Objective: This research analyzed the psychometric properties of the Ambivalent Classism Inventory (ICA) in Peru. Methodology: A critical review of literature related to poverty, inequality, and structural gaps was conducted, involving 882 participants aged 14 to 89 years (M = 24.61, SD = 9.07). Results: Exploratory-confirmatory factor analyses were satisfactory, finding a similar factorial structure to the original scale and the adaptation (hostile classism, protective paternalism, and complementary class differentiation). Regarding items, there was a reduction, leaving only 12; however, comparing alternative models, the three-factor structure with 12 reagents showed adequate fit (χ² = 214.588, df = 51, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.996; RMSEA = 0.060; SRMR = 0.033), allowing for invariance testing. Practical Implications: The scale allows for investigating attitude profiles of individuals with privileged social class. Contribution: The instrument is a valuable contribution, considering that the nation has a high poverty rate, leading to economic, political, and social inequality among the population.

1. Alcañiz-Colomer, J., Moya, M., & Valor-Segura, I. (2023). Gendered Social Perceptions of “The Poor”: Differences in Individualistic Attributions, Stereotypes, and Attitudes Toward Social Protection Policies. Sex Roles, 89(7–8), 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-023-01375-9
2. Blair, I. V. (2002). The Malleability of Automatic Stereotypes and Prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(3), 242–261. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0603_8
3. Bullock, H. E., & Limbert, W. M. (2003). Scaling the Socioeconomic Ladder: Low‐Income Women’s Perceptions of Class Status and Opportunity. Journal of Social Issues, 59(4), 693–709. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0022-4537.2003.00085.x
4. Cañadas, B., & Brussino, S. (2023). Power elites: Predictors of support for public policies to reduce poverty in Argentina (Spanish). Psicoperspectivas. Individuo y Sociedad, 22(2). https://doi.org/10.5027/psicoperspectivas-vol22-issue2-fulltext-2822
5. Cozzarelli, C., Wilkinson, A. V., & Tagler, M. J. (2001). Attitudes Toward the Poor and Attributions for Poverty. Journal of Social Issues, 57(2), 207–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00209
6. de Lemus, S., Moya, M., Lupiáñez, J., et al. (2013). Men in the Office, Women in the Kitchen? Contextual Dependency of Gender Stereotype Activation in Spanish Women. Sex Roles, 70(11–12), 468–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0328-6
7. Durante, F., & Fiske, S. T. (2017). How social-class stereotypes maintain inequality. Current Opinion in Psychology, 18, 43–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.07.033
8. Durante, F., Tablante, C. B., & Fiske, S. T. (2017). Poor but Warm, Rich but Cold (and Competent): Social Classes in the Stereotype Content Model. Journal of Social Issues, 73(1), 138–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12208
9. Etikan, I. (2016). Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
10. Ferrando, P. J., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2017). Program FACTOR at 10: Origins, development and future directions. Psicothema, 29.2, 236–240. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.304
11. Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48(6), 621–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.48.6.621
12. Fiske, S. T. (2018). Social Cognition, 1st ed. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315187280
13. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., et al. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
14. Fu, A., Zhang, Z., He, W., et al. (2019). Does Perceiving the Poor as Warm and the Rich as Cold Enhance Perceived Social Justice? The Effects of Activating Compensatory Stereotypes on Justice Perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01361
15. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
16. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.56.2.109
17. Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor Retention Decisions in Exploratory Factor Analysis: a Tutorial on Parallel Analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428104263675
18. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02289447
19. INEI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática). (2022). Poverty affected 25.9% of the country’s population in 2021. Available online: https://m.inei.gob.pe/media/MenuRecursivo/noticias/nota-de-prensa-no-072-2022-inei.pdf (accessed on 17 March 2024).
20. IPE (Instituto Peruano de Economía). (2022). South: Poverty reduced from 31% in 2020 to 26% in 2021 (Spanish). Available online: https://www.ipe.org.pe/portal/sur-pobreza-se-redujo-de-31-en-2020-a-26-en-2021/ (accessed on 16 March 2024).
21. Izquierdo, I., Olea, J., Abad, F. J. (2014). Exploratory factor analysis in validation studies: Uses and recommendations. Psicothema, 26, 395–400.
