scale, the Fear of Not Mattering Inventory, and the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-21 (DASS-21). Extensive psychometric tests supported these measures as each having one factor with adequate reliability and validity. Examination of means indicated significantly elevated levels of fear of not mattering, anxiety, depression, and stress. Regression analyses further established that each measure predicted significant unique variance in anxiety, depression, and stress. The findings attest to the further use of these measures and how feelings of mattering can be vital resource as the need for resilience and adaptability escalates due to traumatizing events.

Keywords

mattering anti-mattering fear of not mattering Palestine

Theoretical Background

Mattering is a construct from the positive psychological literature that represents a key psychological resource. Several studies indicated the power of mattering and its effects on individuals’ mental health (for a review, see Flett, 2022). Mattering, as described by Rosenberg and McCullough (1981), is a feeling that others depend on us, are interested in us, are concerned with our fate, or experience us as an ego-extension. Mattering to others is an emotional and cognitive concept related to the sense of belonging to and with others, thereby reducing the sense of isolation and the lack of communication within the social context (Dadfar et al., 2021). According to Elliott et al. (2004), mattering has three elements: (1) awareness (i.e., I am the object of another’s attention), (2) importance (i.e., I am the object of another’s concern), and (3) reliance (i.e., Others choose/look to me).

Mattering consists of feeling valued and adding value (Prilleltensky, 2020). When we feel valued, we are appreciated, respected, and recognized. When we add value, we are able to make a contribution or make a difference. These concepts are well-known in community psychology. Feeling valued incorporates respect for diversity, the need to belong, inclusion, and fairness. Adding value to others can facilitate feelings of empowerment, autonomy, control, mastery, self-efficacy, and self-determination (see Prilleltensky, 2019, 2020).

The mattering field is still in an early stage of development and much remains to be learned about the construct in terms of how it is measured and what it is associated with. The three measures evaluated were the General Mattering Scale (Marcus & Rosenberg, 1987), the Anti-Mattering Scale (Flett et al., 2022), and the Fear of Not Mattering Inventory (Flett & Nepon, 2020). These self-report measures each have five items. The General Mattering Scale has five positively worded items that reflect those elements of mattering described by Rosenberg and McCullough (1981). Extensive evidence attests to this scale’s reliability and validity (see Flett, 2018). The Anti-Mattering Scale reflects feeling marginalized and devalued; it taps the feelings of someone who feels unseen, unheard, and insignificant (see Flett et al., 2022). The Fear of Not Mattering Inventory has not been as extensively studied but it is clearly unique in that it assesses the fear of being or becoming insignificant that should be quite salient for people prone to feelings of insecurity and the possibility of being alone and isolated and not having people who see their importance. Further psychometric details and descriptions of the measures are provided below.

Palestinians living in East Jerusalem, West Bank and Gaza Strip are at risk of developing mental health problems due to the prolonged traumatic and stressful experiences. The Israeli military occupation of West Bank and Gaza Strip has profound implications in terms of the daily lives of Palestinians in multiple respects. Erich Fromm (1941) observed as World War II escalated that broad sociopolitical events typically heighten the sense of powerlessness and insignificance of people who are individuated and feel quite alone as individuals unless they are able to establish close and comforting relationships with other people. When major events heighten a sense of not mattering in society, it can result in a stronger need to matter to other people in our social worlds. In such circumstances, having a strong sense of mattering in relationships and being significant to significant others can be highly protective. Alternatively, a sense of not mattering to others and fearing that a state of mattering will not be achieved or sustained will almost certainly be a significant source of threat and distress. These observations are in keeping the consistent association that mattering has with belonging (see Flett, 2018) and evidence indicating that the unmet need to belong is associated with trauma (see Mahamid et al., 2024). Regarding the current Palestinian context, people in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip at present can feel quite powerless and insignificant as events unfold, and this should amplify their need to matter and gain a sense of support and reassurance through the feeling of mattering to other people. While mattering should provide great comfort to those who feel significant to other people, people who feel abjectly unimportant and insignificant or who have an overriding fear of not mattering in the future are likely to be characterized by intense stress and distress, especially during challenging and traumatizing times.

