Development of the clientelistic orientation (individual-level) scale: the effect of clientelistic orientation on university students’ future anxiety and the moderating role of spiritual psychological resilience

Abstract

The aim of this study was to develop a psychometric tool to assess individuals’ clientelistic orientation and to examine the relationship between clientelistic orientation and future anxiety among university students, together with the moderating role of spiritual psychological resilience. The study was conducted in two phases. In the first stage, data obtained from 540 university students were used to develop the Clientelistic Orientation (Individual-Level) Scale and to examine its psychometric properties. Results from the factor analyses suggested that the scale exhibited a unidimensional structure with acceptable internal consistency, composite reliability, and construct validity indicators. In the second stage, the relationship between clientelistic orientation and future anxiety was examined using data collected from 307 university students. The direct effect of clientelistic orientation on future anxiety was not statistically significant after the interaction term was included in the model. However, moderation analysis suggested that the association between clientelistic orientation and future anxiety varied according to levels of spiritual psychological resilience. More specifically, the positive association between clientelistic orientation and future anxiety appeared to become stronger at higher levels of spiritual psychological resilience, although the interaction effect was modest in magnitude. Given the cross-sectional nature of the study and the small size of the interaction effect, these findings should be interpreted cautiously. The study contributes to the literature by providing preliminary evidence regarding a potential conditional association between clientelistic orientation, future anxiety, and spiritual psychological resilience among university students.

Introduction

Favoritism, which stands in opposition to a merit-based system [4], represents a distorted relational pattern and a form of corruption grounded in close-knit networks [40]. Although it has numerous detrimental effects on the social, political, and economic development of countries, it continues to persist in many parts of the world [32]. Various forms of favoritism continue to exist across countries that differ substantially in their economic development, cultural characteristics, and political systems [48]. The social acceptance of favoritism-based behaviors contributes to their normalization [5]. One of the primary reasons for its persistence is the mutual benefit perceived by both those who grant favors and those who receive them. Favoritism emerges from social relations and constitutes a form of social exchange in which feelings of loyalty and gratitude develop between the parties involved [5]. Although both parties those who grant favors and those who receive them may gain material or symbolic benefits [39], favoritism also generates significant inefficiencies and harms at both societal and individual levels [45]. Individuals who are excluded may perceive injustice in the distribution of resources, and the resulting inequalities can trigger various destructive behaviors [41].

One type of political favoritism is clientelism [39], which is frequently observed in political, economic, and social spheres and defined as a reciprocal exchange relationship based on mutual dependence. It involves directing state resources in favor of political supporters [40], thereby privileging individuals close to those in power [52]. Clientelism constitutes a political system rooted in conditional loyalties and reciprocal benefits, wherein individuals with unequal power engage in the exchange of favors—often referred to as patron-client systems [6]. In such systems, patrons—whether individuals or groups—secure the loyalty of their clients by providing certain privileges or resources, which in turn significantly influences the functioning of social structures, especially in political and economic contexts [29, 46]. While clientelism can shape individuals’ perceptions and expectations regarding economic, social, and political processes, its psychological effects on individual well-being remain underexplored [25]. In the political and social context, clientelism can be understood as the practice whereby individuals demonstrate loyalty to particular groups or leaders in order to gain personal advantages. This dynamic may serve as a significant factor shaping the future expectations and anxieties of young people, especially in developing societies. In particular, the impact of clientelist relationships on individuals’ future anxiety stands out as an important area for investigation.

In this study, clientelistic orientation is conceptualized at the individual psychological level as an orientation toward informal advantage-seeking through relational means, including the normative acceptance of bypassing formal procedures when perceived necessary. This conceptualization is distinct from macro-level political clientelism in political science, which concerns contingent patron-client exchanges embedded in asymmetrical power relations and material inducements. Accordingly, the term clientelistic orientation is used in a restricted and context-specific sense to refer to an individual-level attitudinal orientation toward informal relational advantage-seeking that may emerge under perceived non-meritocratic conditions, rather than to institutional patron-client systems.

Literature review

Clientelism, youth future anxiety, and spiritual psychological resilience

Favoritism represents a significant social problem that emerges in administrative and everyday practices through interest-based relationships, ultimately reinforcing perceptions of inequality and injustice [39, 60]. Favoring acquaintances or relatives undermines perceptions of social justice and erodes the principle of meritocracy [3, 61]. Favoritism relationships are characterized by a vertical hierarchy, and although this structure may strengthen social connectedness, it simultaneously reduces efficiency and weakens organizational justice [2, 26, 44]. Favoritism can be categorized into different types depending on the nature of the relationship and the distribution of power [39], as summarized in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Types of Favoritism [39]

Clientelism, a political form of favoritism, refers to the construction of reciprocal loyalty relationships through the distribution of public resources to voters [27, 39]. Unsound and unstable political environments foster clientelist relations, rendering individuals dependent on patrons [6, 10, 62]. Although early studies suggested that economic development would diminish such structures [48], clientelism remains influential in contemporary Turkish politics [47].

Theoretically, clientelistic orientation, conceptualized as an informal advantage-seeking orientation, may be associated with future anxiety through two related mechanisms. First, it may reflect diminished meritocratic expectancy (i.e., the belief that) effort and competence are insufficient for success-thereby increasing uncertainty about future life chances. Second, it may co-occur with reduced trust in institutional fairness and predictability, weakening perceived control over future outcomes. Both mechanisms are theoretically consistent with future-oriented anxiety as a response to uncertainty and perceived uncontrollability.

However, it is important to distinguish the present construct from conceptually related but distinct phenomena in order to establish clear nomological boundaries. First, the construct should not be conflated with general networking behaviors. While networking may involve building and maintaining social relationships for professional or personal development, it does not necessarily imply the use of informal or ethically questionable strategies to bypass formal procedures. By contrast, the present construct specifically reflects the normative acceptance of leveraging relationships or intermediaries to gain advantages outside formal merit-based systems. Similarly, the construct differs from the broader notion of social capital. Social capital refers to the resources embedded in social networks that can facilitate cooperation and mutual benefit, often within legitimate and socially accepted frameworks.

Finally, the construct is conceptually related to, but distinct from, constructs such as Machiavellianism and moral disengagement. While Machiavellianism reflects a manipulative interpersonal style and moral disengagement involves the cognitive justification of unethical behavior, the present construct focuses more specifically on individuals’ beliefs and attitudes toward the legitimacy of informal advantage-seeking within perceived non-meritocratic contexts. Accordingly, moderate positive associations with these constructs would be expected, providing evidence for convergent validity, while maintaining conceptual distinctiveness.

The influence of clientelistic orientation is also observed within educational organizations, where it negatively affects school climate and teachers’ organizational commitment [28]. Although systems such as the Public Personnel Selection Examination (KPSS) aim to reduce favoritism, particularly oral interview stages may perpetuate perceptions of partiality.

One of the most significant psychological consequences of these structural problems is future anxiety. Future anxiety is defined as an intense state of worry that arises from fears of uncertainty and failure [22, 64], and among young individuals it is often triggered by factors such as job insecurity and economic instability [53]. Among university students, future anxiety tends to increase toward the end of their educational journey due to unemployment concerns and career uncertainties [18, 56, 57]. Rising unemployment rates in Türkiye further elevate anxiety levels among youth and contribute to spiritual exhaustion [1, 63]. While future anxiety may serve as a motivating force when moderate and manageable [9, 31, 59], heightened levels significantly reduce individuals’ quality of life and academic performance [49, 55]. Among pre-service teachers in particular, concerns about not securing an appointment after graduation exacerbate this anxiety [11, 42].

At this point, the concept of spiritual psychological resilience emerges as an important resource that enables individuals to cope with stress and anxiety [30, 43]. Spiritual psychological resilience refers to individuals’ capacity to withstand life’s difficulties through spiritual values and beliefs [33, 51]. Spiritual beliefs contribute to the development of hope, meaning, and endurance in the face of stressful life events [17, 35].

Research indicates a negative relationship between psychological resilience and future-related anxiety [13], and shows that spiritual psychological resilience strengthens individuals’ ability to cope with stress [20, 37]. Studies further suggest that young individuals with strong religious or spiritual beliefs tend to have lower levels of anxiety, attribute greater meaning to their lives, and possess higher psychological resilience [16, 20, 50].

From an individual perspective, clientelism represents a dual-sided structure in which some individuals are disadvantaged while others may benefit. However, regardless of potential short-term benefits, clientelistic systems undermine perceptions of fairness and merit. In this context, spiritual psychological resilience may not necessarily function as a protective factor; rather, it may heighten individuals’ moral awareness and sensitivity to injustice, thereby shaping their future-related concerns. This study seeks to address a gap in the literature by examining the impact of clientelistic orientation on future anxiety in young individuals and the potential moderating role of moral and psychological resilience in this relationship.

Purpose of the study

The primary aim of this study is to develop a Clientelistic Orientation (Individual-Level) Scale and to examine the relationship between clientelistic orientation and university students’ future anxiety, while assessing the moderating role of spiritual psychological resilience in this relationship. Accordingly, the Clientelistic Orientation (Individual-Level) Scale was first developed to measure individuals’ clientelistic orientation, and its psychometric properties were evaluated. Following this, the newly developed scale was used to investigate the relationship between clientelistic orientation and future anxiety among university students. In addition, the moderating effect of spiritual psychological resilience on this relationship was examined.

Clientelistic orientation is a structure that shapes individuals’ socio-economic and political relations, particularly through patron-client dynamics [25, 29]. This system may influence individuals’ expectations about the future, heighten perceptions of uncertainty, and thereby contribute to increased levels of future anxiety [46]. On the other hand, spiritual psychological resilience is considered a factor that helps individuals cope with stress and anxiety through spiritual values [43]. Previous research has emphasized that spirituality fosters psychological resilience and serves as a protective factor in reducing future anxiety [30, 51]. This study examines the role of spiritual psychological resilience in this relationship and seeks to contribute to the existing literature on the subject.

This study aims to contribute to the literature by developing and validating the Clientelistic Orientation (Individual-Level) Scale and by examining both the effect of clientelistic orientation on university students’ future anxiety and the role of spiritual psychological resilience in this process.

Research questions

1. How can a valid and reliable scale be developed to measure clientelistic orientation?

2. Does clientelistic orientation have a significant effect on university students’ future anxiety?

3. Does spiritual psychological resilience play a moderating role in the relationship between clientelistic orientation and university students’ future anxiety?

Hypotheses

• • H1: The developed Clientelistic Orientation (Individual-Level) Scale is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring clientelistic orientation.

• • H2: Clientelistic orientation is a significant predictor that increases university students’ future anxiety.

• • H3a (Buffering hypothesis): Spiritual psychological resilience attenuates the association between clientelistic orientation and future anxiety.

• • H3b (Amplification hypothesis): Spiritual psychological resilience strengthens the association between clientelistic orientation and future anxiety.

Method

Research design

This study employed a two-phase quantitative design. In the first phase, a scale development procedure was conducted to develop a psychometric instrument intended to assess individuals’ clientelistic orientation [12, 58]. In the second phase, the newly developed Clientelistic Orientation (Individual-Level) Scale was used to examine the relationship between clientelistic orientation and university students’ future anxiety, together with the moderating role of spiritual psychological resilience. Thus, the study was designed within both a scale-development framework and a relational survey model [8].

