THE METATHEORY OF FACETS: CONSTRUCT VALIDITY ' or A STRUCTURAL APPROACH TO ATTITUDE MEASURMENT Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY STEPHEN KENT BEDWEIJ. 1977, 1&5 W, _._-- I II III IIIIIIIIII I II I III! III III II I; w L a ‘. . - (a ' k... up "(REC University ’ 1" - . 1",-J;-,{.l.._\lll-.E I r This is to certify that the thesis entitled The Metatheory of Facets: Construct Validity ofA Structural Approach to Attitude Measurement presented by Stephen K. Bedwell has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Counseling, Personnel Service & Educational Psychology \ 7 {Ir/fi'é: C2} 1%??? L ‘77 / Wrofessor Date November 22, 1976 0-7639 [Tl ",lo\’,/ ’9": 1 I! .’ ABSTRACT THE METATHEORY 0F FACETS: CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF A STRUCTURAL APPROACH TO ATTITUDE MEASUREMENT By Stephen Kent Bedwell The present study examined the construct validity of facet theory applied to attitude measurement. Earlier research has used one of two approaches in defining attitude: either emphasizing atti- tude as a "predisposition" to behavior or regarding attitude as "behavior" per se. Recently the affective-cognitive-conative notion of attitude has been held by a majority of attitude theorists. Jor- dan (1968) has concluded that most research studies have been incon- clusive or contradictory about attitudes because attitude scales utilized were composed of items stemming from different structures: i.e., from different levels of attitude (for example, the cognitive- affective-conative) of the universe of attitudes toward specified objects. Guttman (l950) has operationally defined attitude as "a delimited totality of behavior with respect to something." Jordan and Guttman have stated that it is productive to drop the dichotomy between attitude and behavior and have the term "attitude" embrace both varieties, the predisposition to respond and the response itself with "subvarities ranging from stereotypic generalizations to overt instrumental behaviors . . . ." Thus the term "attitude-behavior." Stephen Kent Bedwell The purpose of the present research was to further examine relation- ships between the cognitive-affective-conative components of atti- tude across the attitude-behavior levels toward various attitude objects. The metatheory of facets specifies certain structural out- comes of correlations dependent upon specific roles played by the facets (which have been incorporated in the design) and the structue ples (a combination of elements of each facet) as the structuples become increasingly stronger. Various researchers have investigated and obtained the "simplex" (a structural outcome) relation predicted by facet theory and thus support for the construct validity of the theory has been obtained. No attitude studies have investigated the construct validity of facet theory where the joint (attitude levels) structioned and lateral (situations) structioned facets have been held constant across selected attitude objects. In brief, the methodology of this study involved three attitude-behavior scales utilizing facet procedures toward physical, mental, and social attitude objects: (a) a mental retardation scale, (b) a race scale, and (c) a blind scale. These attitude objects were placed in the "same" social distance life situations (lateral structioned) at three joint structioned levels: stereotypic, moral evaluation, and personal feeling. The research was designed to con- trol for sources of variation due to the joint and lateral dimensions, by holding constant these dimensions and changing only the subject- object in situation relationship. The scales were administered to a homogeneous sample to enable reduction of variance dueix>differential Stephen Kent Bedwell contact with the attitude objects, social class, age, etc. The order of scale administration was balanced to control for progressive error and response set (Underwood, 1966). Five research hypotheses were stated and, with exception of the order of scale administration effecting attitudes toward specific attitude objects, the results supported the hypothesis. A simplex relation was obtained for each of the social distance (lateral struc- tioned) scales at each joint structioned level for each attitude object. The simplex structure was obtained for each facet-derived subscale at each level for each object. The cylindrex structural hypothesis was approximated: where joint structioned facets served an axial role, social distance situations served a modulating role, and attitude object served a polarizing role. And finally, smallest space analysis resulted in fewer dimensions than did factor analysis. It was concluded that the construct validity of the meta- theory of facets was further established, and that facet theory is a useful tool for specifying research designs, and in a priori struc- turing the relationships. It was recommended that further studies investigating an ordering principle for attitude objects, clarifying the lateral structioned (situations) facet to establish a more clear ordering principle and expanding upon and using a more heterogeneous population, are necessary. Without exploiting the data, it was fur- ther concluded that facet theory may be an extremely useful tool in designing classical experimental research designs, and perhaps even- tually specifying counselor therapeutic relationships. THE METATHEORY OF FACETS: CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF A STRUCTURAL APPROACH TO ATTITUDE MEASUREMENT By Stephen Kent Bedwell A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Personnel Services, and Educational Psychology 1977 To my wife, Bernadette A. Bedwell, and her brother, Senator Anthony A. Derezinski: the two people who most influenced my educa- tional pursuits. And to my parents, Clyde E. and Norma L. Bedwell. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I would like to express my thanks to my advisor, chairman, and personal friend, Dr. John E. Jordan, for his unfailing confidence in my abilities, his guidance and encouragement in all aspects of this dissertation. I also would like to express my appreciation to my committee members, Dr. Thomas Gunnings, Dr. James Engelkes, and Dr. Ronald Nolthuis, for serving as members of my doctoral committee. Also, my thanks to Dr. Ward Wilson for assisting in the collection of the data. Special thanks goes to Dr. James Lingoes for offering valuable assistance in the use of Smallest Space Analysis and the Guttman- Lingoes Nonmetric Series at the University of Michigan. Finally, to Professor Louis Guttman, I offer my sincere appreciation for explaining aspects of facet theory and nonmetric techniques, and his valuable critique of this study. Furthermore, without the valued support of my friend Dr. James Stratoudakis who listened to my frustrations and offered his advice, this project would have been overwhelming. Muchas gracias to Guadalupe Solis for typing the final draft of this dissertation. To my wife Bernadette goes the role of supporter, pusher, and confidante: she willingly typed many drafts of this thesis; she gave of her valued and limited relaxation time to listen to my iii ideas and frustrations. Without her support this dissertation and Ph.D. would not have been possible. Also, bless my children who gave of their "Daddy time"; Natalie, Anthony, and Vincent, Daddy loves you. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES . PREFACE Chapter I. INTRODUCTION Overview: Definitional Status of Attitude Constructs . Facet Theory Approach to Attitude Measurement Purpose . . . . . . . . . II. FACET DESIGN, STRUCTURAL THEORY, AND ATTITUDE MEASUREMENT . . . Guttman' 5 Post Hoc Facetization of an Attitude Research Problem . . . . Structural Relations Specified by Facet Procedures . . . Nonmetric Analysis: Examination of Structural Order and Lawfulness . . Facet Theory and Attitude Measurement . Summary of Findings of Previous ABS Scales. Validity of Facet Theory Applied to Attitude Measurement III. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY . Overview of Methodology. . . . . Ordering Principle of Facet Design: Lateral Struction . . . . . . Selection of a Homogeneous Sample Scale Administration Procedures Statistical Analysis . . Preparation of Data . . . Multivariate Analysis of Variance . Simplex Approximation Test Smallest Space Analysis I Factor Analysis . . Page vii ix xi (DUI—l I3 17 19 ‘ 27 31 Chapter Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis l: Scale Administration Hypothesis 2: Simplex for Social DistanCe : Hypothesis 3: Simplex for Facetized Scales Hypothesis 4: Structure of Facet Derived Scales Hypothesis 5:. Factor Analysis Compared to . Smallest Space Analysis IV. RESULTS . Description of Sample . . Scale Scores and Reliability Examination of Hypotheses . Hypothesis l: Scale Administration Hypothesis 2: Simplex for Social DistanCe : Hypothesis 3: Simplex for Facetized Scales Hypothesis 4: Structure of Facet Derived Scales . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 5: Factor Analyis Compared to Smallest Space Analysis . . . V. DISCUSSION . Overview of Purpose and Methodology . Order Effect . Simplex for Social Distance Items . Smallest Space Analysis and the Structural Hypotheses . . Factor Analysis . . Recommendations for Future Research. APPENDICES A. GLOSSARY B. ATTITUDE-BEHAVIOR SCALE: ABS-BK, MR, 80 . REFERENCES vi Page 100 103 104 106 107 III 135 Table 10. ll. 12. l3. )4. LIST OF TABLES Simplex Structure of Correlation Matrix . Intercorrelations for an Equally Spaced, Uniform, Perfect, Additive Circumplex . . . Comparison of Guttman and Jordan Facet Designs for Attitude Items Permutations of Five Two-Element Facets of Table 3 Combinations of Five Two-Element Facets and Basis of Elimination Five-Facet Six-Level System of Attitude Verbalizations: Levels Facet Profiles, and Definitional Statements for Twelve Combinations . . Joint Level, Profile Composition, and Labels for Six Types of Attitude Struction . . . . Facets Used to Determine Joint Struction of an Attitude Universe . . . Order of Scale Administration Arithmetic Means for Joint Level Scores by Attitude Object and Demographic Classification Variables Correlation of Social Distance Items to Social Distance Subscore Total and Joint Level Total Scores for the Black Attitude Objects . . . Correlation of Social Distance Items to Social Distance Total and Joint Level Total Scores for the Mentally Retarded Attitude Objects . . . Correlation of Social Distance Items to Social Distance Subscores Total and Joint Level Total Scores for the Blind Attitude Objects . . . . Cell Means by Order of Scale Administration, Object, Joint Structioned Level, and Social Distance Subscores . . . . . . . . 