Initial research suggests the measures under consideration in the current work have sound psychometric properties, but they have not been broadly evaluated. The General Mattering Scale is the most widely used measure (see Flett, 2018). It is appealing, in part, because it is relatively brief, as are the other measures included in this study. The five-item Anti-Mattering Scale and the five-item Fear of Not Mattering Inventory represent unique elements of the mattering construct. The premise is that positive mattering is not simply the opposite of feelings and fears of not mattering and there is merit in evaluating various facets of the mattering construct.

Recently, Liu et al. (2023) evaluated the reliability and validity of three mattering-related instruments—the General Mattering Scale (GMS), Anti-Mattering Scale (AMS), and Fear of Not Mattering Inventory (FNMI)—among Chinese university students. They used classical test theory and Rasch analysis. Detailed analyses indicated that the three scales showed high reliability and factorial validity, thus indicating that the three mattering-related instruments are suitable for assessing Chinese students’ mattering, anti-mattering, and fear of not mattering.

The General Mattering Scale (GMS; Marcus & Rosenberg, 1987), the Anti-Mattering Scale (AMS; Flett et al., 2022), and the Fear of Not Mattering Inventory (FNMI; Flett & Nepon, 2020) are international tools designed to assess mattering anti-mattering, and fear of not mattering among various types of samples. The GMS has five items measuring perceptions and feelings of being important to other people (e.g., “How much would you be missed if you went away?”). It consists of items worded in a positive manner that assess mattering as a personal resource. Items are rated on a scale ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 4 (A lot). The AMS is a five-item unifactorial scale assessing the degree to which people feel like they do not matter to others. A representative item is “How often have you been treated in a way that makes you feel like you are insignificant?” Items are rated from 1 (not at all) to 4 (a lot). Higher scores reflect higher levels of anti-mattering. Finally, the FNMI is a five-item scale designed to assess anxiety related to the fear of not mattering to others. This fear can exist due to concerns about losing the feeling of mattering that never exists or more generally envisioning a future of never becoming someone of significance to others. Items reflect an emphasis on a feared loss of mattering in the future. Respondents rated items on a Likert-type scale ranging from “not at all (0)” to “almost all of the time (3)”. Participants indicate their degree of agreement with items such as “How often do you worry that others will see you as unimportant or insignificant?” and “Do you worry that others will stop taking an interest in you?”

Current Study

The AMS, GMS and FNMI have been established as valid and reliable in different contexts. Despite that, there is a need to test the psychometric proprieties of these scales in special contexts, like the Palestinian context, which takes into account the specific and increased distress unique to Palestinians residing in the occupied territories of Palestine including high levels of environmental stressors (e.g., militarization, poverty, lack of employment opportunities, cultural pressures, etc.) and the reality that mattering acts as a protective factor against trauma and distress. The current research was conducted with two goals in mind. First, it is important with measures to assess their psychometric properties in unique circumstances and determine whether their use is broadly justified. The current study examined and evaluated the attributes of three mattering measures that were developed and evaluated mostly with English-speaking participants from the United States and Canada. To our knowledge, it is the first research that seeks to evaluate individual differences in adults from Palestine. In the current study, the following questions were addressed:

1-What is the factorial structure of the AMS, GMS and FNMI in the Palestinian context?

2-What is the internal consistency of the AMS, GMS and FNMI in the Palestinian context?

3-To what degree are AMS, GMS, and FNMI valid in the Palestinian context in terms of their associations with indices of stress and distress? It was anticipated that all three facets of the mattering construct would be relevant in terms of links with anxiety, depression, and stress, given past research linking various forms of distress with various facets of the mattering construct (see Besser et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022; Giangrasso et al., 2022; McComb et al., 2020; Prihadi et al., 2020; Rose et al., 2024).