Participants

Data for the study were collected from three different subsamples. During the scale development process, data were obtained from 296 participants for the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and from 244 participants for the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). In the second phase of the study, data from 307 participants were used to test the structural model and conduct the moderation analysis. The sample sizes used in this study were considered generally adequate for the planned factor-analytic and moderation procedures. Gender distributions are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Information regarding the study sample

Type of analysis	N	Female (n)	%	Male (n)	%
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)	296	183	61.82%	113	38.18%
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)	244	157	64.34%	87	35.66%
Structural model/moderation analysis	307	211	68.72%	96	31.28%

The samples were selected using convenience sampling, and participation in the study was voluntary. The adequacy of the sample for factor analysis was evaluated using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) coefficient and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. The obtained KMO and Bartlett’s Test values indicated that the dataset was appropriate for exploratory factor analysis [15, 54].

Data collection instruments

Clientelistic Orientation (Individual-Level) Scale (COS): This scale was developed within the scope of the present study following commonly used scale development procedures in the social sciences [12, 58]. In the initial stage, an item pool was generated based on a review of the literature on clientelism, favoritism, informal advantage-seeking, and related constructs. Particular attention was given to conceptualizing clientelistic orientation at the individual level, focusing on beliefs and attitudes regarding informal relationships, intermediaries, and non-meritocratic strategies for obtaining advantages. An initial pool of 21 items was created. The items were designed to reflect behavioral, cognitive, and normative orientations toward informal advantage-seeking practices and were worded in a manner considered appropriate for university student populations. To evaluate content relevance and clarity, the item pool was reviewed by experts in educational sciences, psychology, and measurement and evaluation. Based on expert feedback, several items were revised or removed due to conceptual overlap or limited alignment with the proposed construct. A preliminary evaluation was also conducted to assess item clarity and comprehensibility prior to the main data collection process. Subsequently, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were conducted. During the exploratory stage, items with low factor loadings, cross-loadings, or limited conceptual contribution were removed. The final version of the scale consisted of 12 items and demonstrated a unidimensional structure. The obtained reliability and validity indicators suggested acceptable psychometric properties for the proposed measurement structure (α = 0.87,CR = 0.91; AVE = 0.53). The scale was administered using a 5-point Likert format ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).

Future Anxiety Scale for University Students: Participants’ levels of future anxiety were measured using the scale developed by Geylani and Çiriş Yildiz [19], which is based on Zaleski’s [64] conceptualization of future anxiety. During the original scale development process, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted using data from 365 university students enrolled in the Faculty of Health Sciences at a foundation university in Istanbul. From an initial pool of 37 items, a two-factor structure consisting of 19 items was obtained. The factors were labeled “Fear of the Future” and “Despair About the Future.” The reported total explained variance was 63.50%, and the internal consistency coefficient was α = 0.91. In addition, test–retest analyses indicated significant correlations between two administrations conducted two weeks apart. The original validation study also reported acceptable confirmatory factor analysis results for the proposed two-factor structure.

Spiritual Psychological Resilience Scale (SPRS): Developed by Okan and Ekşi [37], this instrument measures individuals’ levels of psychological resilience through their spiritual values. The scale assesses how individuals utilize spiritual resources to cope with adversity and maintain psychological well-being. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses reported a three-factor structure consisting of spiritual coping, spiritual beliefs, and spiritual commitment. Together, these factors explained 55.01% of the variance. Reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from 0.785 to 0.854 across the subscales. In addition, the original validation study reported a significant negative correlation with spiritual dissonance, providing evidence for criterion-related validity.

Data collection process

Data were gathered during the 2024–2025 academic year using an online survey form. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study, participation was voluntary, and anonymity and confidentiality were ensured. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Social and Human Sciences at Firat University (Decision No. 32545, dated 03.02.2025).

Data analysis

During the development of the Clientelistic Orientation (Individual-Level) Scale, the factor structure was initially examined through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), followed by Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to evaluate the proposed measurement structure. Prior to factor analysis, the suitability of the dataset was assessed using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. CFA was subsequently conducted using AMOS 24. Model fit was evaluated using multiple indices, including χ2/df, RMSEA, SRMR, CFI, TLI, GFI, and AGFI. The reliability and internal consistency of the scale were evaluated using Cronbach’s Alpha, Composite Reliability (CR), and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values [21].

In the second phase of the study, moderation analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between clientelistic orientation and future anxiety, together with the moderating role of spiritual psychological resilience. SPSS 26, AMOS 24, and the PROCESS v4.0 macro were used for the analyses [23]. The moderating effect was evaluated using interaction terms. Model explanatory capacity was examined through R2 values, together with regression coefficients and statistical significance levels.

To assess the potential influence of common method variance, Harman’s single-factor test was conducted by loading all measurement items into an unrotated exploratory factor analysis. The results indicated that the first factor accounted for 31.84% of the total variance, which is below the commonly referenced threshold of 40%. These findings provide preliminary evidence that common method variance is unlikely to represent a substantial concern. However, this result should not be interpreted as conclusive evidence that common method bias is absent, as Harman’s single-factor test is generally regarded as a limited diagnostic procedure. Prior to creating the interaction term, continuous predictor variables were mean-centered in order to reduce potential multicollinearity and facilitate the interpretation of interaction effects.

Results

Study 1: development of the clientelistic orientation (individual-level) scale

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) results

An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted to examine the factor structure of the Clientelistic Orientation (Individual-Level) Scale. Prior to the analysis, the suitability of the data for factor analysis was evaluated using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) statistic and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity.

Data suitability tests

Table 2 presents the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity results for assessing the suitability of the dataset for factor analysis.

Table 2.

Results of the KMO and Bartlett’s Test

Measurement	Value
KMO (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin) Criterion	0.905
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity	χ2(66) = 1170.14, p <.001

The KMO value exceeded 0.90, indicating a high level of sampling adequacy according to commonly accepted criteria [15]. In addition, Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was statistically significant (p < 0.001), suggesting that the correlation matrix was suitable for factor analysis.

Factor structure and explained variance

The exploratory factor analysis was conducted using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) without rotation. A unidimensional structure was obtained, consisting of a single factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1. The single-factor solution accounted for 41.62% of the total variance, as presented in Table 3. Although PCA was used during the exploratory stage, the latent structure of the scale was subsequently evaluated through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Future research should further evaluate the dimensionality and structural stability of the scale using alternative latent variable methods and additional psychometric procedures.

