Abstract
Do attitude scales mean the same when used at different times and with different groups? If so, no difference should occur in scale values developed with the equal-appearing interval method among different generations and over several decades. Some indirect evidence is available regarding the constancy of one such instrument, viz., a scale of 24 items focusing on the social issue of capital punishment, using an 11point continuum of favorableness-unfavorableness.' In 1966, 49 upper undergraduate males in a class exercise in a southeastern technical universicy served as judges for deriving median scale values for the 24 statements. Thurstone's ( 6 ) scale values for the same items were generated by graduate srudents at the University of Chicago. Correlation of the values created in 1930 in Chicago and in 1966 in Atlanta by students, judging the favorableness of the statements toward the concept in question, yielded a value of 9 8 . Ferguson ( 2 ) reports reliabilities for these statements to range from .59 to .88; .44 was the split-half estimate for the present data. Apparently, the general favorableness toward capital punishment in 1966 does not differ appreciably from the views of judges of 1930 vintage. The unusually high relationship berween the scale values reflects the stability over time and among groups, at least for individuals in academic settings. This generalization applies to several kinds of attitudes. Hovland and Sherif ( 3 ) , comparing items on the concept of Negro scaled cwo decades apart, report an r of .96. And, Milholland ( 4 ) , though reducing the judges' hypothetical continuum to 9 piles or steps for attitudes toward the law, found product-moment rs of .98 between values on a 1930 scale developed by Katz ( 6 ) and a 37-member graduate class in 1956. Do these reports of comparable data imply no cultural change regarding selected social issues? Might not Ferguson's ( 2 ) suggestion that we compare group mean scores be more appropriate than just reviewing scale values established through the quasi-rational judging process?
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