Method

Participants and Procedures

A survey was administered in January 2024. We focused on Palestinian adults who were living in the West Bank of Palestine. The study sample was recruited using online tools. Participants were recruited from online advertisements, e-mail campaigns, and social media. The general aims of this study, along with the procedures, were presented online. Participants responded with an e-mail expressing their willingness to take part. Afterward, every participant was given a letter that briefly explained the study’s subject and purpose, along with details on ethical concerns regarding confidentiality, informed consent and voluntary participation. Participants answered with informed consent after carefully reading and accepting the conditions stated in the e-mail. The questionnaires were all stored on Google Drive. Participants spent approximately 20 to 25 minutes completing the survey. 950 Palestinian adults took part, 305 males and 645 females. Participants’ age ranged from 19 to 55 years old (M = 33.2, SD = 14.16). Overall, 61.1% of participants were living in urban regions of the West Bank, and the remaining 38.9% were from rural regions. We established that 78.9% of participants had an academic degree, and 21.1% were non-degree holders. To be included in the study, participants were required to be (1) Palestinians, (2) without having been previously diagnosed with mental health disorders, and (3) Native Arabic speakers. The study was approved by An-Najah National University Institutional Review Board (IRB) before data collection commenced.

Measures

Following standard methodological recommendations for questionnaires development (Hambleton et al., 2004), all measures not already validated in Arabic were translated and back-translated from the original standard English version into Arabic and pilot-tested by a panel of 10 Arab professional experts in psychology, counseling, and social work. They evaluated the clarity and relevance of the questions and translation. After completing the translated items draft, the questionnaires were back-translated into English by an independent expert English editor.

The General Mattering Scale

The GMS (Marcus & Rosenberg, 1987) has five items measuring perceptions and feelings of being important to other people (e.g., “How much would you be missed if you went away?”). Items are rated on a scale ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 4 (A lot). Psychometric analyses have shown that this scale is unidimensional, with good reliability and validity (Taylor & Turner, 2001). Higher scores reflect greater levels of mattering (Marcus & Rosenberg, 1987).

Anti-Mattering Scale

The AMS is a five-item unifactorial scale assessing the degree to which people feel like they do not matter to others. A representative item is, “How often have you been treated in a way that makes you feel like you are insignificant?” Items are rated from 1 (not at all) to 4 (a lot). Higher scores reflect greater levels of anti-mattering. The instructions are choose the rating you feel is best for you based on your experiences with people in general. For each item, please circle a number to indicate your response (Flett et al., 2022).

Fear of Not Mattering Inventory

The FNMI is a five-item scale designed to assess anxiety related to the fear of not mattering to others (see Flett & Nepon, 2020). Items include an emphasis on a feared loss of mattering in the future. Respondents rated items on a Likert-type scale ranging from “not at all (0)” to “almost all of the time (3)”. Participants indicate their degree of agreement with items such as “How often do you worry that others will see you as unimportant or insignificant?” and “Do you worry that others will stop taking an interest in you?” (Liu et al., 2023).

Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale

The Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) is a 21-item self-reported questionnaire designed to measure the severity of a range of symptoms common in stress, depression, and anxiety. In completing the DASS-21, the individual must indicate the presence of a symptom over the previous week. Each item scored from 0 (did not apply to me over the last week) to 3 (applied to me very much or most of the time over the past week). The essential function of the widely used DASS-21 is to assess the severity of the core symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995).

Data Analysis

We used Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to examine the factor structure of the measures among 450 participants of the total sample, while confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS 29 software was implemented among 500 participants to test the dimensionality of the scales’ construct. The model yielded satisfactory indications concerning the goodness of fit for the three scales (AMS, GMS, and FNMI). Concurrent validity was found for the AMS, GMS, FNMI scales by testing the correlation between these scales, and DASS-21 subscales (depression, anxiety and stress). Finally, test-retest McDonald’s Omega, and Cronbach’s Alpha, were calculated to assess the scales’ internal consistency and reliability.

Findings

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Results of EFA test showed a one-factor solution of GMS, AMS, and FNMI within the Palestinian context. (see Figure 1); For the AMS scale, a one-factor construct explained 64.68% of the cumulative variance, with 2.71 of eigenvalue. Moreover, a one-factor solution of GMS explained 67.59 of the cumulative variances, with 3.39 of eigenvalue. Finally, a one-factor solution for FNMI explained 77.74 of the cumulative variances, with 3.88 eigenvalue.

Figure 1.

Number of factors based on eigenvalue for GMS, AMS, and FNMI.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Before conducting the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), an item-total correlation was calculated using all sample data (N = 950), to ensure that all items of AMS, GMS, and FNMI had a strong correlation to their total scores. The correlation ranged (AMS, .47–80; GMS, .56–83; FNMI, .61–.87). The initial model assumed that GMS, AMS, and FNMI are unidimensional and consisting of a one-factor structure for each. Results of CFA (see Figure 2) demonstrated a good fit of AMS’s model in assessing general mattering in the Palestinian context (GFI = .98, CFI= .98, NFI = 97, RFI = .95, RMSEA = .04, and IFI = .98). The results also showed a good fit of GMS’s model in assessing anti-mattering in the Palestinian context (GFI = .95, CFI= .96, NFI = 96, RFI = .97, RMSEA = .03, and IFI = .96). Finally, the results revealed a good fit of FNMI’s model in assessing fear of not mattering in the Palestinian context GFI = .97, CFI= .98, NFI = 97, RFI = .98, RMSEA = .04, and IFI = .99).

Figure 2.

CFA results for GMS, AMS, and FNIM scales.

Reliability Analysis

To test the reliability of AMS, FNMI and GMS. Test-retest, Cronbach’s Alpha, and McDonald’s Omega were calculated as shown in Table 1. Results of Cronbach’s Alpha for internal consistency of the AMS (α = .82), GMS (α = .88), and FNMI (α = .92) revealed a high level of reliability. In addition, results of the McDonald’s Omega for AMS (.80), GMS (.87), and FNMI (.90) showed a high level of internal reliability.

Table 1.

Reliability Analysis for AMS, GMS and FNMI (n = 950).

Item	Items	Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted	Corrected Item-Total Correlation	Test-retest	McDonald’s Omega	α
AMS
1	How much do other people depend on you?	.80	.42	.81
2	How much do you feel other people pay attention to you?	.66	.69	.80
3	How important do you feel you are to other people?	.67	.66	.82
4	How much do you feel others would miss you if you went away?	.69	.60	.79
5	How interested are people generally in what you have to say?	.72	.55	.73
	AMS total score			.85	.80	.82
GMS
1	How much do you feel like you don’t matter?	.82	.64	.82
2	How much do you feel like you will never matter to certain people?	.83	.63	.83
3	How often have you been made to feel by someone that they don’t care about what you think or what you have to say?	.84	.77	.84
4	How often have you been treated in a way that makes you feel like you are insignificant?	.83	.80	.76
5	To what extent have you been made to feel like you are invisible?	.85	.72	.83
	AMS total score			.83	.87	.88
FNMI
1	Are you afraid that you will not matter to other people?	.79	.82	.84
2	Do you worry that as you get older you will be someone who no longer matters to others?	.83	.76	.86
3	Do you worry that others will see you as unimportant or insignificant?	.75	.83	.82
4	Are you afraid of becoming someone who doesn’t seem to count to others?	.77	.86	.83
5	Do you worry that others will stop taking an interest in you?	.75	.77	81
	FNMI total score			.80	.90	.92

Notably, the test retest reliability of the AMS,GMS, and FNMI was calculated by administering the scale a second time to 200 participants from the original study sample. The stability was assessed by re-administering the mattering scales about three weeks after the first administration. The correlation between the first and second time of AMS was 0.85, the first and second time of GMS was .83, and the first and second time of FNMI was .80 showing that the AMS, GMS, and FNMI are relatively stable measures in assessing mattering, anti-mattering and fear of not mattering within the Palestinian context.

Descriptive statistics related to the AMS, GMS, FNMI and mental health outcomes were calculated. The results are displayed in Table 2. High mean scores were found on the FNMI and the measures of anxiety, depression, and stress.

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics for Research Variables (N = 950).

Variable	M	SD	Min	Max	Range	Skewness	Kurtosis
GMS	16.35	2.75	1.60	4.00	2.40	.67	.02
AMS	11.50	3.80	1.00	4.00	3.00	.52	.59
FNMI	9.45	3.85	0.00	3.00	3.00	.83	.02
Stress	16.31	3.08	0.00	3.00	2.00	.27	.45
Anxiety	15.47	3.57	0.00	3.00	2.10	.81	.67
Depression	13.65	2.66	0.00	3.00	1.90	.55	.44

Note. Statistics are for the item level for the minimum, maximum, and range.