'vii Page 22 23 34 36 37 38 39 50 58 65 67 68 69 7] Table 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Order Effect by Object, Level and Social Distance . Simplex Matrices for Lateral Structioned Social Distance by Joint Structioned Attitude Level for Black Attitude Objects . . . Simplex Matrices for Lateral Structioned Social Distance by Joint Structioned Attitude Level for Mentally Retarded Attitude Objects Simplex Matrices for Lateral Structioned Social Distance by Joint Structioned Attitude Level for Blind Attitude Objects . . . Correlations for Social Distance Subscores by Joint Structioned Level and Attitude Objects . Guttman-Lingoes' Smallest Space Coordinates for a Three-Dimensional Space . . . . . Rotated Factor Matrix (Varimax) of 27 Depending Scores (Loadings .40) . . viii Page 73 75 76 77 79 81 94 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. 2. 3. 10. 11. 12. A Diagram of a Hypothetical Radex . A Hypothetical Cylindrex . A Mapping Sentence of the Joint, Lateral, and Response Mode Struction Facets Used to Structure the Attitude-Behavior Scale-Mental Retardation A Mapping Sentence for the Facet Analysis of Attitudes Toward Blacks, Mentally Retarded and Blind . A Three-Dimensional Representation of Three Joint Structioned Levels and Three Social Distance Sub- scores for Three Attitude Objects . Three-Dimensional Representation of Moral Evaluation Structioned Level and Social Distance Scores for Three Attitude Objects . . . . Three-Dimensional Representation of Stereotypic Structioned Level and Social Distance Scores for Three Attitude Objects . . . . . . . Three-Dimensional Representation of Personal Feeling Structioned Level and Social Distance Scores for Three Attitude Objects . A Three-Dimensional Representation of Joint Structioned Levels and Social Distance Subscores for "Blind" Attitude Objects . . . A Three-Dimensional Representation of Joint Structioned Levels and Social Distance Subscores for "Black" Attitude Objects . - . . . . A Three-Dimensional Representation of Joint Structioned Levels and Social Distance Subscores for "Mentally Retarded" Attitude Objects . . . Approximation of Obtained Cylindrex ix Page 24 26 41 55 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 Figure Page l3. A Two-Dimensional Plot for Moral Evaluation Axial Facet with Social Distance and Attitude Object . . . . . 90 l4. A Two-Dimensional Plot for Stereotypic Axial Facet with Social Distance, and Attitude Object . . . . 91 15. A Two-Dimensional Plot for Personal Feeling Axial Facet with Social Distance, and Attitude Object . . . . 92 PREFACE This study is an example of the project approach to gradu- ate research: it is one in a series, jointly designed by several investigators, each study acting as a building block to further extend and explore the theoretical underpinnings of facet theory. Therefore, similarities in the approach to research problems. the- oretical material, instrumentation, design, and analysis are both necessary and desirable. Nevertheless, some theoretical specifica- tions, localities, samples, necessary adaptations, and interpreta- tions in each study are those of the authors. xi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Overview: Definitional Status of Attitude Constructs It is axiomatic that attitudes are projected to have major import on decisions made in all areas of life, both for individuals and society. Daily, the media bombard the public with recent find- ings from various pollsters concerning the latest inclination of the public toward a particular attitude object: the economy, politicians, legislation, and Blacks--to name only a few. It is also projected that this activity may in fact generate attitudes in its own right. In addition, attitude is one of the most popular concepts in the social sciences, having been in use among psychologists for more than lOO years (Elizur, l970). This has been especially true since All- port's classic article (Allport, 1935) which gave emphasis and defi- . nitional status to the concept of attitude. Some social scientists have even suggested that social psychology be defined as the scien- tific study of attitude (McGuire, l969). However, there still exists no commonly accepted definition of the hypothetical construct of attitude. Two primary approaches have been used in defining attitude: one emphasizing attitude as a "predisposition" to behavior and the second regarding attitude as "behavior" per se. Behavior has been viewed as spanning the cognitive, affective, and conative domain of the human condition. More than 100 years ago, Herbert Spencer wrote about the attitude of the mind, referring primarily to the cognitive nature of attitude (Brodwin, l973; Elizur, l970). Most theorists use two cognitive elements in the definition of attitude: evaluation and beliefs. In many attitude studies (Elizur, 1970) respondents are frequently asked to rate objects. Osgood, Suchi and Tannenbaum (l957) developed the semantic differential technique as a method to measure the meaning of concepts and concluded that mean- ing is a location in a space defined by some number of factors or dimensions. An attitude toward a concept is its projection onto one of these dimensions defined as "evaluative." The semantic differ— ential researchers posit that attitude is expressed in terms such as good-bad, kind-cruel, honest-dishonest. Emotion regarding the attitude object is included in Thur- ston's definition: Attitude is the affect for or against a psycho- logical concept. ". . . Appetition is the positive form of affect, which in more sophisticated situations appears as liking, defending, or favoring. Aversion is the negative form of affect which is described as hating the object, disliking, or destroying it" (l931). Staats (l967) provides a more recent view which emphasizes the affective characteristics of attitudes. He defines attitude as an emotional response to a social stimulus, or a stimulus that has social significance (Fishbein, l967, p. 373). Recent attempts have been made to define attitudes in behavioral terms (Elizur, l970). Dobb (l947) suggests the following behavioral definition: "attitude is an implicit drive producing response, considered socially significant in the individual's soci- ety" (p. l35). A stronger behavioral definition is postulated by Green (l954) which attributes to attitude ". . . a consistency among responses to a specified set of stimuli or social objects“ (p. 335). This definition, according to Green, ". . . does divest attitudes of their affective and cognitive properties, which may be . . . cor- relates of the responses that comprise attitudes . . ." (p. 336). The systems approach (McGuire, l969) attempts to merge the cognitive, affective, and conative elements: ”As the individual develops, his cognitions, feelings, and action tendencies with respect to various objects in the world, become organized into enduring systems called attitudes . . J'(Elizur, l970, p. 37). Krech, Cruchfield and Ballachey (l962) utilize this approach and, in their system, the person's feelings, cognitions, and action ten- dencies "become mutually interdependent." That is, the individual's cognitions "are influenced by his feelings, and action tendencies toward" an object and therefore "a change in his cognitions about the object would tend to produce changes in his feelings and attitude tendencies toward it" (pp. l39-l40). They hold that attitudes are "enduring systems of positive or negative evaluations, emotional feelings, and pro or con action tendencies with respect to social objects" (1962, p. 139). However, overt action is not included in this definition of attitudes, but "the social actions of the indi- vidual reflect his attitude." They describe the cognitive component as consisting of beliefs about the object, the most important being "evaluative beliefs" (p. 140). However, because of the inter- relatedness of the three attitude components, few attitudes exist in isolation, "most of them form clusters with other attitudes." For instance, what has been called religionism is a cluster which accounts for attitudes toward evolution, God, and birth control. Some writers regard beliefs about an object as a measure of attitudes. Fishbein and Ravin (l962) suggest a different definition of belief as the probability dimension of the concept: for example, "is it existent or nonexistent, possible or impossible," etc. But of many objects the existence can hardly be doubted. Therefore, Fishbein and Ravin posit that belief about the object must be included (Elizur, l970). Rokeach (1968) provides a distinction between value and belief: a value is a single global belief, trans- cending object situation specificity and serving as a standard for judging, acting, valuing, and comparing. Rokeach has defined atti- tude as a package of beliefs, each of which is object and situation specific, serving as predispositions to act. An attitude is defined as "a relatively enduring organization of beliefs around an object or situation predisposing one to respond in some preferential manner" (Rokeach, 1968, p. ll2). In summary, most of the conceptions of attitudes are multi— dimensional in character: the affective-cognitive-conative notion is held by perhaps a majority of attitude theorists. The notion in brief is that an attitude is a somewhat enduring system of (a) beliefs, especially evaluative beliefs; (b) positive or nega- tive affect directed toward the object of the attitude and related objects; and (c) action tendencies regarding the object and its related objects. Many definitions of attitude, therefore, include the princi- ple that it is a predisposition to act in a certain