Table 3.

Explained variance values (factor with eigenvalue > 1)

Component	Eigenvalue	Variance (%)	Cumulative Variance (%)
1	4.994	41.62	41.62

The single-factor solution accounted for 41.62% of the total variance. This level of explained variance is generally considered acceptable in exploratory research conducted within the social sciences [21, 38, 54]. The findings suggest that the retained items reflect a common underlying orientation; however, given the use of PCA, the observed structure should be regarded as an initial representation of the construct rather than definitive confirmation of its latent dimensionality.

Factor loadings

The scale, which initially consisted of 21 candidate items, was reduced to 12 items following the exploratory factor analysis. All retained items loaded onto a single factor, with factor loadings exceeding 0.50. These findings suggest that the items reflect a common underlying orientation. Detailed factor loadings are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Factor loadings of the clientelistic orientation (individual-level) scale items

Item code	Factor loading
C17 I believe that developing strategic relationships is necessary to protect my interests	0.738
C10 I believe that relationships with powerful individuals are more important than formal social order	0.730
C8 Seeking help from intermediaries to accomplish a task seems reasonable to me	0.714
C7 I believe that establishing strong relationships is essential for achieving success	0.686
C4 I believe that having a strong connection is important when facing a problem	0.670
C11 I believe that success depends on whom you know	0.630
C1 I try to build relationships with powerful individuals to protect my personal interests	0.629
C15 When I encounter a problem, I tend to seek support from influential individuals	0.617
C9 I do not hesitate to bend system rules to protect my interests	0.587
C19 I see privileges provided by others as opportunities	0.582
C21 I feel that strong connections are more important than individual achievement	0.571
C20 I believe that offering gifts or gestures to authorities is a natural way to resolve issues	0.552

All retained items demonstrated factor loadings above 0.50, which is generally considered acceptable in social science research [21, 54]. The decision to retain a single-factor structure was informed by both statistical indicators and the interpretability of the factor solution. The resulting 12-item structure appeared to reflect a conceptually coherent representation of individual-level clientelistic orientation.

The exploratory factor analysis yielded a single-factor structure accounting for 41.62% of the total variance. This level of explained variance is generally considered acceptable in exploratory psychological research involving socially complex constructs. The retention of a single-factor structure was informed by statistical indicators together with the interpretability of the factor solution. In addition, the KMO value (0.905) and the significant Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (p < 0.001) suggested that the dataset was suitable for factor analysis.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) results

The confirmatory factor analysis provided support for the proposed unidimensional structure; the standardized solution is presented in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Path diagram for the confirmatory factor analysis

In the model diagram, the standardized factor loadings ranged from 0.50 to 0.71, while the error variances for each item (e1–e12) are presented in Fig. 2. All retained items demonstrated loadings above 0.50, suggesting that the items were reasonably associated with the proposed factor structure. The model fit indices indicated an overall acceptable level of fit, and the results are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5.

Fit indices of the confirmatory factor analysis

Fit index	Accepted limit	Obtained value	Evaluation
χ2/df	≤ 3	2.505	Adequate fit
RMSEA	≤.08 (ideal ≤.06)	0.070	Acceptable fit
SRMR	≤.08	0.057	Good fit
CFI	≥.90 (ideal ≥.95)	0.928	Good fit
TLI (NNFI)	≥.90	0.912	Good fit
GFI	≥.90	0.933	Good fit
AGFI	≥.85	0.903	Good fit
NFI	≥.90	0.886	Near borderline, acceptable
Hoelter.05	≥ 200	164	Near borderline

The confirmatory factor analysis suggested an overall acceptable level of model fit. In particular, the χ2/df, CFI (CFI = 0.928), TLI, RMSEA (RMSEA = 0.070), and SRMR values were within generally acceptable ranges. However, certain fit indices, including the NFI and Hoelter values, remained slightly below recommended thresholds. Accordingly, although the proposed 12-item model appeared to provide a reasonably interpretable representation of the construct, further validation and refinement in independent samples would strengthen confidence in the stability of the measurement structure.

Reliability analyses

To evaluate the internal consistency and convergent validity of the Clientelistic Orientation (Individual-Level) Scale, Cronbach’s Alpha, Composite Reliability (CR), and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values were calculated.

Cronbach’s alpha (internal consistency coefficient)

Table 6 shows the Cronbach's alpha values for the Clientelistic Orientation (Individual-Level) Scale.

Table 6.

Cronbach’s alpha value for the clientelistic orientation (individual-level) scale

Scale	Number of items	Cronbach’s alpha
Clientelistic orientation (individual-level) scale	12	0.870

The internal consistency of the 12-item Clientelistic Orientation (Individual-Level) Scale was evaluated using Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient. The obtained Cronbach’s Alpha value was 0.870, suggesting an acceptable level of internal consistency according to commonly used criteria in the social sciences.

Composite Reliability (CR)

Based on the standardized factor loadings obtained from the CFA, the Composite Reliability (CR) value was calculated as approximately 0.91. This finding suggests an acceptable level of composite reliability for the proposed measurement structure.

• Accepted Threshold: CR ≥ 0.70

• Obtained Value: CR ≈ 0.91

Average Variance Extracted (AVE)

• Accepted Threshold: AVE ≥ 0.50

• Obtained Value: AVE ≈ 0.53

The AVE value exceeded commonly recommended thresholds, suggesting that the retained items shared an acceptable level of common variance within the proposed measurement structure.

Discriminant validity is generally evaluated in multidimensional models to assess the distinctiveness of separate latent dimensions. Here, the proposed measurement structure consisted of a single-factor model; therefore, traditional discriminant validity procedures such as HTMT ratios were not directly applicable.

Instead, the interpretability of the proposed structure was considered in relation to the conceptual clarification of construct boundaries and its theoretical distinction from related constructs such as networking, social capital, Machiavellianism, and moral disengagement. Future research employing multidimensional models may further evaluate discriminant validity using procedures such as HTMT where appropriate.