Concurrent Validity

In order to evaluate the concurrent validity of GMS, AMS and FNMI, a Pearson Correlation Coefficient was calculated between AMS, GMS, FNMI, and DASS-21 subscales (depression, anxiety and stress). Results of concurrent validity are presented in Table 3. As expected, significant but moderate intercorrelations were found among the three mattering measures. The strong link was between anti-mattering and fear of not mattering, r = .59.

Table 3.

Pearson Correlations Among the Measures (n = 950).

Scale	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. GMS	1	−.54^a	−.35^a	−.40^a	−.38^a	−.51^a
2. AMS		1	.59^a	.43^a	.61^a	.44^a
3. FNMI			1	.38^a	.48^a	.41^a
4. Depression				1	.58^a	.62^a
5. Anxiety					1	.64^a
6. Stress						1

^aCorrelation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The findings of correlational analysis showed that GMS negatively correlated with AMS (r = −.54; p < .01), FNMI (r = −.35; p < .01), depression (r = −.40 p < .01), anxiety (r = −.38; p < .01), and stress (r = −.51; p < .01). AMS positively correlated with FNMI (r = .59; p < .01), depression (r = .43; p < .01), anxiety (r = .61; p < .01), and stress (r = .44; p < .01). Moreover, FNMI positively correlated with depression (r = .38; p < .01), anxiety (r = 48; p < .01), and stress (r = .41; p < .01). Depression positively correlated with anxiety (r = .58; p < .01), and stress (r = .62; p < .01). Finally, anxiety positively correlated with stress (r = .64; p < .01).

In Table 4, we summarize the results of regression analysis that predict levels of stress, anxiety, and depression. The three mattering measures were entered simultaneously in the same block of variables in each analysis. It can be seen in each instance that all three mattering variables were uniquely significant. Our findings revealed that stress was predicted by the GMS (β = −.16; ** p < .01), AMS, (β = .12; ** p < .01), and FNMI (β = .10; ** p < .01). Moreover, anxiety was predicted by the GMS (β = −.18; ** p < .01), AMS (β = .14; ** p < .05), and FNMI (β = .13; ** p < .01). Finally, our findings revealed that depression was also predicted by the GMS (β = −.17; ** p < .01), AMS (β = .15; ** p < .05), and FNMI (β = .10; * p < .05). We also tested possible differences in mattering, anti-mattering and fear of not mattering due to gender, age, residence, and academic level. No significant differences involving these variables were found in mean levels of mattering, anti-mattering, and fear of not mattering to others.

Table 4.

Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Stress, Depression and Anxiety (N = 950).

Variable	B	SEB	β	R2
Stress
GMS	−.18	.02	−.16**	.22
AMS	.14	.03	.12**
FNMI	.12	.03	.10*
Anxiety
GMS	−.17	.02	−.18**	.28
AMS	.13	.04	.14**
FNMI	.11	.04	.13**
Depression
GMS	−.16	.05	−.17**	.26
AMS	.15	.04	.15**
FNMI	.13	.03	.10*

** p < .01; *p < .05.

Discussion

The current study evaluated the psychometric properties and factorial structure of the three mattering scales (i.e., the AMS, GMS, and FNMI) within the Palestinian context. We also examined the extent to which scores on these measures were associated with self-reported levels of stress, anxiety, and depression in participants who resided in the West Bank in January of 2024. As expected, the DASS mean scores found in this sample suggested the presence of considerable elevations in stress, anxiety, and depression in this sample when these means are compared with the means obtained in past research that has used the DASS-21 in general contexts (e.g., Sinclair et al., 2012) and the DASS-21 means found in previous research conducted with Palestinian adults during the COVID-19 pandemic (see Mahamid et al., 2023). The mean level of anxiety on the DASS-21 found in the current sample was substantially elevated and particularly unique. We regard the level and pervasiveness of anxiety as a clear reflection of ongoing uncertainties, worries, and tension. The overall levels of stress and distress detected were higher than the levels found in a sample of clinical outpatients receiving treatment (see Ronk et al., 2013), despite the fact that potential participants were not included if they had a prior diagnosed mental health condition.