way or an action tendency. The view of attitude as something which helps to predict a specific overt behavior is criticized by many researchers and the- orists. Guttman (l950) states directly that while some variables are predictive of an attitude, they form no part of the attitude. For example, while level of education may help predict a person's resistance to change, it is no part of the definition of attitude toward change (Elizur, l970). According to this argument, behavior depends not only on the attitude, but also on the situation (Guttman, l950, pp. 50-5l). Facet Theory Approach to Attitude Measurement In reviewing the literature, Jordan (l968) concluded that four classes of variables are important determinants, correlates, and/or predictors of attitudes: (a) demographic factors, such as age, sex and income; (b) sociopsychological factors, such as a per- son's value structure; (c) contact with the object and enjoyment of that contact; and (d) knowledge about the attitude object. In the review, Jordan (l968) concluded that most research studies were inconclusive or contradictory about the predictor variables and suggested that one reason might be that the attitude scales were composed of items stemming from different structures, i.e., from different levels of attitude (for example, the cognitive, affective, or conative) of the universe of attitudes toward specified objects. The lack of control over which attitudinal "levels" were being mea- sured was projected by Jordan to produce inconsistent, centradictory, and noncomparable findings in attitude research. Guttman (1953, 1959) developed the use of facet theory to analyze attitude. Facet theory is somewhat similar to factor analy- sis as used by Thurston and Spearman (Brodwin, 1973) but distinct in its a priori nature. Guttman (1950) operationally defined attitude as "a delimited totality of behavior with respect to something" (p. 51). Guttman's definition of attitude is consistent with the traditional distinction made between attitude and behavior, the difference between the inclination to act and the act itself (Jordan, 1971). Guttman's definition is also consistent with the previous distinctions, since attitude items are considered verbalizations of predispositions. Jordan (1971) used Guttman's definition to link attitude and behavior in the development of his facetized attitude- behavior scales. Jordan and Guttman (1976) state that it is productive to drop the traditional dichotomy between attitude and behavior and have the term "attitude" embrace both varieties, the predisposition to respond and the response itself, with "subvarieties ranging from stereotypic generalizations to overt and instrumental behaviors which are unfavorable to favorable to any personal or conceptual object" (p. 2). Initially, Guttman, using a facet theory approach, analyzed the work of Bastide and van den Berghe (1957) and posed four levels of an attitude universe: (a) stereotypic; (b) norm; (c) hypo- thetical interaction; and (d) personal interaction. Jordan (1968) expanded Guttman's four levels to six levels by adding the moral evaluation and personal action dimensions. According to Jordan (1971), Guttman's definition of attitude approximates the "positivistic definition" developed by McGuire (1969, p. 145) and facilitates a cognitive-affective-conative (know- ing, feeling, and acting) analysis of the human behavior. According to Jordan, Guttman's definition is consonant with a structural (Foa, 1965, 1968; Foa and Turner, 1970) approach to the facet analysis of attitude-behavior (Jordan, 1971, p. 7). Jordan postulates that ". . . if one is to do research on attitudes that is both socially relevant and methodologically rigorous . . .," Guttman's structural facet theory approach should provide (a) a definition of the research problem; (b) the selection of variables for study; and (c) the structuring of the relationship between the dependent and indepen- dent variables. Consequently, Jordan and his associates have taken a step toward merging the concept of attitude as a "predisposition" to behavior, to include behavior itself. His concept of attitude- behavior and the six attitudinal levels facilitates an examination of the relationship between the cognitive-affectiVe-conative com- ponents as well as emphasizes the conative component as the cri- terion of behavior. Purpose The purpose of the present research was to further examine relationships between the cognitive-affective-conative components of attitude across the attitude-behavior levels toward various atti- tude objects in situation. In this research the use of Guttman's behavioral definition in the context of a more detailed facet theory analysis is presented. The generality of definition is justified by the "first law of attitude" and the growing number of specific empirical laws to which it leads (Gratch, 1973; Jordan, 1971). The first law asserts: If any two items are selected from the university of atti- tude items toward a given object, and if the object observed is not selected artificially, then the population regres- sions between these two items will be monotone, and with positive or zero sign (Gratch, 1973, p. 36). This law covers the cognitiveéaffective-instrumental behavior and thus shows the fruitfulness of considering all three variations as attitudinal (Jordan, 1971). Guttman (1950) suggests two basic premises for the defini- tion of a scientific concept: "(a) it must be defined in terms of observation; and (b) a definition is scientifically useful only insofar as it leads to objective research" (p. 49). Attitude in this research is regarded as a subclass of behavior and is thus con- sonant with Guttman's definition of attitude. Thus, attitude is regarded herein as the totality of behavior for or against an object, i.e., it can be observed in a degree of favorableness or unfavorableness of behavior toward the object. The term "attitude object" is used in its widest sense; it may refer to a physical, social, psychological, various situations and ideas, i.e., every- thing toward which a person can behave positively or negatively (Elizur, 1970). Regarding an attitude as a totality of behavior "toward an object" allows the term attitude-behavior toward an object to be used interchangeably. In this definition, overt and covert behaviors are part of an attitude, but at different levels, and cover cognitive, affective, and instrumental behaviors (Elizur, l970). Guttman's behavioral definition has been enlarged on in the context of the more detailed facet theory analysis developed by Jor- dan and his colleagues at Michigan State University. The present study is part of a series, all of which have aimed at developing further the facet theory attitude-behavior methodology. Since the inception of Jordan's project approach to graduate research, Attitude-Behavior Scales (ABS) have been developed to assess atti- tudes toward many "personal" attitude objects, such as Whites toward Blacks, Blacks toward Whites, mentally ill or emotionally disturbed persons, the deaf, the undereducated adult, the blind, the war dis- abled (in Vietnam), and drug users. Recently, attitude-behavior scales toward "conceptual" objects have been developed: the environ- ment, role of women, technical education, educational change, and affective education (Jordan, 1976). The validity of the ABS series of scales, using the known group method of establishing concurrent validity, has been successful (Brodwin, 1973; Jordan, 1971, 1974, 1976). The scales have repeatedly discriminated between various groups as predicted by the 10 theory. Further findings supporting the use of facet theory in pre- dicting correlational structures have also provided support for the construct validity of facet theory. Limitations of the facet-theory-developed series of ABS scales seems to be involved in the following areas: (a) response set; (b) social desirability; (c) homogeneous item content across the joint levels; (d) combination of facet elements; and (e) the effect of order of scale administration on correlation matrices. These shortcomings, especially (d) and (e) above, have been dealt with by Maierle (1969). By a theory Guttman means "A hypothesis of a correspondence between a definitional system for a universe of observations and an aspect of the empirical structure of those observations, together with a rationale for such an hypothesis" (Gratch, 1973, p. 35). This can be regarded as stating what Cronback has described as con- struct validity (Guttman, 1971). Guttman charges that it is the task of the social theorist to discover the structures underlying the totality of behavior: A task of the social theorist is to provide an abstract framework whereby to define the subuniverses; the more ade- quately it explicates the empirical correlations that ensue among the definitions, the better the framework. Compre- hension of the multi-variate system of the universe can lead to larger theories with relation to other universes and thus to more and more perfect multiple correlations for each variety of behavior separately. The improved predict- ability will not depend on mere empiricism, then, but will be guided by a systematic social theory (p. 318). Guttman (1959) further states that ". . . to improve the predict- ability would require enriching the facet design, or placing these 11 behaviors in a larger context" (p. 327). The research reported wherein further explicates the relationship between attitude objects- in-situation across three attitude levels. This was accomplished by measuring attitudes toward selected objects (Blacks, mentally retarded, and blind), holding constant the object-in-situation and the subject-object relationship. Maierle (1969) proposed the possibility that the two dimen- sions or structions, joint (that due to attitude level) and lateral (that due to content), interact in ways which were not accounted for in the present methods of simplex analysis and facet design. To date, no studies have examined the interactions of the joint and lateral struction; i.e., how the attitude levels and situations interact across various attitudinal objects. In summary, the purpose of the present study