Study 2: structural model test

The hypothesized moderation model tested in Study 2 is illustrated in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Tested moderation model

The moderation model results and regression coefficients are reported in Table 7.

Table 7.

Summary of the moderation analysis model and regression coefficients

Statistic/predictor	B	β	t	p	VIF	Value
Model summary
R						0.6006
R2						0.3607
ΔR2						0.015
MSE						67.83
F						56.98
p						<.001
N						307
Regression Coefficients
Constant	65.21	—	9.48	<.001	—
Clientelistic Orientation (X)	−0.033	−0.021	−0.32	.747	1.18
Spiritual Psychological Resilience (W)	−0.499	−0.312	−4.97	<.001	1.32
X × W Interaction	0.0045	0.167	2.84	.005	1.48

B unstandardized coefficient, β standardized coefficient. Predictors were mean-centered prior to the creation of the interaction term. VIF values indicate no multicollinearity concerns (all values < 5)

As shown in Table 7, the regression model obtained from the moderation analysis was statistically significant (F = 56.98, p < 0.001). This result suggests that clientelistic orientation, spiritual psychological resilience, and their interaction were collectively associated with variation in university students’ future anxiety scores.

The model’s coefficient of determination (R²) was calculated as 0.3607, indicating that approximately 36% of the variance in participants’ future anxiety scores was associated with clientelistic orientation, spiritual psychological resilience, and their interaction. This finding indicates that the model explained a moderate proportion of the variance in future anxiety in this sample.

To further evaluate the practical significance of the moderation effect, the incremental variance explained by the interaction term was examined. Including the interaction term (X × W) increased ΔR² by 0.015, indicating that the interaction accounted for an additional 1.5% of the variance in future anxiety beyond the main effects.

Additionally, the moderation effect size was calculated using Cohen’s f². The obtained f² value of 0.02 corresponds to a small effect size according to conventional benchmarks [7]. Although the magnitude of the interaction effect was modest, small interaction effects are relatively common in psychological moderation research, particularly in studies examining complex social and contextual relationships.

In the moderation model, the main effect of clientelistic orientation (X) on university students’ future anxiety was not statistically significant when the interaction term was included (β = −0.021, p = 0.747). In contrast, spiritual psychological resilience demonstrated a significant negative association with future anxiety (β = −0.312, p < 0.001). In models including interaction terms, the main effect represents the effect of the independent variable when the moderator is at its reference level (i.e., the mean level, if centered).

The interaction between clientelistic orientation and spiritual psychological resilience was statistically significant (β = 0.167, p = 0.005), suggesting that the relationship between clientelistic orientation and future anxiety varied according to levels of spiritual psychological resilience.

All continuous predictors were mean-centered prior to analysis in order to reduce potential multicollinearity. Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values ranged between 1.18 and 1.48, remaining below commonly recommended thresholds, which suggested that multicollinearity was unlikely to represent a substantial concern in the model.

Moreover, a post-hoc power analysis was conducted using G*Power 3.1 [14] to evaluate whether the sample size was sufficient to detect the observed small moderation effect (f2 = 0.02). The analysis indicated that, with a sample size of N = 307 and α = 0.05, the estimated statistical power (1 – β) was approximately 0.82, suggesting that the sample size was adequate for detecting small interaction effects. However, because the interpretive value of post-hoc power analyses remains debated in methodological literature, these findings should be considered supplementary rather than definitive evidence.

The conditional effects of clientelistic orientation on future anxiety at different levels of spiritual psychological resilience are presented in Table 8.

Table 8.

Conditional effects of clientelistic orientation on future anxiety at different levels of Spiritual Psychological Resilience (SPR)

SPR level	Effect (B)	SE	t	p	LLCI	ULCI
Low (47)	0.1764	0.0412	4.28	<.001	0.0954	0.2575
Medium (65)	0.2568	0.0335	7.66	<.001	0.1908	0.3228
High (81.72)	0.3315	0.0450	7.36	<.001	0.2429	0.4200

To further examine the nature of the significant interaction, simple slope analyses were conducted at low (− 1 SD), mean, and high (+ 1 SD) levels of spiritual psychological resilience. As presented in Table 8, the association between clientelistic orientation and future anxiety was positive and statistically significant across all three levels of spiritual psychological resilience. However, the magnitude of the association varied according to levels of the moderator. More specifically, the relationship between clientelistic orientation and future anxiety appeared relatively weaker at low levels of spiritual psychological resilience and relatively stronger at mean and high levels.

The interaction pattern suggested that spiritual psychological resilience did not appear to weaken the association between clientelistic orientation and future anxiety. Instead, the positive association between clientelistic orientation and future anxiety appeared relatively stronger at higher levels of spiritual psychological resilience. However, given the modest magnitude of the interaction effect (ΔR2 = 0.015; f2 = 0.02) and the cross-sectional nature of the study, these findings should be interpreted cautiously. The moderating effect of spiritual psychological resilience on the relationship between clientelistic orientation and future anxiety is illustrated in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4.

Moderating effect of spiritual psychological resilience on the relationship between clientelistic orientation and future anxiety

Figure 4 illustrates the interaction between clientelistic orientation and spiritual psychological resilience in predicting future anxiety. Simple slope analyses indicated that the positive association between clientelistic orientation and future anxiety was relatively weaker at low levels of spiritual psychological resilience and relatively stronger at high levels of spiritual psychological resilience.

Conclusion, discussion, and recommendations

Conclusion

This study had two primary objectives: First, to develop a psychometric tool for assessing individual-level clientelistic orientation; and second, to examine the relationship between clientelistic orientation and future anxiety among university students, together with the potential moderating role of spiritual psychological resilience. The Clientelistic Orientation (Individual-Level) Scale developed within this framework demonstrated a unidimensional structure consisting of 12 items based on exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The scale also showed acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.87), composite reliability (CR ≈ 0.91), and average variance extracted (AVE ≈ 0.53). Taken together, these findings suggest that the proposed scale may provide a useful initial tool for examining individual-level orientations toward informal relational advantage-seeking.