The psychometric analyses focused on the mattering measures yielded strong evidence indicating that AMS, GMS, and FNMI are valid and reliable tools in assessing individual differences in levels of mattering among Palestinians. The CFA results confirmed a stable construct of one-factor structure of AMS, GMS, and FNMI within the Palestinian context, which was supported by research attesting to the one-factor structure of these measures in assessing mattering in different populations (Flett et al., 2022; Flett & Nepon, 2020; Liu et al., 2023). A high level of internal consistency was found with each of the measures, with the alphas ranging from .82 to .92. These coefficients are in line with the results from other samples and are clearly adequate or better given that each measure consists of five items.

Additional results with a subset of 200 participants yielded results indicating all three measures had a high degree of test-retest reliability when participants were re-assessed three weeks later. This is useful information given that the test-retest reliability of the AMS and FNMI have seldom been studied. The test-retest reliability coefficients we found for the AMS and GMS are slightly higher than the test-retest reliabilities found with a comparable time frame in a sample of community adults as reported by Etherson et al. (2022). The test-retest reliability of FNMI scores was also quite high. The substantial stability found here attests to the relative stability of the mattering indices despite the considerable changes and challenges being experienced.

We carefully considered how best to interpret the mean scores on the mattering measures based on the responses of our participants. The values obtained with the GMS and AMS were in accordance with typical values found in other samples (see, for instance, McComb et al., 2020). The exception was the overall mean level of fear of not mattering found in our sample. The mean of 9.45 is higher than the mean of 6.40 obtained in the McComb et al. (2020) study and the mean of 4.14 found in a recent study of undergraduate students from China (see Liu et al., 2023). When considered along with the DASS-21 means, it seems evident that the level of anxiety being experienced in our participants extended to many of them having elevated fears of not mattering. Indeed, it is likely that for many of our participants, fear and uncertainty not only amplified fears of being or becoming insignificant, it likely made this aspect of the mattering construct become very cognitively salient. Future research that examines elevated levels of fears of not mattering from a qualitative perspective would be quite revealing in terms of how fears of being and becoming insignificant impact people at an individual level. A related issue is whether it is meaningful to assess and contrast state versus trait levels of fear of not mattering to others.

As for the substantive findings, these results can be regarded as evidence of the validity of the various mattering measures, but they also attest to the considerable stress and distress that is being experienced by people in exceptionally traumatic circumstances who also feel as if they don’t matter and who fear that they are insignificant. The correlational results showed that all three mattering measures had significant associations with all three DASS-21 subscales. Mattering as a resource was clearly protective while anti-mattering and the fear of not mattering were associated significantly with stress and distress. The most robust association was the link between anti-mattering and anxiety (r = .61). This finding is unique and likely reflects the unique context of the current study; it is usually the case that, on base of limited use thus far, the AMS has a stronger association with depression than with anxiety (see Flett et al., 2022). This association signifies that there were substantially elevated levels of anxiety among those people who were also feeling invisible and unimportant.

The regression results have significance from a psychometric and a substantive perspective. It was found that all three mattering indices were significant and unique predictors of levels of anxiety, depression, and stress. At one level, our findings can be regarded as evidence of the incremental validity of the GMS, AMS, and FNMI; they are clearly not redundant with each other despite the significant intercorrelations among the measures.

Evidence of the reliability and validity of international tools to assess mattering, anti-mattering, and fear of not mattering in the Palestinian context will enhance their utility in future research and future settings. It will also contribute a needed measurement base to support psychosocial interventions and evaluate the role of resource and risk factors and how they can be implemented to hopefully result in reductions in levels of depression, anxiety, and stress.

Limitations of the Study

Our study has some limitations that should be considered in future research. First, we collected our data using a convenience sampling method, which may limit our results’ generalizability. Moreover, participation required online access and this may have impacted the representativeness of the sample.

Second, the data were collected during the Israeli war on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Hence, it is possible that escalating political violence and restrictions heightened feelings of not mattering and fear of not mattering among individuals could have impacted the psychometric properties and the constructs of the AMS, GMS, and FNMI. Future studies are needed to test the constructs of these scales over different periods of time.