was to further examine the construct validity of the Guttman-Jordan facet theory approach to the measurement of attitude behaviors: (a) can the relationship be represented in a multi-dimensional model; (b) can the facetized theory discriminate between attitude objects; and (c) what is the joint-lateral interaction when the joint and lateral dimenSions are held constant across selected objects. Fieldman and Hass (1970) provide further justification for the need for the present research: ". . . psychological research paradigm should try to relate what different individuals do in a given situation, to what a given individual does under different conditions." In this project, the situations (life situations) were held constant and the different "treatment" conditions were 12 represented by three attitudinal objects. Furthermore, according to Jordan (1971), structioned variables should provide a set of clearly defined profiles fin~'tross-object, cross-situations, cross-national, and sub-cultural comparisons . . . ." And Krech, Cruchfield and Ballachey (1962) provide a final justification: "few attitudes exist in a state of isolation; most of them form clusters with other attitudes" (p. 145). In accordance with Guttman's proposal (1959, p. 327), an attempt was made to increase the facet design by incorporating more and wider facets of attitude and placing the behaviors in a broader context. Thus, an attempt is made to treat the theory as Jordan and Guttman (1976) suggest: "a theory for all variables simultaneously must account for variations over lateral and content facets, as well . . . . CHAPTER II FACET DESIGN, STRUCTURAL THEORY, AND ATTITUDE MEASUREMENT Definitions are, of course, arbitrary. Following Louis Carroll, one can make words mean what one wishes. Basi- cally, all that is formally required of a definition is that it be clear: that it enables reliable use of the concept concerned. A more formal, heuristic desideratum is that it actually influences theorists and researchers to progress in their work (Guttman, 1971, p. 329). Guttman (1955, 1959) developed facet theory as a tool or strategy in defining a research problem and in theory development. In social research there are usually two sets of variables: the population and a set of attributes or qualitative variables (Elizur, 1970). The attributes represent what Guttman refers to as the uni- verse of content of the investigation. Facet theory provides a means by which a systematic design of the universe of content is obtained, and therefore, facilitates the formalization of hypotheses regarding the relationship between the definitional system and the structure of the empirical observations (Elizur and Guttman, 1976). According to Guttman, the use of the structural approach to the development of psychological theory is becoming increasingly widespread. He defines a theory as: An hypothesis of correspondence between a definitional system for a universe of observations and an aspect of the empirichl structure of those observations, together with a rationale for such an hypothesis (Gratch, 1973, p. 35). 13 14 This definition emphasizes the necessity of defining the universe of observations to be researched, and also stipulates that the defini- tional system should be in a form that facilitates perception of correspondence with empirical data (Levi, 1976). Facet theory, as developed by Guttman and his associates, is a metatheory for the design of structural and other theories (Elizur, 1970). Furthermore, new innovations in non-metric measurement methodology also provide a means for quantifying the qualitative data of facet analysis and testing the structure of the data to indi- cate if it reveals the postulated statistical structure (Elizur, 1970). There are three basic constructs in facet theory: subjects or respondents (called the population and designated by P), the variables (attributes of the population), and categories (the sub- classes of the variables) (Kats, 1972). Each variable (facet) studied can be conceived of as a subuniverse of the total universe, where the total universe is all aspects of the universe (or the- oretical) problem. The collection of facets (variables) can be linked together via a mathematical statement of sets: ABC . . . . Each facet is conceived of as having "structs," members, or elements (See Appendix A, Glossary). The notation of facets is by capital letters and the elements of each facet are denoted by lower case letters. For example, facet A has elements a], a2, . . . am. Elements of the facets are combined to form profiles (structuples). For example, facets A and B may each have two elements and therefore there are four possible profiles: a1 b]; a2 b]; a1 b2; and a2 b2. The 15 universe of content is defined as the collection of all possible pro- files over the facets and their elements (Kats, 1972). Consequently, all variables included in the analysis form a universe of content and each variable can be defined as a profile of elements where each element belongs to one of the facets which defines the universe (Guttman, 1959; Elizur, 1970; Kats, 1972). In summary, each investigation concerns a set of variables (facets denoted by capital letters), a population (denoted by P), and a range of categories (responses denoted by R and expressing a common range). The combination of facets forms a profile, where each element is a "struct" and the elements together form a "struc- tuple." Structuples mean the same as "profile" (Elizur, 1970). , Thus, if a research problem has two facets, each with two elements, as in the example above, a structuple would be a1 b1 and each ele- ment would be a struct. To enable representation of a total design, Guttman devel- oped the technique of the "mapping sentence,“ which represents the relation in the following form: P AB +-R. In this mapping, the relations are mapped into a domain (population and variables) and a range (category of responses). The mapping provided above is a summary notation which says that for each respondent (an element, facet P), in a reaction to a question (a variable or structuple of facets) "implies" one answer in terms of categories (an element of y the range, facet R) (Kats, 1972). The arrow as used by Guttman does not imply a causal relation: only that "if what is specified in 16 the domain is true, the specification of the range is true" (Elizur, 1970; Kats, 1972). The complete mapping sentence is the equivalent of more formal expression as used in set theory notation; and the mapping sentence presents the complete research design (Elizur, 1970). Con- ceptually, the mapping of facets permits the inclusion of all facets that are theoretically possible, and all possible structuples. In order to facilitate communication and translation of the concept represented in the mapping sentence, Guttman proposed utilizing a standard grammatical sentence form by adding verbal connectives between facets (Guttman, 1965). In brief, Guttman's mapping sentence serves two purposes: (a) it provides a definition of the universe of obserations and (b) it provides the relation in a form that aids systematic percep- tion of the relationship (Levi, 1976). In effect, the mapping sentence is a basic technique in facet theory (Elizur and Guttman, 1976). By specifying in a mapping sentence the basic facets (or variables) which may, in part, influence, determine, or effect a response, a researcher is forced to thoroughly consider the aspects of his theory or research problem. Thus a strategy of "extension and intension" of theory is an important feature of facet theory: ". . . heuristic strategies are possible through mapping sentences, since they easily lend themselves to correction, deletion, exten? sion, and intension" (Levi, 1976). The advantage of facet theory lies in the capability of defining the components of a research 17 problem and in formalizing the process. In comparison to traditional factorial design, Guttman and Guttman (1975) state the following: . what may be regarded as a complete design for the pur- poses of analysis of variance (and other statistical analy- sis) turns out to be incomplete for at least two more basic purposes: (a) theory construction and (b) conducting the original observations which are to be subjected to the data analysis. The mapping sentence device is intended to make the experimental design more complete. In addition to the facets of the factorial design it brings out explicitly cer- tain other basic features required of the original observa- tion. The mapping sentence gives more specific instructions on how to make empirical observations, and in this sense provides the definitional framework for these observations. Given such a more detailed framework, it facilitates theory development (p. 3). Guttman's Post Hoc Facetization of an Attitude Research Problem In 1959, Guttman reanalyzed a design by Bastide and van den Berghe (1957), and abstracted, via facet theory, four subuniverses of attitudes which they had not explicitly designated. Bastide and van den Berghe had assessed interracial behavior in Brazil, and described the following four types of attitudes: stereotypes, norms, hypothetical interaction, and personal interaction. They had pre- sented the intercorrelations among the four types of attitudes. From a reanalysis of the data, Guttman developed a structural theory for intergroup beliefs and actions through the facet definition of the same universe of content. In his facetization, Guttman defined three facets; each, in turn, with two elements: 1. the behavior a1 beliefs a2 overt action 18 2. the referent to whom the behavior is ascribed b1 the subject's group b2 the subject h1mself 3. the type of behavior c1 comparative c2 interactive The Cartesian product of these three facets permits eight possible structuples with three structs each: a1 b1 c]; a1 b1 c2; . . . a2 b2 c2. An example of the a] b1 c1 reads: belief (al) of a sub- ject that his own group (b]) interacts (c2) with a specified atti- tude object. Similarly, the structuple a2 b2 c2 reads as follows: self or observed reports of a subject's overt action (a2) of him- self (b2) interacting (c2) with specified attitude object. There is an