In the structural model, the relationship between clientelistic orientation and future anxiety appeared to be conditional rather than reflecting a significant direct main effect. The findings suggest that the association between clientelistic orientation and future anxiety may vary according to levels of spiritual psychological resilience, with the relationship appearing relatively stronger at higher levels of the moderator within the present sample. However, the observed moderation effect was statistically significant but modest in magnitude (ΔR² = 0.015; f² = 0.02) and should therefore be interpreted with caution. Rather than indicating a robust psychological mechanism, the findings are broadly consistent with the possibility that the association between clientelistic orientation and future anxiety may be contingent upon individual and contextual factors. Future research is needed to examine the stability, magnitude, and theoretical implications of this relationship across different populations, institutional settings, and socio-cultural contexts.

Overall, the present findings contribute to the literature by introducing a preliminary measure of clientelistic orientation and by extending the limited body of research examining its potential psychological correlates. Given the modest magnitude of the observed interaction effect and the cross-sectional nature of the study, the findings should be interpreted cautiously. Future research should replicate and extend these findings using longitudinal designs, more diverse samples, and cross-cultural comparisons in order to clarify the generalizability, stability, and theoretical implications of the observed relationships.

Discussion

The findings of this study provide preliminary conceptual and practical insights into the relationship between clientelistic orientation and future anxiety among university students. Clientelistic orientation is conceptualized as an individual-level tendency toward informal advantage-seeking through relational means. The results suggest that clientelistic orientation did not exhibit a statistically significant direct effect on future anxiety when considered independently. Instead, the association between clientelistic orientation and future anxiety appeared to vary according to levels of spiritual psychological resilience. The interaction effect and simple slope analyses appeared to indicate a stronger association at higher levels of spiritual psychological resilience. The present findings do not permit firm conclusions regarding the psychological mechanisms underlying this interaction pattern. Accordingly, any interpretation of this observed moderation pattern should be regarded as tentative, subject to further empirical examination, and should not be interpreted as evidence of a direct causal mechanism.

Clientelistic systems tend to emerge in contexts where individuals gain social positions not through merit, personal competence, or equal opportunities, but through personal connections and informal relationships [6, 29]. Such institutional arrangements may contribute to feelings of uncertainty, inadequacy, and helplessness, particularly among young people, by weakening perceptions of fairness, control, and opportunity [39, 48]. This perspective may help explain why perceptions of clientelistic practices could be linked to future-related concerns among some individuals, although further research is required to clarify the underlying processes and boundary conditions of this relationship.

These dynamics may be particularly relevant for young individuals approaching the end of their educational trajectories. When forming expectations about post-graduation employment, university students may perceive personal effort as less sufficient in environments believed to be shaped by relational networks rather than principles of equality, fairness, or merit [11, 53]. Such perceptions have been associated with lower levels of future-oriented optimism about the future and institutional trust, as well as increased concerns about future outcomes. Viewed from this perspective, clientelistic practices may be understood not only as mechanisms influencing access to opportunities and social resources, but also as contextual conditions that may contribute to uncertainty regarding future prospects among young people.

The literature frequently emphasizes that spirituality may contribute to the development of meaning, purpose, hope, and internalized control beliefs [16, 20, 34, 50]. However, the findings of the present study appear only partially consistent with these general expectations.

Rather than indicating a buffering effect, the results suggest that the association between clientelistic orientation and future anxiety appeared relatively stronger at higher levels of spiritual psychological resilience. Given the modest magnitude of the observed interaction effect, stronger conclusions regarding the nature of this relationship should be avoided. Further research is needed to clarify the conditions under which spiritual psychological resilience functions as a protective factor and how its psychological implications differ across contextual conditions.

The construct examined in this article should not be interpreted as equivalent to classical forms of political clientelism. Rather, it refers to an individual-level psychological orientation associated with perceived informal relational pathways to advantage. The functioning and psychological implications of clientelistic orientation may vary across institutional and cultural contexts. In societies characterized by stronger formal institutional structures and meritocratic norms, relational advantage-seeking may carry different psychological meanings compared to contexts where informal networks are more structurally embedded.

From a broader institutional perspective, the psychological meaning of clientelistic orientation may depend on the extent to which formal institutions are perceived as effective, impartial, and merit-based. Consistent with institutional theories, individual attitudes and behavioral tendencies are shaped not only by personal characteristics but also by the interaction between formal and informal institutional environments [24, 36]. In contexts where formal institutions are perceived as weak, unpredictable, or insufficiently meritocratic, informal relational pathways may become more socially normalized and function as adaptive strategies for navigating uncertainty. Conversely, in societies characterized by stronger institutional trust and more robust meritocratic norms, reliance on informal advantage-seeking may be viewed as exceptional, normatively undesirable, or even morally problematic. Taken together, these considerations suggest that the psychological consequences associated with clientelistic orientation may vary across socio-political contexts, highlighting the importance of cross-cultural replication and comparative research. In this respect, the construct should be understood within its broader socio-cultural and institutional context. Future research could further refine the conceptual boundaries of this construct and examine how institutional trust, governance structures, cultural norms, and related concepts shape these dynamics.

The final 12-item structure was developed with consideration for both statistical adequacy and conceptual coherence. Retaining a relatively concise item set was intended to improve the interpretability and practical usability of the scale while preserving sufficient coverage of the intended construct domain. The explained variance obtained in the present study (41.62%) may be considered moderate and should be interpreted in light of the conceptual complexity of the construct. In addition, some fit indices (e.g., NFI and Hoelter values) remained slightly below recommended thresholds, suggesting that the model fit, while acceptable, may benefit from further refinement. Accordingly, future research should examine alternative measurement models, assess measurement invariance across relevant demographic groups, and cross-validate the present structure using independent samples. The internal consistency coefficient obtained in this study (α = 0.870) indicates acceptable reliability and suggests that the retained items demonstrate a consistent measurement pattern.