22. Jordan, J. A., Lawler, J. R., & Bosson, J. K. (2020). Ambivalent Classism: The Importance of Assessing Hostile and Benevolent Ideologies about Poor People. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 43(1), 46–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2020.1828084
23. Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A Decade of System Justification Theory: Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious Bolstering of the Status Quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–919. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x
24. Keith, T. Z. (2015). Multiple Regression and Beyond: An Introduction to Multiple Regression and Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed. Routledge.
25. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 4th ed. Guilford Press.
26. Leitgöb, H., Seddig, D., Asparouhov, T., et al. (2023). Measurement invariance in the social sciences: Historical development, methodological challenges, state of the art, and future perspectives. Social Science Research, 110, 102805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2022.102805
27. Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., Sutton, R. M., et al. (2014). Dehumanization and Social Class. Social Psychology, 45(1), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000159
28. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., et al. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.4.1.84
29. Manky, O. (2019). The limits of classism: Identity and links between regular and precarious workers. Chile and Peru in comparative perspective (Spanish). Revista Internacional de Sociología, 77(2), 125. https://doi.org/10.3989/ris.2019.77.2.18.006
30. Martínez-Muñoz, M., & Rabbia, H. H. (2022). Classism in psychology: a scoping review (Spanish). Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365241075_El_clasismo_en_la_psicologia_una_revision_de_alcance (accessed on 16 March 2024).
31. Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas. (2022). Poverty map (Spanish). Available online: https://www.mef.gob.pe/es/?option=com_content&language=es-ES&Itemid=101134&lang=es-ES&view=article&id=369 (accessed on 19 January 2024).
32. Otzen, T., & Manterola, C. (2017). Sampling Techniques on a Study Population (Spanish). International Journal of Morphology, 35(1), 227–232. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0717-95022017000100037
33. Ridley, M., Rao, G., Schilbach, F., et al. (2020). Poverty, depression, and anxiety: Causal evidence and mechanisms. Science, 370(6522). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay0214
34. Rincón, J. C., & Barreto, M. I. (2016). Sampling techniques for social research (Spanish). Universidad Piloto de Colombia.
35. Rivera Rosales, V., Alcaraz Vera, J. V., & Chávez Rivera, R. (2022). Poverty and inequality: drivers of migration. VISUAL REVIEW. International Visual Culture Review/Revista Internacional de Cultura Visual, 11(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.37467/revvisual.v9.3663
36. Rottenbacher, J. M. & Schmitz, M. (2012). Political conservatism and tolerance towards transgressive behavior. Political Psychology Magazine of the University of Valencia, 44, 31–56.
37. Sainz, M. (2023). Identifying hostile versus paternalistic classism profiles: a person-based approach to the study of ambivalent classism. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05007-z
38. Sainz, M., Lobato, R. M., & Jiménez-Moya, G. (2021). Spanish adaptation of the Ambivalent Classism Inventory (ACI). Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 53. https://doi.org/10.14349/rlp.2021.v53.18
39. Sainz, M., Loughnan, S., Martínez, R., et al. (2020). Dehumanization of Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Groups Decreases Support for Welfare Policies via Perceived Wastefulness. International Review of Social Psychology, 33(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.414
40. Sainz, M., Martínez, R., Moya, M., et al. (2018). Animalizing the disadvantaged, mechanizing the wealthy: The convergence of socio‐economic status and attribution of humanity. International Journal of Psychology, 54(4), 423–430. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12485
41. Sainz, M., Martínez, R., Sutton, R. M., et al. (2019). Less human, more to blame: Animalizing poor people increases blame and decreases support for wealth redistribution. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 23(4), 546–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430219841135
42. Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2008). Attitudes towards class and symbolic inversion. Journal of Social Psychology, 94(1), 18–35.
43. Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (2007). Antecedents of Men’s Hostile and Benevolent Sexism: The Dual Roles of Social Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(2), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206294745
44. Svetina, D., Rutkowski, L., & Rutkowski, D. (2019). Multiple-Group Invariance with Categorical Outcomes Using Updated Guidelines: An Illustration Using Mplus and the lavaan/semTools Packages. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27(1), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2019.1602776
45. Unicef. (2020). COVID-19: Impact on poverty and inequality in girls, boys and adolescents in Peru. Available online: https://www.unicef.org/peru/media/9026/file/Reporte%20t%C3%A9cnico.pdf (accessed on 5 March 2024).
46. Vehovar, V., & Lozar-Manfreda, K. (2017). Overview: online surveys. In: SAGE Handbook of Online Research Methods, 2nd ed. Sage.
47. Zakrisson, I. (2005). Construction of a short version of the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(5), 863–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.026