ordering of these facets in the design; Guttman refers to it as a progression from weak to strong forms of behavior vis-a-vis the attitude object. Ideally, within each facet the ele- ments can be ordered from weak to strong forms of behavior and the higher the subscript, the stronger the behavior. For example, overt action (a2) is stronger than belief (a1). This principle of order- ing has important implications which will be explored below. Thus, according to the facetization of Bastide and van den Berghe's data, eight subuniverses were possible: 1. a1 b1 c1 Stereotype: Belief (al) of a subject that his own group (does not excel) in comparison (c]) with Negroes 2. a1 b1 c2 Norm: Belief (al) of a subject that his own group (b]) ought (ought not) to interact (c2) with Negroes 19 l 2 c2 Hypothetical interaction: Belief (al) of a subject that he himself (b2) will (will not) interact (c2) with Negroes 4. a2 b2 c2 Personal interaction: Overt action (a2) of the subject himself (be) to (not to) interact (c2) with Negroes a1 b2 c1 Feel superior a2 b2 c1 Act superior 1 c1 Teaching CD \I 01 01 m N 0" b1 c2 Preaching As mentioned above, Guttman showed, through facet analysis, that Bastide and van den Berghe had intuitively arrived at four of the possible eight subuniverses and had not investigated the remain- ing four. Thus Guttman showed that, had the original investigators been guided by facet procedures in the design of their study and analysis of their data, they would have known in advance ". . . what to search for, how to test it, and what significance to subscribe to their results" (Elizur, 1970, p. 47). Structural Relations Specified by Facet Procedures Guttman's definition of a theory as quoted by Gratch (1973, p. 11) specifies a correspondence between empirical observations and a definitional system. Two related principles have been used in specifying this correspondence: the first is the proximity principle (formerly called the contiguity hypothesis) which states that: 20 subuniverses which are closer in their facet construction will also be closer statistically (Elizur, 1970, p. 58). According to this principle, the relationship between structuples decreases as the number of similar structs decreases. For example, eight possible structuples were specified by Guttman's facetization of Bastide's and van den Berghe's data. According to the proximity principle, the relation between the structuple a1 b1 c1 and a1 b1 c2 would be higher than the relationship between a1 b1 c1 and a2 b2 c2. However, the real relationship depends on the theoretical weight given by the "facets, elements, or their combinations" (Kats, 1972, p. 41). The second principle is that of structural order. In this principle, ordered proximities (structures) is important. Order is presumed to exist between elements of facets (structs) and between different structuples. As the structuples combine with increasingly stronger elements from the facets, the total structuple can become stronger. For example, stereotypic is weaker than personal inter- action, and personal interaction is the strongest profile which . Bastide and van den Berghe defined. The concept of order or lawful- ness leads to prediction of empirical structures from ". . . consid- eration of order within elements of the facets concerned" (Elizur and Guttman, 1976, p. 2); lawfulness here refers to geometric proper- ties of obtained correlation matrices. Since the mapping sentence enables one to project the empirical relationship between structuples, Guttman and his asso- ciates have discovered several forms of structural relationships. 21 The discovery of structural order or lawfulness is one of the chal- lenges to the social psychologist: Recognizing that differential relations exist within and between variations of behavior, the challenge to the social psychologist is to reveal what structural system, if any, underlies all of these relations (Guttman, 1959, p. 318). Since Guttman and associates have found that correlation structures remain relatively unchanged over time and circumstances (Guttman, 1964; Guttman and Levi, 1970), whereas means or averages are sub- ject to considerable variation, it seems only reasonable to expend considerable effort to discovery of structural lawfulness. The "simplest" form of structural order is the simplex (Guttman, 1954). The simplex is a statistical structure of inter- correlations which reveals a "simple order of complexity" (Guttman, 1954, p. 260). The simplex is determined by the fact that the "highest correlations lie along the main diagonal where the features are closer together in their a priori order and taper off toward the upper right and lower left corners of the matrix, where there is the greatest difference in the a priori order" (Guttman and Guttman, 1965, p. 220). Table 1 portrays a simplex structure with four variables. In his search for a single-common-factor which shows order among variables, Guttman states the following about simplex structure: Suppose we are given n tests t1, t2 . . . t which differ only on a single complexity factor . . . . Test t] is the least complex. Test t2 is the next; it requires every- thing t1 does and more. Similarly, t3 is more complex than t2, requiring everything t2 does and more . . . . In this 22 TABLE l.--Simplex Structure of Correlation Matrix.1 Variable l 2 3 4 l 1.0 High Lower Lowest 2 High 1.0 High Lower 3 Lower High 1.0 High 4 Lowest Lower High 1.0 l Adapted from Elizur (1972, p. 59). case, t3 is also clearly more complex than t]. In general, test to + l is more complex than t-, and hence requires what all preceding tests require p1us something more. Let G denote the total complexity factor, of which all the tests are composed in various degree. Thus, G is like an additional test beyond the most complex given test tn . . . (1954, p. 269). Given the order of complexity, it seems only reasonable to expect that the correlation between t1 and t2 would be higher than between t1 and tn, given the fact that t1 and t2 differ only in order of complexity. Thus Guttman (1954) is able to specify the perfect simplex. In reality, the perfect simplex rarely exists, but the principle of order among the variables is finding increasing support (Brodwin, 1973; Elizur, 1970; Gottlieb, 1973; Guttman, 1954; Jordan, 1971; Kats, 1972). This simplex structure has been shown to be a factor pattern (Guttman, 1954). In a geometrical sense, a simplex may be thought of as a collection of points along a straight line (Elizur, 1970); in content, the simplex implies differences of degree (Kats, 1972). 23 The circumplex structure involves the law of proximity as does the simplex (those structuples closer to each other in their facet design will correlate higher), but there is a circular order to the correlations: i.e., "a circular order of complexity" (Gutt- man, 1954, p. 260). In the circumplex the strongest correlations occur along the main diagonal and decrease in size as they move away. However, toward the corners of the matrix the correlations increase again, which makes the total picture one of circular order. It is possible to see a circular order among the variables by direct inspection of the coefficients of monotonicity (the correla- tion coefficient). Table 2 provides a hypothetically perfect cir- cumplex structure of correlations. TABLE 2.—-Intercorrelations for an Equally Spaced, Uniform, Perfect, Additive Circumplex. f Test t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 t] 1.00 .75 .50 .25 .50 .75 t2 .75 1.00 .75 .50 .25 .50 t3 .50 .75 1.00 .75 .50 .25 t4 .25 .50 .75 1.00 .75 .50 t5 .50 .25 .50 .75 1.00 .75 t6 .75 .50 .25 .50 .75 1.00 Total 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 1 Adapted from Guttman (1954, p. 329).. 24 In a perfect circumplex, the column totals will be equal. A quasi-circumplex is defined as a perfect circumplex plus deviations (Guttman, 1954); and a quasi-circumplex is in reality usually obtained. The radex involves both the simplex and circumplex. Given two facets in a design where facet A has three levels and facet B has three levels (i.e., there are nine possible structuples), facet A may be an unordered facet and facet B an ordered facet. If these constraints are true, a radex would be the expected outcome. Fig- ure 1 provides a pictorial representation of the hypothetical radex, where facet A plays a polarizing role and facet B a modulating role. The polarizing effects of elements of facetA is to separate the al. Figure l.--A Diagram of a Hypothetical Radex. 25 space into regions, each of which emanate from the origin and radi- ate outward, each in its own direction. The modulating effect of the elements of facet B is to modulate the distance from the origin. If one were to hold constant one of the elements of facet B, then a circumplex would result. Likewise, if one were to hold constant one of the elements of facet A a simplex would result. Thus a radex is a form of lawfulness which Guttman called "radial expansion of com- plexity" (1954, p. 260); in the example provided above, facet 8 elements formed concentric circles and facet A elements formed the segments. A cylindrex or a three-dimensional representation of correla- tions is defined as a two-dimensional radex and an axis orthogonal to it. A radex is a circular arrangement in a plane, and the axis perpendicular to it defines a cylindrical configuration. An axial element or facet would also involve elements which would be ordered, and the orders would be represented along the axis of the cylinder (Levi and Guttman, 1975). Therefore, three facets are required to form a cylindrex. Two play roles in the radex; one would polarize and the second would modulate, and the third facet specifies orders along the axis. Figure 2 provides geometric representation of a cylindrex with three facets, each having three elements. As in Figure l, facet A is a polarizer and facet B a modulator and facet C acts as an axial factor. These structural hypotheses have received wide support: in mental abilities (Guttman, 1964), worry (Levi and Guttman, 1975), and attitudinal measurement (Jordan, 1971; Jordan and Guttman, 1976). 27 Other structural relations and lawfulness are currently being obtained and evaluated at the Israeli Institute of Social Research. Indeed, Guttman's 1954 speculation about other possibilities of fur- ther lawfulness, given the notion of order among the variables, implied a facet design. Also, once we focus on the notion of order amongst vari- ables, alternative theories of order are possible . . . even in a plane . . . a part from those of the symplex, circumplex, and radex. One can imagine ex-strings of the elementary components, with loops in them, etc. (Guttman, 1954, p. 240). Nonmetric Analysis: Examination of Structural Order and Lawfulness Guttman's definition of a theory (in Gratch, 1973, p. 35, and quoted on page 13) states that a theory is a correspondence between a definitional system (facet theory in this research) and the empirical structure of observations, together with a rationale for the hypothesis. His definition emphasizes that the structure of the relations will be specified by the facet design and as shown above by the ordering principles. Guttman (1968) and Lingoes (1973) have developed a series of nonmetric techniques which have proven to be useful in portraying the structure or lawfulness involved in cor- relations or other "distance" functions. Most of the earlier methods used to study relationships between many variables are subject to the constraints (assumptions) of least squares analysis. The Smallest Space Analysis (SSA) method ' departs from strictly metric assumptions and replaces these by ordi- nal assumptions. SSA-l is the first of a series of methods which are rr—-—.-.-i 28 based on ordinal distance models (Euclidean geometric relations) for the analysis of data matrices; these apply transformations of coef- ficients of monotonicity. Thus, SSA-1 is specifically designed for spatial representation of symmetric matrices of similarity or dis- similarity coefficients, such as correlation coefficients (Guttman, 1966, 1967, 1968; Lingoes, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1973; Lingoes and Ros- kam, 1971). SSA-l calculates coordinates for points representing vari- ables such that the distance points reproduce the rank order of the association values (between variables) according to a criterion of fit--the monotonicity criterion; and reproduce the smallest possible dimensionality in a Euclidean space. In its simplest sense, SSA-1 portrays physical and spacial distance between variables as repre- sented by the correlation coefficients. For example, if the corre- lation between variables X and Y is +1.0, then they would occupy the same space. If the relationship was -l.O, then they would be far apart in the space. Adding the correlation of X and Y with a third variable, Z, to the space would result in SSA representing the dis- tance between all three variables. If the correlation between X and Y was -l.O; between X and Z, 0.0; and between Y and Z, 0.0, then a one-dimensional space of a straight line would represent the rela- tions. The result is a configuration of points (variables) based on the sizes of the correlations or other distance functions between all variables. Reproduction of the values of the correlations is not the sole aim; only ordinal restrictions are imposed upon the solution, which is why it is called a nonmetric approach (Kats, 29 1972). The configuration of plotted points is essentially the objective of the analysis; this contrasts with factor analysis in which the coordinates of each point are interpreted as factor load- ings after acceptable rotations of factors have been determined. Thus, smallest space analysis attempts to use as few coor- dinates as possible, a minimal number of dimensions, to acquire an adequate representation of the rank order of relations and the con- figuration of points: the smallest space. The program searches in an iterative process for the most adequate configuration of points in that number of dimensions of smallest space. Since fewer dimensions are needed to reproduce order infor- mation than metric information, SSA-l results in a simpler and more direct data representation, and therefore is viewed as a more parsi- monious method (Guttman, 1966; Lingoes, 1966). It is also more par- simonious than factor analysis (Schlesinger and Guttman, 1969). While factor analysis and smallest space analysis will produce the same basic structure of data (Kats, 1972), SSA usually renders fewer dimensions than factor analysis, i.e., a smaller space than factor analysis of the same data (Elizur, 1970). In one example, a smallest two-dimensional space was equiva- lent to a six-dimensional factor space (Guttman, 1966). Schlesinger and Guttman (1969) reanalyzed existing data in which factor analysis (by the orthogonal method) had obtained a six-factor space. Through SSA-l they found that the data could be represented in a two-dimensional space and preserve the basic structure obtained in g (1‘ 91m A" J a I 3O factor analysis. From this comparison with factor analysis, Schlesinger and Guttman (1969) concluded the following: 1. Smallest Space Analysis makes it possible to arrive at a smaller space than does factor analysis. In the empirical example of this paper, a two-space has been shown to portray adequately data for which six factors had been extracted by factor analysis. 2. The configuration of points revealed by Smallest Space Analysis corresponds essentially to that yielded by factor analysis. Indeed, the factors extracted by factor analysis can be represented by points in the smallest space. 3. The notion of coordinates is not essential. It is suggested that an analysis of test content in terms of definitional facets may lead to more fundamental insights into laws of formation of the structure of correlation matrices. In SSA-1, the concept of dimension has nothing to do with the content of the data; it represents the smallest space in which the configurations can be shown. The facet design, taken together with the ordering principles and structural hypothesis, attaches meaning to the obtained structure. The tendency to look for meaning in the dimensions and coordinates of the dimensions is virtually meaningless without taking into account the facet design and content of the data. In contrast to factor analysis the meaning is attached a priori, via the facet design. The coefficient of alienation shows the degree of fit of the solution and measures the deviation between input coefficients and the reproduced distances. This coefficient ranges from O to l in such a way that the better the fit between the data matrix and the configuration, the closer to zero it becomes. For a two-dimensional space, a fit of .15 is thought acceptable, but for several reasons is not an absolute criterion. A more important guideline is the 31 interpretation of the configuration in terms of facet design and content; at times the rule of a technically perfect fit has been violated in favor of content interpretation. SSA-l analysis reflects a quest for ordered structures; its interpretation stresses the configuration of data and rank order among relations rather than their absolute size. These ideas were 1_1 first elaborated upon by Guttman in radex theory, with facet design 5 as the theoretical framework for predicting and interpreting such ‘1 data structures (Guttman, 1954, 1959, 1965, 1966). Generally, the interpretation is done graphically. Facet Theory and Attitude Measurement While Guttman proposes that "all of human behavior towards social objects can be divided into subuniverses . . .“ (Guttman, 1959), he is more concerned with specific patterns of behavior than the possible underlying characteristics of individuals (Maierle, 1969). As shown above, facet theory is a method for the design of structural and other theories and new innovative nonmetric method- ology provides a means for facet analysis and for testing of struc- tural hypotheses generated by the facet design (Elizur, 1970). This is truly the sense of a theory as Guttman defines a theory. Guttman (1959) distinguished three "facets" involved in a particular attitude response: facet A, the subject's behavior (a1 belief vs. a2 overt action); facet B, the referent (b1 the sub- ject group vs. b2 the subject himself); and facet C, referent behavior (c1 comparative vs. c2 interactive). He further postulated 32 an ordering principle from weak to strong forms of behavior: i.e., the elements of the facets are ordered and as the structs become stronger, the strength of the structuple becomes stronger. Thus, all attitude items can have none, one, two or three strong structs; a total of four possible combinations from weak to strong structs. Guttman's theory showed a logical reason for only four permutations. If the elements of the facets are properly ordered within each facet and the facets are correctly ordered with respect to each other, then analysis of attitude items by n-dichotomous facets will produce n + 1 types of attitude items. These types are called "levels" where each "level" has one more strong element than the "level" preceding it and one less strong element than the "level" immediately following it. In Guttman's reanalysis of Bastide and van den Berghe's (1957) attitude research, Guttman arrived at eight subuniverses, at four levels. Thus, Guttman's (1959) facet analysis of Bastide and van den Berghe's data allowed for three facets and hence four levels of atti- tude. Guttman (1959) also suggested that to increase the predict- ability of his theoretical model, it would be beneficial to (a) enrich the facet design and (b) place these behaviors (levels) in a broader context. In the latter 19605 and early l970s, further application of facet theory to attitude measurement was undertaken by Jordan and others at Michigan State University. At first, Jordan. utilized a facet design to construct a universe of attitude items toward the mentally retarded (Jordan, 1968). Jordan (1968) projected 33 that there were other pertinent facets, and accepting those identi- fied by Guttman, he expanded the facet analysis of attitudes to include five facets and therefore six levels. Table 3 provides Guttman's original facets and Jordan's adaptation. Specifically, Jordan added facets which defined two more levels at the lower end of Guttman's original levels (Brodwin, 1973). According to Guttman, an item (a structuple from a complete mapping sentence) belongs to the universe of attitude items if the following constraints are true: an item belongs to the universe of attitude items if and only if: its domain asks about behavior in cognitive . I I affective modality toward an object, instrumental to and its range is ordered from very negative 3very positive: toward that object (in Gratch, 1973). Guttman's original attitude levels (stereotype, norm, hypothetical interaction, and personal interaction) were primarily concerned with the cognitive and affective modalities (McGuire, 1969). It is at this point that Jordan visualized the need to expand Guttman's sys- tem to include conative modalities; his six-level facetized design gave greater emphasis to the affective and conative elements of "attitude behaviors" than does Guttman's original four-level design, thus the term "attitude-behavior." Jordan's additional levels actually emphasized real, observable, experienced, and/or reported behavior. These levels evaluate the subjects' actual feelings and actions, instead of perceived thoughts, beliefs, and opinions. 34 upmmsm; :owuum 1 1 . o>wuumcmucm we puwnnzm No acm>o Na 1 l . azocm I I . m>wamcmaeou Pu m.uumwa:m pu mwwpmn Fa . u I co_>m;wn gnocmcmpcw sow>mgma 1 - . m.ucmcm$mm pcwcwemm m.uumnn:m . u . casuuau Acow>mgmn A»E\mcwev ucm>dq. AHV Pacowumemao mm comuomcmucw No upmm Nu mucmwcmnxm Na upmm mm _muwpm;uoazs pm comwcmasou Fu mcmcuo Fu mmPFma Fa msmcuo pm Lop>msmn som>mcmn m.couum asogmcmpcw Lom>mzmn we :_meoo m_couu< cogu< ucmcmwmm ucmcmemm cause: u a u m < 5.58 cowumuamu< cmucoa cm mumumm .memuH mvzgmuu< com mcmwmmo pound cmucoa can cmsupzo wo comwcmnsou-i.m m4m

mp maowgu> No mn_;m=owum_oc muouwvcw mmmozucmcoa cm muse: mumccmu_< .mucmsmumum acmumpmcou aan «emanates we “can use mmmogucmcma cw mucosa .Fm>op cw mucoem_m acocum ma Logan: u .02 .m anah .eua .mm< as» cw new: mcovum:_nsouse u a appocopumcomo Acow>ugon NmNuNUNnNm cowuuo .mcomcma «a uco>ov mcowpuocmuew Na mucmwcmaxw.m m NF m w e o m o sppauwsmguoaxm _5Nu~u~n~a mc_—mmm _mcomcmg as Ammcwpomwv mcowuuocmunw Aalmucmwcmaxw.m v o— c p E o w m appoumumguoaan ; u o m o cowuum aaogm pmauu< mcompgaqsqw .mcmcum mucmwcmaxm meccam —— .:o_uum m FwNuNUFnNm e —uu_um:uoaxc _m:omcma «a appouvumguoqam mcopuumcmuaw am m>ompom.m m g P E n P Ammcw_mmm asogm .1 .1 x_puuwuwmuoaxm.1 pmauuav xuwucmu_ aaogo meowuumcmpcw .mcmguo mucowcmaxw mgosuo m z w o o o Amcopumuuma .1 .mppmup.1 p a a o 1xm qaocmv mzo— noswmpuoca uumguonxm mcopuumcmucw am m>mwpma mcmzao m g . Amauuum pccomcmq vmcmwmmm appmuwumguogam mcommcmaeom ha m>mmpum.m N N g u e a w m appmcomconv unmucouimpmm p N p F N Amm:_o> um>wmucmqv .1 .1 appmyw.1 o v u a a :owuozpm>m Pecos Focomcma «« lawsuoqu mcowuuogmucw .mcmzuo m>awpma H c z w o a P .1 N..flwium;s.1 ; u s a o mzuuum lonam mcompgunsou ha m>mmpmn mcmcuo m —~comcma umcmpmmmiazocu .mppmumummuoaxm.1 pmNupupapa .Eo: Zufiuom 2.. 233235 .9858 26.53 22.8 F N Airlolalo N magnum 1. APquwumsw.1 . naocm umcmwmmm xppmcomcoa -oaxm mcomwcoasou .mcmguo m>mmpwa H m g u o a w Amadeus _ F F _ aaogm nmcuwmmm1a=ocmv 1. .mppouwummuoaxm.1 Fm u u n a F maxpoocmpm .aumvuom «a mcomwconsou .mcoguo o>m_pma mcmsuo o F g u o a o umsaz a>_uaitum~a oucaeauaum _~=o_sicccma 5.52 _mpmmuup owwwwua Pm>mn .mcopuucvnEou m>pmzh no; mandamumum _a=o_uwe_tmo ace .mm__COLa “mama m_a>mn " mcossa~aianto> musspsu< to smumsm p5>wu-x_m umumu-a>ca--.o mnmm choE pwcomgmm pm Nu _u Pa Nm 5 w o a w m Ego: pmumwuom Fm Nu pu Fa Po 5 w o a o N waxwomcmpm qumwuom Pm Nu —u pa Po 5 u .o a o _ Pm>mg Ecmh m>wuawLUmma NN wpam» cw EmumAm NF mFQME cw Emumzm non» .m>mn mu=s_ps< chocp_=itmo Na 0.2toca niacoipapoz an m__COLa mpaumwam m.cowau:cum auspipu< to smash xwm toe mamas; new .coipcmoasou «Pieces .Fm>mn paves--.e mnmah 40 conceptual objects). These possible levels (the six agreed-upon levels are provided in Table 7) form what Guttman and Jordan have labeled joint struction; i.e., the structioning that occurs across attitude levels for all possible attitude objects. The researcher may assess attitudes at any or all of these joint structioned atti- tude levels for any attitude object. And the researcher may assume that the individual respondent or group of respondents will provide different responses to the same item dependent upon which joint level the question is presented. The individual item for each level is not determined by the mapping sentence provided thus far. Concentration to this point has been on the joint (subject-object relationship) structioned level. By adding to the mapping sentence what Jordan calls relevant situ- ations (i.e., placing the object of the attitude at a particular joint level and in a particular situation), the mapping sentence can be considered to be complete. This latter addendum to the mapping sentence has been labeled lateral struction, which is that dealing with the particular attitude object-in-situation. Figure 3 provides the mapping sentence for the first scale developed by Jordan (1968): Attitude-Behavior Scale-Mental Retardation (ABS-MR).- In summary, Guttman's facet theory specifies that the atti- tude universe represented by the item content can be sub-structured into profiles which are related according to the number of identical semantic elements they hold in common. This structuring will facili- tate the sampling of items within each of the joint levels and lateral situations and will enable the prediction of relationships 41 .cowuaucmuom Faucozumpmum co+>mcmm 1mu=uwuu< ecu mcauuacum 0» com: mumuom cowuuagum ouoz mmcoammm new .pacmumd .ucmea as» we oucmucmm marque: <11.m «camwd cap: mp o>_urmoa mg —nco+>n;mn1.a6wngn mw .xummcmucw E:_omE mp Anew mucm_m>v pmcuam: Nx =u_z zuwppnampu paauuo Nn m>wuum$mm N? zoP _ m>Puoumc Pg A111. amupvcm: umu=a_guum —n m>puwcmou F, xmwmmmmmm mucm—m> po>04 awash “manmuwmmmm any Age “av are zonhuamhm moo: mmzoamum mcopuupwc qzocm agmucoumm mm apwEmm ecu xmm NC comumpmwmw— was meme—m3 .sppum; we Ac? umvcmumc ucmExopaEm m4 appmucmE m m coauauaum we 0:3 =3_3v mu_qmou N; AwucmugonEp zap Na copumocuoc Ne Ag_m;uv No mmsmuma ; o m>m . E=_umE m Amcw>_o>cwv mcowumpmc qaocm xngwca N o» womammc saw: F; N P FV cows pm muwmgu —u:omcmq pe mmmuoga comuuapm>m mocmucoNEH mcowuosuwm mew; sz Adv Adv zomhoamhm 4mzmn Louua \mcmE~ ugm>o ap—mco_umcmam Nu Amvmmmummmfl NE on» upmm Nu couum any mucmwcm xm No me o 3 wpmm mm flop mmuanpcuuo ap—mupuwguomxm pm AmvmcmmEou pv peg» mcmsuo po mp>1m1m_> mmPpma pa : ; mcmcuo a pumnnamv cow>ogmm m_couu< Low>mcmm . mo :meoo qzocmcmucu m.gouo< copu< Lom>mcmm «cmcmwmm acmcwwmm Any Age Age Ame APu_moa xpmcocum a; m>Ppwmoa m; m>_ummmc N; . m>wpmmmc xpmcocum F; .mucmucoasm mucmpcanH sz xppmcowumcmao No appmuwpmcuoaaz _m Low>mcmm m _ Louu< mo :wmsoo AMV mpmm Nu condo on» mcmsuo Pu mm>1m1mm> couu< Auv awgmcwx we asocm Nngwga xmcoE saw: umscu Ne m coasmww: mm unmuum we ucwpm m apmcaEEou nugacu we I.m=w>m; umucmumm N cum; xcoz co cmwmmmwmwm mw cm xppmpcmz m wpmwuom we gumpm Pm magnum meuom N mmopuuucmumwv pumwno musupuu< mcowum=a_m mew; Amy Adv Aspwzv N acmcmmmc mg» muumcwucw 6 Lemon mgu umcu mmcanou Pu cow>mzmm asocmcmucH m.coau< REV mucmwcmaxm Na upmm No “cmemmmc mm; on: — op mmuanwgppm memw_mn Pa mtmgpo a Axv mumnasm som>mgmm pcmcmmmm ucmcmemm Amy Am page: u m: .mm o» a mo mmcmmn .omgzuomcmum u Em um_m>mnm o~.mN mm.mN Nm.mN m_.wN m¢.oN mm.ON mm.mN m_.NN mo.NN opp pouch FN.mN mN.om mm.oN mm.mN mm.mN oN.FN mN.mN mN.NN Nw._N mN xu_u mm.mN ¢N.om mo.mN «N.NN _N.NN mo._N mN.NN mo.NN mo._N mp acanam mN.mN oo.mN mp.mN _N.NN Nm.mN NP.ON aN.NN w¢.¢N mo.PN NN cgoplzcucaou Nm.mN Nm.mN Nm.oN om.NN Nm.mN vm.oN mo.mN mo.mN om.NN mm acucaou chzm1cmag= om.mN oo.Nm co.mN om.mN om.MN om.m~ oo.mN oo.mN om.NN N cowcmm m_.mN mm.om NN.oN mo.mN om.NN mo.—N Pm.mN m¢.mN om.oN FF comcza mm.mN __.om eo.NN on.NN mm.mN mw.pN mN.mN ,EN.NN eo.NN NN mgoEosaom Nm.mN FN.mN mm.mN o¢.mN mm.mN m¢.oN NN.NN mN.NN mm.NN «N coszmmca cowumuacu em.mN om.om mo.NN cN.mN oo.NN Nm.ON mm.wN NN.NN pw.NN NN pampmwuoca mo.mN NN.mN mm.mN FP.NN vo.oN N¢.ON mo.wN mN.mN NN.PN 0N uwpogumu cowmwpmm FN.NN om.mN ¢P.mN mo.NN ow.mN mm.0N mm.oN Nm.mN mN.oN FN mFm: NN.mN No.om mm.mN m¢.wN um.oN mm.0N mN.mN m¢.NN mm.NN mm m_mE0m11 xmm mm m: mm mm m: Em an m: Em z mmpnmmcm> ucapm vantssmm mp_apcmz mxus_m -itimmm_u u_;aatmoeaa new pumnno musscss< so a .mm_nmmcm> cowpmu mmgoom pm>m4 mucwoa Low mcmmz umumscpmg<11.o_ m4m .05) at the stereotypic .47 (p.S..05) at the moral evalu- level for Blind objects, to r ation joint structioned level for the "Mentally Retarded" object. 67 TABLE ll.--Correlation of Social Distance Items to Social Distance Subscore Total and Joint Level Total Scores for the Black Attitude Objects Social Distance Total Subscore Variables Level Variable Items PR 50 so Total Stereotypic Level 1 75 .45 -.20 56 2 79 .57 -.12 67 3 83 64 -.09 74 4 67 81 -.02 78 5 57 86 -.21 69 6 49 .79 -.08 65 7 - 23 -.20 .69 04 8 10 .06 .64 33 9 - 15 - 07 .53 09 Moral Evaluation Level 1 89 53 .30 68 2 88 61 .36 74 3 85 .72 .48 80 4 64 .87 .51 80 5 64 .90 .50 82 6 57 .86 .53 76 7 33 .37 .78 57 8 47 56 .80 70 9 13 41 .58 41 Personal Feeling Level \OQNO‘U‘I-wa-d A 01 oo 00 J: \J \l O 68 TABLE 12.--Correlation of Social Distance Items to Social Distance Total and Joint Level Total Scores for the Mentally Retarded Attitude Objects. Social Distance Items Total Subscore Variables Level Variable PR SC $0 Total Stereotypic Level 1 .71 .30 -.08 .45 2 .75 .32 .06 .53 3 .67 .35 .33 .63 4 .47 .82 .27 .71 5 .15 .74 .18 .48 6 .36 .67 .16 .54 7 .18 .24 .64 .47 8 .10 .16 .71 .43 9 -.01 .11 .48 .26 Moral Evaluation Level 1 .80 .28 .11 .50 2 .83 .30 .27 .60 3 .72 .45 .32 .64 4 .37 .81 .44 .68 5 .39 .73 .39 .64 6 .25 .74 .32 .55 7 .34 .29 .77 .62 8 .21 .50 .79 .67 9 .07 .32 .67 .47 Personal Feeling Level 1 .79 .48 .10 .57 2 .69 .51 .29 .63 3 .74 .35 .22 .49 4 .48 .84 .24 .67 5 .41 .72 .29 .54 6 .47 .76 .27 .65 7 .28 .36 .71 .56 8 .22 .31 .60 .44 9 .02 .01 .57 .19 69 TABLE 13.