Limitations and recommendations

The present study examined the relationship between clientelistic orientation and future anxiety among university students, together with the moderating role of spiritual psychological resilience. While the findings provide initial insights into these relationships, they should be interpreted in light of several methodological and conceptual limitations. The principal limitations of the study are as follows:

• Semantic Overlap: The potential semantic overlap between the term “clientelistic orientation” and broader political uses of the concept is a limitation. Although the present study conceptualizes the construct at the individual psychological level, the terminology may still evoke associations with classical forms of political clientelism. Future research may therefore consider refining the terminology in order to further reduce conceptual ambiguity across disciplinary contexts.

• Socio-Cultural Context: An additional limitation concerns the socio-cultural embeddedness of the construct examined in this study. Clientelistic orientation is closely associated with socio-political and institutional dynamics, particularly in contexts where relational exchanges and informal advantage-seeking practices are historically salient. The findings should be interpreted within the Turkish socio-cultural context, where perceptions of fairness, meritocracy, and relational influence may be shaped by specific institutional and cultural conditions. Therefore, caution is warranted when considering the generalizability of the findings to societies characterized by different socio-institutional structures or varying levels of patronage traditions. Future research should examine the cross-cultural applicability of the scale and explore whether the observed relationships operate similarly across different cultural and institutional contexts.

• Characteristics of the Study Sample: A further limitation relates to the characteristics of the study sample. Since the participants consisted solely of university students, the generalizability of the findings to different age groups, educational backgrounds, and cultural contexts remains limited. Clientelistic orientation and future-related concerns may operate differently among non-student populations or within different institutional and socio-cultural environments. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted within the specific developmental, educational, and contextual framework of university students in Türkiye.

• Data Collection: Because the data were collected using a cross-sectional design, the temporal ordering and causal direction of the observed relationships cannot be established.

• Social Desirability Effect: Because the construct involves attitudes toward informal relational advantage-seeking, participants may have been inclined to provide socially desirable responses. Although anonymity and voluntary participation were emphasized, the possibility that some responses were influenced by social desirability considerations cannot be entirely excluded.

• The Scale Development Process: Although the psychometric findings supported the proposed structure, the scale development process may be further strengthened through the use of additional procedures and further construct validity analyses.

• Item Set: A related limitation concerns the potential internal heterogeneity of the current 12-item structure. The retained items appear to reflect conceptually related, but not entirely identical, components, including normative acceptance (what is considered acceptable), descriptive beliefs (how success is perceived to operate in social contexts), and behavioral inclination. Although these elements collectively represent an orientation toward informal relational advantage-seeking, they may also correspond to distinguishable conceptual dimensions. Therefore, future research should examine whether a multidimensional structure separating normative, descriptive, and behavioral components provides a more precise representation of the construct.

• EFA/Factor Structure: A further methodological limitation is the absence of a systematic evaluation of alternative factor solutions. Although the single-factor structure appeared to provide an interpretable conceptual framework, future research should examine competing multidimensional models in order to determine whether alternative structures offer a more accurate representation of the construct.

• PCA Use: An additional methodological consideration relates to the use of Principal Component Analysis (PCA) during the exploratory stage of scale development. Although PCA may provide an initial indication of the structure of the data, it does not explicitly model latent constructs. Therefore, the present findings should be considered preliminary in psychometric terms. Future research should further evaluate the dimensionality of the 12-item structure using more robust latent variable methods, such as Principal Axis Factoring and parallel analysis.

• CFA/Model Comparison: In addition, only the proposed single-factor structure was evaluated in the confirmatory factor analysis, and alternative measurement models were not formally compared. Future research should therefore evaluate competing models to determine whether alternative structures provide superior model fit and conceptual clarity.

• Common Method Bias: Because the study relied exclusively on self-report instruments administered at a single time point, the potential influence of common method variance cannot be entirely ruled out. Although Harman’s single-factor test provided preliminary evidence suggesting that common method bias may not represent a substantial threat, this procedure is considered a limited diagnostic approach. Future research would benefit from employing multiple data sources, longitudinal designs, or alternative procedural and statistical remedies to further reduce the possibility of method-related bias.

• Measurement Invariance: A further important limitation is the absence of formal measurement invariance testing across demographic subgroups. Configural, metric, and scalar invariance were not examined across gender groups. This limitation is particularly relevant given the gender imbalance observed across the subsamples, with female participants comprising approximately 62% to 69% of respondents. In addition, given the socio-cultural embeddedness of clientelistic orientation, establishing measurement equivalence across demographic groups remains particularly important. Without formal evidence of invariance, the extent to which the scale functions equivalently across subgroups cannot be fully assumed. Therefore, future research should examine measurement invariance across gender and other relevant demographic characteristics. Consequently, any interpretation, comparison, or generalization of the present findings across gender groups should be approached with considerable caution until configural, metric, and scalar invariance are empirically established. Differences observed between male and female participants may reflect measurement-related differences rather than substantive differences in clientelistic orientation. Furthermore, because measurement invariance across gender groups was not established, the conditional effects and simple slope patterns observed in the moderation analysis should also be interpreted with caution. In particular, the observed pattern suggesting that the association between clientelistic orientation and future anxiety appeared relatively stronger at higher levels of spiritual psychological resilience should be regarded as preliminary until measurement equivalence across relevant demographic groups has been formally demonstrated. Future studies should therefore examine whether this amplification pattern and the broader moderation effect are replicated across relevant demographic groups.

• Reliability: Although the internal consistency coefficient indicated acceptable reliability, additional reliability indicators such as test–retest reliability were not assessed. Therefore, future research should evaluate the temporal stability of the scale across different time intervals and populations.

• Small Interaction Effect: Although the interaction effect was statistically significant, its magnitude was relatively modest (ΔR² = 0.015; f² = 0.02). Accordingly, stronger conclusions regarding the nature and stability of the observed moderation effect await replication across larger and more diverse samples.

