Advertisement

Psychological Perspective in Attitude Research

  • Harry S. Upshaw
  • Thomas M. Ostrom
Part of the Springer Series in Social Psychology book series (SSSOC)

Abstract

The variable perspective approach to social attitudes was inspired by two events that occurred when the present authors worked together as faculty advisor and research assistant. One was a challenge by a granting agency to defend the use of Thurstone’s equal-appearing intervals scaling procedure in light of evidence that judges’ attitudes affect their judgments of opinion statements (Hovland & Sherif, 1952). The other was a televised interview of retiring President Dwight Eisenhower in which he described his manner of making political decisions. The first event led to a study in which it was demonstrated that judges whose own positions are not included in the range of statements offered for judgment act as though their positions were included, thereby effectively extending the range (Upshaw, 1962). In other words, the perspectives assumed by judges appeared to vary according to the judges’ own attitudes when those attitudes were out of the range of a set of items that were judged.

Keywords

Response Scale Psychological Perspective Perspective Theory Experimental Social Psychology Perspective Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bern, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Carterette, E. C., & Friedman, M. P. (Eds.). (1974). Handbook of perception (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Eiser, J. R., & Mower White, C. J. (1974). Evaluative consistency and social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 349–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eiser, J. R., & Mower White, C. J. (1975). Categorization and congruity in attitudinal judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 769–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eiser, J. R., & Osmon, B. E. (1978). Judgmental perspective and value connotations of response scale labels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 491–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eiser, J. R., & Stroebe, W. (1972). Categorization and social judgment. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Eiser, J. R., & van der Pligt, J. (1982). Accentuation and perspective in attitudinal judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 224–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ellis, B. (1966). Basic concepts of measurement. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fowler, H. W. (1926). A dictionary of modern English usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric methods (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  11. Hansen, A. C., Thomas, D. B., & Upshaw, H. S. (1962). Judgment of priorities for home visits. Nursing Outlook, 10, 385–389.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hinckley, E. D. (1932). The influence of individual opinion on construction of an attitude scale. Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 283–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hovland, C. I., & Sherif, M. (1952). Judgmental phenomena and scales of attitude measurement: Item displacement in Thurstone scales. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 822–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Joreskog, K. G. (1971). Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests. Psychometrika, 36, 109–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, P. D. (1981). LISREL V, analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood and least squares methods, User’s guide. Uppsala, Sweden: University of Uppsala, Department of Statistics.Google Scholar
  16. Kristof, W. (1973). Testing a linear relationship between true scores of two measures. Psychometrika, 38, 101–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lord, F. M. (1957). A significance test for the hypothesis that two variables measure the same trait except for errors of measurement. Psychometrika, 22, 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lord, F. M. (1973). Testing if two measuring procedures measure the same dimension. Psychological Bulletin, 79, 71–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Manis, M. (1982). Judging psychopathology. Paper presented at the Symposium on Social Perception in Clinical and Counseling Psychology, Texas Technological University.Google Scholar
  20. McNemar, Q. (1958). Attenuation and interaction. Psychometrika, 23, 259–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Murdoch, P. (1969). Effects of perspective and payment on reference scale formation. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 3, 301–310.Google Scholar
  22. Ostrom, T. M. (1966). Perspective as an intervening construct in the judgment of attitude statements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 135–144.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ostrom, T. M. (1970). Perspective as a determinant of attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 280–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ostrom, T. M., & Upshaw, H. S. (1968). Psychological perspective and attitude change. In A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Ostrom, T. M., & Upshaw, H. S. (1970). Race differences in the judgment of attitude statements over a 35 year period. Journal of Personality, 38, 235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Parducci, A. (1974). Contextual effects: A range-frequency analysis. In E. C. Carterette & M. P. Friedman (Eds.), Handbook of perception (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  27. Parducci, A. (1982). Category ratings: Still more contextual effects! In B. Wegener (Ed.), Social attitudes and psychophysical measurement. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Poulton, E. C. (1968). The new psychophysics: Six models for magnitude estimation. Psychological Bulletin, 69, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rehm, H. H. (1976). A social psychophysical approach to reference scale principles. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago Circle.Google Scholar
  30. Rosenberg, S., & Cohen, B. D. (1966). Referential process of speakers and listeners. Psychological Review, 73, 208–231.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rule, S. J., & Curtis, D. W. (1982). Levels of sensory and judgmental processing: Strategies for the evaluation of a model. In B. Wegener (Ed.), Social attitudes and psychophysical measurement. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Simpson, D. D., Ostrom, T. M., & Sloan, L. R. (1973). Anchoring effects of trait range in impression formation. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 2, 383–384.Google Scholar
  33. Steele, C. M., & Ostrom, T. M. (1974). Perspective-mediated attitude change: When is indirect persuasion more effective than direct persuasion? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 737–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stevens, S. S. (1966). On the operation known as judgment. American Scientist, 54, 385–401.Google Scholar
  35. Stevens, S. S. (1974). Perceptual magnitude and its measurement. In E. C. Carterette & M. P. Friedman (Eds.), Handbook of perception (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  36. Thurstone, L. L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of Sociology, 33, 529–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tresselt, M. E. (1948). The effect of experience of contrasted groups upon the formation of a new scale. Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 209–216.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Upshaw, H. S. (1962). Own attitude as an anchor in equal-appearing intervals. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64, 85–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Upshaw, H. S. (1964). Opinion change vs reference scale change in the study of attitudes. Paper delivered at the 72nd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  40. Upshaw, H. S. (1969). The personal reference scale: An approach to social judgment. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  41. Upshaw, H. S. (1970). The effect of unit size on the range of the reference scale. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Upshaw, H. S. (1974). Personality and social effects in judgment. In E. C. Carterette & M. P. Friedman (Eds.), Handbook of perception (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  43. Upshaw, H. S. (1975). Judgment and decision processes in the formation and change of social attitudes. In M. F. Kaplan & S. Schwartz (Eds.), Human judgment and decision processes. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  44. Upshaw, H. S. (1978). Social influences on attitudes and on anchoring of congeneric attitude scales. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 327–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Upshaw, H. S. (in press). Output processes in judgment. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Upshaw, H. S., Ostrom, T. M., & Ward, C. D. (1970). Content versus self-rating in attitude research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 272–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Volkmann, J. (1951). Scales of judgment and their implications for social psychology. In J. R. Rohrer & M. Sherif (Eds.), Social psychology at the crossroads. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  48. Wegener, B. (Ed.). (1982). Social attitudes and psychophysical measurement. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  49. Wyer, R. S., & Srull, T. K. (Eds.), (in press). Handbook of social cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harry S. Upshaw
  • Thomas M. Ostrom

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations