Methods for measuring attitudes.

Abstract

Thurstone (98) have given accounts of the methods of measuring attitudes. Each of these reports constitutes a distinct contribution to the measurement of attitudes. In the present review an attempt is being made to go a little further in classifying, analyzing, and evaluating the existing techniques. Certain important phases of the methods will be separated out and followed through the literature. The result is a cross-section of the methods.The literature reviewed here is limited to studies concerning attitudes in a certain restricted sense. Attitudes refer to a rather definite set of phenomena having a definite, specified object of reference. Hence studies concerning traits, without a definite object of reference, such as introversion, ascendance, aggressiveness, will not be included. Borderline studies may occur, but for purposes of clarity a line must be drawn. THE METHOD OF ABSOLUTE RANKING

Creation and Application of a Replicable Analytic Method to Determine Attitudes and Beliefs of Undergraduate Science Professors Toward the Discipline of Education

“…The methodology outlined here called for an indirect assessment, as questions constructed for the semi-structured interviews were meant to elicit—without soliciting—attitudes and beliefs of the participants. This is the qualitative equivalent of the indirect assessments discussed above but is in keeping with a seemingly inconsequential reference by Droba (1932), who detailed the case method, a qualitative approach to studying attitudes. He was not convinced this method was a good approach however.…”

“…“Some writers … have tried to analyze attitudes by the use of this method. However, an analysis of this type is subject to crude errors since it is made by a single individual” (Droba, 1932, p. 311). He later allowed for some utility, citing a single advantage: It could explain attitudes previously measured, allowing one to trace the “development of attitudes in one individual or in a smaller group” (p. 311).…”

“…This is the qualitative equivalent of the indirect assessments discussed above but is in keeping with a seemingly inconsequential reference by Droba (1932), who detailed the case method, a qualitative approach to studying attitudes. He was not convinced this method was a good approach however.…”

“…While conceptually there is significant agreement within the research community, structurally there is ongoing debate. The conceptual definition of attitudes occurred very early in research covering this construct and evolved over time, ultimately resulting in the accepted idea that they are one part of the mental domain of humans, and specifically contained with the domain of affect (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977;Allport, 1967;Droba, 1932;Eagly & Chaiken, 1993;Fishbein, 1967aFishbein, , 1967bFishbein, , 1967cO'Keefe, 2002;Thomas & Znaniecki, 1918).…”

The Objective Measurement of Attitudes

“…The ergic theory (4) implies that the measurement of attitudes cannot be adequately covered by the existing convention (12,20) of assigning a score on a pro and con scale with respect to an object. For an attitude to an object is far richer than a single dimension can express, and is better defined by all those basic drive satisfactions to which this particular attitude to the object leads.…”