In light of these limitations, several directions for future research and practical consideration may be suggested:

• Educational and Employment Policies: Educational and employment policies may benefit from greater emphasis on transparency and merit-based evaluation practices, particularly in contexts where informal relational influence is perceived to affect access to opportunities. In this regard, increasing the transparency and standardization of subjective evaluation procedures, such as oral interviews, may help strengthen perceptions of fairness and institutional trust among young individuals.

• Spirituality-Based Education and Psychological Counseling Practices: The findings of the present study suggest that spiritual psychological resilience may be associated with greater sensitivity to future-related concerns under certain contextual conditions. In this regard, university counseling services may consider incorporating supportive approaches that address meaning-making, hope, values, and coping processes within psychological counseling practices. Programs informed by spirituality-related coping frameworks may help support young individuals in managing uncertainty and future-related concerns, particularly in contexts perceived as stressful or unfair [30, 43]. However, further research is needed to better understand the conditions under which such approaches may be beneficial.

• New Research Directions and Methodological Depth: Research examining the relationship between clientelistic orientation and psychological well-being remains relatively limited. Future studies may therefore benefit from examining these relationships across different age groups, socio-economic backgrounds, institutional settings, and cultural contexts. In addition, longitudinal research designs may help clarify how perceptions of clientelistic orientation and future-related concerns develop over time. Future research may also explore whether interventions aimed at strengthening coping resources, meaning-making processes, or spiritual psychological resilience are associated with changes in future-related concerns under different contextual conditions. Future research should also examine measurement invariance across gender and other demographic groups in order to evaluate the stability and equivalence of the scale structure across different populations. In addition, future studies may benefit from testing alternative multidimensional models that distinguish between normative, descriptive, and behavioral components of clientelistic orientation.

• Developing Social Awareness and Critical Consciousness: Future educational and social initiatives may benefit from encouraging greater awareness of issues related to fairness, ethical responsibility, and active citizenship, particularly among young individuals. In this context, educational institutions, civil society organizations, and media platforms may play a role in supporting discussions related to social justice, merit-based practices, and civic participation. Such initiatives may help strengthen perceptions of social inclusion and institutional trust, particularly in contexts where informal relational influence is perceived to affect social opportunities.

• Programs to Enhance Psychological Resilience: Psychological support programs addressing future-related concerns among young individuals may consider incorporating approaches related to meaning-making, values, and spiritual or psychological coping resources. In particular, interventions informed by meaning-centered, value-oriented, or spirituality-sensitive frameworks may provide supportive contexts for individuals experiencing uncertainty and future-related stress. University counseling services and professionals working with young populations may therefore explore the potential usefulness of such approaches within broader and context-sensitive intervention frameworks. However, additional empirical research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of these practices across different populations and settings.

Appendix A

Clientelistic orientation (individual-level) scale items, response format and scoring procedure

Clientelistic orientation (individual-level) scale items (Turkish & English)

Turkish Form (Maddeler)		English Form (Items)
1	Çikarlarimi korumak için stratejik ilişkiler geliştirmek gerektiğine inaniyorum	I believe that developing strategic relationships is necessary to protect my interests
2	Güçlü kişilerle kurulan ilişkilerin toplumsal düzenden daha önemli olduğunu düşünüyorum	I believe that relationships with powerful individuals are more important than formal social order
3	Bir işi halletmek için aracilardan yardim almak bana mantikli geliyor	Seeking help from intermediaries to accomplish a task seems reasonable to me
4	Güçlü ilişkiler kurmanin başari için olmazsa olmaz olduğunu düşünüyorum	I believe that establishing strong relationships is essential for achieving success
5	Bir sorunum olduğunda güçlü bir bağlantiya sahip olmanin önemli olduğunu düşünüyorum	I believe that having a strong connection is important when facing a problem
6	Başarinin, kiminle taniştiğiniza bağli olduğuna inaniyorum	I believe that success depends on whom you know
7	Kişisel çikarlarimi korumak için güçlü kişilerle ilişki kurmaya çalişirim	I try to build relationships with powerful individuals to protect my personal interests
8	Bir sorunla karşilaştiğimda güçlü bir destekçi aramaya yönelirim	When I encounter a problem, I tend to seek support from influential individuals
9	Çikarlarimi korumak için sistemin kurallarini esnetmekten çekinmem	I do not hesitate to bend system rules to protect my interests
10	Başkalarinin bana sağladiği ayricaliklari firsat olarak görürüm	I see privileges provided by others as opportunities
11	Güçlü bağlantilarin bireysel başaridan daha önemli olduğunu hissediyorum	I feel that strong connections are more important than individual achievement
12	Bir işin çözülebilmesi için yetkili kişilere hediye veya jest yapmanin doğal olduğunu düşünürüm	I believe that offering gifts or gestures to authorities is a natural way to resolve issues

Clientelistic orientation (individual-level) scale response format and scoring procedure

The Clientelistic Orientation (Individual-Level) Scale consists of 12 items designed to assess clientelistic orientation at the individual level, conceptualized as an orientation toward informal advantage-seeking through relational means. The items were originally developed in Turkish and are presented below together with their English translations.

Response format

Participants responded to each item using a five-point Likert-type scale.

• 1 = Strongly Disagree

• 2 = Disagree

• 3 = Neutral

• 4 = Agree

• 5 = Strongly Agree

Scoring procedure

Total scores are calculated by summing responses across all items. Higher scores indicate higher levels of clientelistic orientation at the individual level. No reverse-scored items are included in the present version of the scale.

Author’s contributions

All stages of this article's preparation were carried out by the author mentioned above.

Funding

No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.

Data availability

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

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Social and Human Sciences Research Ethics Committee of University of Firat (Date: 02.03.2025/No: 32545).

An informed consent form has been prepared for the participants. Informed consent was obtained from all individuals who participated in the research, and all necessary permissions were secured from the participants in accordance with ethical research standards.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.