Concept and Measurement Artifact in Multiple Values and Value Conflict Models

Abstract

Near outset of A Multiple Values Model of Political authors confidently assert that (Peffley et al. 2001: 380). What social psychologist could disagree? But, how do matter and to what end? Peffley, Hurwitz, and Knigge indicate that the way citizens rank competing should play a major role in conditioning political tolerance judgments. The authors continue: Thus, while many researchers have paid lip service to view that tolerance decisions result from a competition of values, failure to provide an explicit test of such perspective has, in our view, led to a truncated understanding of tolerance judgments (emphasis added).' So this is how according to authors of A Multiple Values Model of Political hereafter referred to as MVM. From basic democratic theory we know that tolerance is one of those rudimentary values forming a building block in foundation of any stable democracy So where does this leave us at very outset of MVM? Values matter to values? Surely there must be more content to this article than that? We are not so certain. We are concerned that line of conceptual and measurement work reflected in MVM, and more broadly in similar, related work as summarized in MVM, borders on truism and measurement artifact. If we can convincingly support this contention, then profession will need to reconsider not only results reported in MVM, but it will need to develop new approaches for examining relationship between tolerance, other values, and presumed value conflict. Not everyone would agree with our position. After all, MVM was published as a product of peer review process. Clearly, a majority of reviewers recommended publication. In that regard ours is a minority view, but one that arises out of broader scientific method and appreciation for persuasive power of evidence and careful analysis. We thank Journal editors for opportunity to present what we see as a potential corrective. Our commentary is relatively brief and pointed. At outset we are concerned with simple replication and correction of original MVM analyses, which are, in part, erroneous. This initial replication phase is crucial to our demonstration given that our critique is both operational and conceptual. If we cannot even reproduce original results using same publicly available data, there is no need for further commentary. Next we proceed to disaggregate multiple concept in an effort to illuminate potential measurement artifact underlying original MVM results. Finally, we close with some brief suggestions for future measurement approaches and social science studies of tolerance. THE NOT SO SIMPLE REPLicATioN Science depends on reproducible results. Therefore, it is troubling when reports fail this simple test. We regret to say that we found some significant differences when attempting to replicate MVM results. While most of replicated results are similar to those originally reported in MVM, value conflict coefficients vary drastically In Tolerance equation, value conflict not only remains significant but it has a much stronger unstandardized effect in replication (Table 1, compare columns 1 and 2). In pliability analysis, effect of this variable is insignificant for both scenarios in replication model, but is significant for cable access scenario in authors' results (see Tables 2 and 3, compare columns 1 and 2). Some of differences may be due to fact that our analyses included 30 more respondents. Perhaps MVM used an unstated truncation of sample (excluding outliers of some sort?) which accounts for their smaller sample size. Or perhaps MVM analyses were done before data collection was completed? Whatever answer, MVM authors provided no statement indicating any deviation from parameters of data that are publicly available to all users for secondary analyses. …