Third, our sample is obviously not sufficiently representative of at-risk populations such as Palestinian refugees, victims of political violence, those with low levels of social support, and freed prisoners, and there is a need to further evaluate the psychometric properties and the factorial structure of the AMS, GMS, and FNMI with at-risk populations. Finally, the sample was highly educated and nonrepresentative of the general population (over 78.9% had academic degrees). All measures are based on self-report with subjective responses without ties to specific behavioral indicators which may increase the effect of positive self-presentation. Self-report measures could inflate scores of mattering and decrease scores of anti-mattering and fear of not mattering depending on the cultural norms of the population. This positive self-bias may be compounded by the education level and age of the participants who may be more motivated to present themselves in a positive light. Our study also targeted Palestinians living in the West Bank of Palestine. Clearly, investigations targeting other regions of Palestine, such as the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem are needed.

Clearly, there are several important directions for future research. For instance, longitudinal research is needed as well as research that pits mattering against related constructs (e.g., self-esteem and belongingness) to establish whether if mattering has the anticipated ability to uniquely predict stress, distress, health, and well-being. We maintain that mattering reflects a specific need and it is clearly distinguishable from other constructs when feelings of mattering are elevated, and it is a specific vulnerability when feelings and fears of not mattering are predominant.

Conclusions

The current study evaluated the psychometric properties and the factorial structure of the AMS, GMS, and FNMI following translations into Arabic language and in the Palestinian context. To our knowledge, this is the first study designed to test the psychometric properties and factorial structure of mattering scales with the Palestinian context. Overall, the AMS, GMS, and FNMI were found to be valid and reliable measures to assess general mattering, anti-mattering, and fear of not mattering within the Palestinian context. The one-factor solution of the AMS, GMS, FNMI fit the data reasonably well in EFA and CFA analyses. Descriptive results suggested elevated levels of fear of not mattering as well as stress and distress. Notably, elevated scores on the AMS and the FNMI were associated with all measures of stress and distress and general mattering, anti-mattering, and fear of not mattering were also unique predictors of stress and distress.

It is recommended to conduct similar studies with diverse samples in the Palestinian society; it would be prudent to target clinical populations which are needed to develop these scales and their factorial structure. In fact, robust and easy-to-administer instruments capable of assessing individuals’ mattering are crucial for healthcare providers working in contexts of war and violence such as Palestine. Such instruments assess mattering, anti-mattering and fear of not mattering, aiding clinicians in orienting their therapeutic work towards empowering resilience, coping strategies, and survival skills in individuals. By measuring mattering, psychologists, counselors, social workers, and educators can develop ad hoc participatory interventions tailored to the needs arising during and after armed conflicts.

Footnotes

Author Contributions

All authors contributed equally to this work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Statement

ORCID iDs

Fayez Mahamid

Gordon L. Flett

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

Besser

Flett

G. L.

Nepon

Zeigler-Hill

(2022). Personality, cognition, and adaptability to the covid-19 pandemic: Associations with loneliness, distress, and positive and negative mood states. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 20(2), 971–995. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-020-00421-x

Chen

I. H.

Flett

G. L.

Gamble

J. H.

(2022). Translation and validation of a Chinese version of the fear of not mattering inventory and related instruments in the context of COVID-19. Journal of Concurrent Disorders, 5(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.54127/JATS9300

Dadfar

Lester

Sanadgol

(2021). The interpersonal mattering scale: Its reliability and validity in an Iranian sample. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 24(3), 244–260. ‏.https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2020.1726884

Elliott

G. C.

Kao

Grant

A.-M.

(2004). Mattering: Empirical validation of a social-psychological concept. Self and Identity, 3(4), 339–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500444000119

Etherson

M. E.

Smith

M. M.

Hill

A. P.

Flett

G. L.

(2022). Feelings of not mattering and depressive symptoms from a temporal perspective: A comparison of the cross-lagged panel model and random-intercept cross-lagged panel model. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 40(1), 60–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/07342829211049686

Flett

G. L.

(2018). The psychology of mattering: Understanding the human need to be significant. Elsevier.

Flett

G. L.

(2022). An introduction, review, and conceptual analysis of mattering as an essential construct and an essential way of life. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 40(1), 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/07342829211057640

Flett

G. L.

Nepon

(2020). The fear of not mattering inventory: Development and correlates of a new measure. Manuscript in preparation.

Flett

G. L.

Nepon

Goldberg

J. O.

Rose

A. L.

Atkey

S. K.

Zaki-Azat

(2022). The Anti-Mattering Scale: Development, psychometric properties, and associations with well-being and distress measures in adolescents and emerging adults. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 40(1), 37–59. https://doi10.1177/07342829211050544

10.

Fromm

(1941). Escape from freedom. Norton.

11.

Giangrasso

Casale

Fioravanti

Flett

G. L.

Nepon

(2022). Mattering and anti-mattering in emotion regulation and life satisfaction: A mediational analysis of stress and distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 40(1), 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/07342829211056725

12.

Hambleton

R. K.

Merenda

P. F.

Spielberger

C. D.

(2004). Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Psychology Press.

13.

Liu

Gamble

J. H.

Cao

C. H.

Liao

X. L.

Chen

I. H.

Flett

G. L.

(2023). The general mattering scale, the anti-mattering scale, and the fear of not mattering inventory: Psychometric properties and links with distress and hope among Chinese university students. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 16, 4445–4459. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S430455

14.

Lovibond

S. H.

Lovibond

P. F.

(1995). Depression anxiety stress scales (DASS--21, DASS--42) [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t01004-000

15.

Mahamid

Veronese

Bdier

(2023). Political violence and posttraumatic stress symptoms among Palestinians: The mediating roles of sense of belongingness and loneliness. International Journal of Psychology: Journal International de Psychologie, 58(5), 433–442. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12918

16.

Mahamid

Veronese

Bdier

(2024). Trauma predicts the desire to migrate and psychological well-being via belongingness and quality of life among Palestinians. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001647

17.

Marcus

F. M.

Rosenberg

(1987, March). Mattering: Its measurement and significance in everyday life. Paper presented at the 57th annual Eastern Sociological Society Meeting. Boston, Massachusetts, 1987, March.

18.

McComb

S. E.

Goldberg

J. O.

Flett

G. L.

Rose

A. L.

(2020). The double jeopardy of feeling lonely and unimportant: State and trait loneliness and feelings and fears of not mattering. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 563420–563443. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.563420

19.

Prihadi

K. D.

Wong

Chong

E. Y.

Chong

K. Y.

(2020). Suicidal thoughts among university Students: The role of mattering, state self-esteem and depression level. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(3), 494–502. ‏.https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i3.20587

20.

Prilleltensky

(2019). The relationship of mattering to engagement, inclusion, and well-being in a higher education context. Paper presented at the World Congress of the International Positive Psychology Association, Melbourne, Australia, 2019.

21.

Prilleltensky

(2020). Mattering at the intersection of psychology, philosophy, and politics. American Journal of Community Psychology, 65(1–2), 16–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12368

22.

Ronk

F. R.

Korman

J. R.

Hooke

G. R.

Page

A. C.

(2013). Assessing clinical significance of treatment outcomes using the DASS-21. Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 1103–1110. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033100

23.

Rose

A. L.

Goldberg

J. O.

Flett

G. L.

Nepon

Besser

(2024). Totally all alone with my thoughts: Development, psychometric properties, and correlates of the loneliness automatic thoughts questionnaire. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 17, 1073–1085. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S433211

24.

Rosenberg

McCullough

B. C.

(1981). Mattering: Inferred significance and mental health among adolescents. Research in Community and Mental Health, 2, 163–182.

25.

Sinclair

S. J.

Siefert

C. J.

Slavin-Mulford

J. M.

Stein

M. B.

Renna

Blais

M. A.

(2012). Psychometric evaluation and normative data for the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales-21 (DASS-21) in a nonclinical sample of U.S. adults. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 35(3), 259–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278711424282

26.

Taylor

Turner

(2001). A longitudinal study of the role and significance of mattering to others for depressive symptoms. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42(3), 310–325. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090217