--Correlation of Social Distance Items to Social Distance Subscores Total and Joint Level Total Scores for the Blind Attitude Objects. Social Distance Total Subscore Variables Level Variable ”ems PR sc so Total Stereotypic Level 1 77 .52 -.03 61 2 75 .30 .13 55 3 67 .50 .30 67 4 44 .87 .24 71 5 44 .82 .23 69 6 59 .76 .10 69 7 16 .16 .66 38 8 20 .34 .73 51 9 - 03 -.08 41 08 Moral Evaluation Level 1 80 .43 .34 65 2 83 .44 .33 67 3 75 .49 .31 65 4 36 .80 .41 63 5 52 .75 .47 71 6 46 .74 .22 57 7 30 .31 .75 56 8 55 43 .60 65 9 02 19 .58 32 Personal Feeling Level tooowosm-wa—I .1: co \1 0'5 to L0 0'! \1 70 ’Nevertheless, the items were accepted as sufficiently reliable to continue the analysis. Examination of Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: Scale Administration 5:1; The order of scale administration will have no effect on attitude. Table 14 provides mean social distance scores for joint level and attitude object by order of scale administration. Also included in Table 14 are respective row and column means. Table 15 provides the results obtained from the repeated measures MANOVA for order effect, with the repeated measures occurring across object, level, and social distance variables. In Table 15, "design over measures" title refers to the various potential main effects of attitude objects (0), level (L), and social distance (S), and the various interactions along with Helmert Contrasts. The interaction of "design over measures" with "order" is provided in the second set of columns, which is the test of interest for this hypothesis. Examination of Table 15 indicates no main overall order effects (F = .89; d.f. = 5, 102; p.£..49). However, the object and order of administration interaction was highly significant (F = 3.36; d.f. = 10, 202; p.£ .005). Bearing in mind that the cell frequency for order effect is Unequal and therefore this is a nonorthogonal design, findings of an interaction result in a further confounding of the remaining effects; i.e., further analysis of the remaining~ 1: ratios must be done in a "guarded" fashion because alpha is unknown. However, the finding of an order of scale administration 71 mm.@ mm.w N_.m m~.m cw.m mm.m m¢.o~ _N.m Nm.m w¢.m mN.m w—.m mo.o mP.N NN.N om.m mop pouch mm.m Pm.m mo.m mm.N oo.o_ N¢.m mm.op em.m mm.m mm.m mp.op oo.w No.0 NQ.N mm.o m_.o .mm1 o mm.N. mm.N no.m m¢.N NN.m NN.m mm.o_ mN.o NN.N _o.N mm.m mm.o Nm.o mm.o NN.m No.m mp m om.m oN.m we.m mm.m mm.m mm.o Nm.o_ mm.m mN.m oo.m __.op mm.m mm.N mm.N oo.m oo.N m— c NN.N MN.m mm.m em.m cm.m wm.m mm.op em.m m_.m pw.w em.m ”N.w co.N om.m mm.N mm.o m— m FN.N Pm.m mm.m me.m mw.m Fv.m Ne.op mN.m Nm.m Np.m m~.op N¢.w mm.N p¢.N mm.N mo.N NF N mu.m NM.» No.m mm.N mm.m Nm.m PN.oF mo.m mN.m N¢.m mm.m mm.m No.N NM.N mN.N Ne.m mp — cmucmumm NFPmpcwz mm.w m~.m mm.m mN.m N_.o_ mm.m mN.oF Nw.m Np.m m_.m e~.m Ne.m pm.N om.w mm.N mv.m mop pouch mo.m om.a Fm.m N¢.m mm.op Pm.op FN.P~ mm.op mo.m mm.m mm.m mm.w ~m.n mw.w oF.N FN.m .wfl1 m mm.m oN.m om.m mo.m Pe.op oo.o— co.pp Np.o~ oo.m em.m mm.m Np.m NP.N no.m em.m mw.m NF m pm.m mm.w oo.m mm.N mo.op m~.m N¢.op pp.op m¢.m mN.w mm.m oo.m Nm.m Ne.m mN.m me.m m_ e om.w mN.m mm.m mm.m mw.m m¢.m om.op om.m vo.m mp.m mm.m m¢.m mm.N mm.m em.N NP.N o_ m m¢.m Nm.m mm.m Ne.w cN.o~ oo.op em.op mw.m N_.op mm.op em.op oo.m mm.N em.m mo.m mm.m NP N Nm.m mm.w Fm.m mN.m o~.m mc.m N¢.op oo.m FN.m _p.m em.m mm.m em.N mm.N N¢.m PN.N mp _ Slam papa» om um ma peach om um am quoh om um Na pouch om um Na 2 cmuco pm>mn mmocu< mcwpmmm :owumapo>u Page: ownzuomcmum .mocoumnzm magnumwo pm_uom use .Pm>04 umcopuuscpm ucwoa .uumnao .cowuogammcmEu< mpmum mo cmvco an amcamz ppm911.¢P N4m

84 mmocu< map—mom =o_um=—o>m page: UNQAuomcmpm .umsciucou--.¢_ mnm

m— No.0“ .0. .uumhno any "x—m>.uumommc .mcwoo c. .ucmmmcomc mcouum— xpm as» w.no.co> zoom c.n .uoqooco coma o>og m.oE.umoo - oN so oN N. .o .. No No- mm .N on oo- No- oo o. no. oo o. oN .o .o .o so- m. so- No- omNNoN .N - mm No m. .o- o. .N o. .. mm on s.- so no mo- No No No mm os No- No so. No oo oo Nmaaoo oN - s. N. oo o. .. o. m. mN sm so- No mo- mo- oo ..- NN .m on s.- No. s.- so No- NN- NNENoN mN - ms ms No N. oo o. No- so- NN .o- .o- .. o. N. .. mo- .o- sN so No NN oo- s.- omNzoo sN - No No Ns NN .. mo mo o. NN o. o. No NN s. N. mo m. .m .N o. N. No NmNzoo NN - mo- .m on No- m.- .o- No mo o. o. o. s. oo mo- No mN .N oN o. .o oo- Naomoo NN -- NN o. so so No- NN so .o- NN No- No- No o. N. so- No. so- N. so- so- om.moo .N -- oo oo oo o.- No- o. mo N. on o. No No o.- so o. s. No oN o. mm.moN oN - .o- No mo- No- N. o. s.- s. o. No .o- .o- mo- oo oo oo No mo- NN.m.o o. - mN om No so- oo mN .o- oo Nm N. so mo- s.- ..- .. .o No- omNNNz o. - ss o.- No s. No No oo .N ms om mo- No- s.- No- N. m. NmNNNz N. - o.- mo- m. No N. o. os om Ns .N- N.- ..- oo- so. so- NNENNz o. -- om oN m. No- .o N.- o.- .o .N s. o. s. oo- mo- omNzNz m. - ss N. oN o. No- No so om om oN No- m. .. mmNzNz s. - NN Nm Nm mo- oN .N mN NN os mo NN mN NNNZNz N. -- oN m. N. no mo- so No- oo- o. m. N. om.maz N. -- os mo- .o- oo s. NN mN No om NN mm.mNz .. - s. so- mo NN s. oN . so NN oN NN.mNz o. - Nm N. mo- .o oo- s. oo- so- omaaso o - oo mo- o. s. o. o. No umaaxo o - so No oN oo- No mo NNNNEN N - om .s mo oN oN omngo o - o. so- Ns on mmozxo m - mo- ms om NNNsz s - N.- N.- om.mxo N -- .. om.mgo N - Na.mxo . NN oN mN sN NN NN .N oN m. o. N. o. m. s. N. N. .. o. o o N o m s m N . oo..s.cs> .muumwno ouauwuu< new pm>m4 umcosuuocum u:_oo an mucoumnom mucopmwo —m_uom Lo» omcowuo.mLLoU11.m. m4m \ \ \ ® \ \ \ \ \ \ A 761/ av \ ,_.---— ®1® I _B_LA_(‘._B_ 4092.99.21. .. ._ p 9'1 man-Y .,“—“‘— Figure l3.--A Two-Dimensional Plot for Moral Evaluation Axial Facet with Social Distancea and Attitude Object.b aWhere PR = primary, SE = secondary, $0 = societal. bWhere O = Black, 0 = Mentally Rearded, A = Blind. 91 Figure l4.--A Two-Dimensional Plot for Stereotypic Axial Facet with Social Distance,a and Attitude Object.b aWhere PR = primary, SE = secondary, SD = societal. bWhere O = Black, 0 = Mentally Retarded, A = Blind. 92 I \ / \ /’ 63> ‘ I so A \N \O’. \ <2? \ \\ s. x \ C59! \\ l\ I \ ‘\Nf \\ 1 A \ @1 \ / \ I \ / \ 6‘2, \ \ wP/S\IE9 \ .§/1§ \ 0,,5 o 5- \\ r’z. /"/q A \\___/ .BilND. BLACK Figure-15.--A Two-Dimensional Plot for Pegsonal Feeling Axial Facet with Social Distance,a and Attitude Object. aWhere PR = primary, SE = secondary, S0 = societal. bWhere 0 = Black, 0 = Mentally Retarded, A = Blind. 93 of the cylindrex, the objects converge on the societal relations subscores (i.e., attitudes for the societal relations elements are more homogeneous) and are more divergent (less homogeneous and more distant) for the primary group relations elements of the social dis- tance facets; this is characteristic of modulating facets. The order of objects remained the same for each joint level of the axial facet. Therefore, support for the hypothesis of a three- dimensional space due to the facets in the design was obtained. Hypothesis 5: Factor Analysis Com- pared to Smallest Space Analysis 9:9; Factor analysis will result in a greater number of dimensions than smallest space analysis. Smallest Space Analysis I is a self-contained program which allows default options to determine the number of adequate dimensions needed to portray the structure of the coefficients. In order to compare the procedures it was deemed desirable to utilize the default options for the factor analysis program. Table 21 provides the seven factors obtained with the orthogonal factor analysis using the varimax rotation method. Again, the correlation matrix in Table 19 was the data base. Entries in the table are factor loadings where only loadings.i..40 were entered. Factor 1 is a general feel- ing dimension with loadings across all objects; Factor 2 is a stereotypic and moral evaluation factor for "Black" attitude objects; Factor 3 is a stereotypic factor for "Blind" objects; Factor 4 is a. social relations dimension across all objects; Factor 5 is a "Mental Retardation" object dimension; Factor 6, a "Blind" object moral 94 TABLE 21.--Rotated Factor Matrix (Varimax) of 27 Depending Scores (Loadings .40). Factorsa Variable 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 h BKSTPR 71 63 BKSTSC 76 71 BKSTSO 40 4o BKMEPR 68 63 BKMESC 76 79 BKMESO 51 4o 60 BKPFPR 74 65 BKPFSC 76 69 BKPFSO 62 48 69 MRSTPR 65 52 MRSTSC 57 55 MRSTSO 52 44 MRMEPR 66 68 MRMESC 62 61 MRMESO 81 74 MRPFPR 83 79 MRPFSC 79 73 MRPFSO 49 58 64 BDSTPR 71 63 BDSTSC 79 80 BDSTSO 44 BDMEPR 76 76 BDMESC 55 68 BDMESO 58 56 BDPFPR 76 70 BDPFSC 76 76 BDPFSO 52 62 75 Percent °f 52.7 16.2 9.1 7.1 5.4 5.1 4.2 Variance aFactors were named: ”General Feeling" Stereotypic and Moral Evaluation for "Blacks" Stereotypic for "Blind" Social Relationships "Mental Retardation" Moral Evaluation for "Blind" General Moral Evaluation \lmU'l-th-fl II II II II II II II 95 evaluation dimension; and Factor 7 appears to be a general moral evaluation dimension. Only the social relation subscore for the "Blind" objects failed to load on any of the seven factors. Typically, an eigenvalue of 1.00 or greater is used to determine the number of desirable factors. Four factors would have resulted in meeting this criteria. In either case, the factor analy- sis resulted in a greater number of dimensions to explain the structure of the correlation than smallest space analysis and conse- quently the hypothesis was supported. CHAPTER V DISCUSSION The purpose of this research was to further explore the con- struct validity of the metatheory of facets applied to attitude measurement. Facet theory, as a research tool, specifies outcomes in the form of structural relations. Overview of Purpose and Methodology Applied to attitude measurement (Chapter II), it has been shown that one consistent finding is that of a simplex structure, i.e., the highest correlations occur along the main diagonal and decrease the further away from the diagonal the correlations occur. The consistent finding of the simplex structure by Jordan's research group on the facetized ABS series of attitude scales has lent sup- port for the construct validity of facet theory. Given this ordered (a simplex implies an ordering of the variables) joint structioned dimension, it has been shown that the ABS consistently differenti- ated between known groups and therefore further evidence for the validity of the method has been obtained. Furthermore, the reli- ability of the scales has proven acceptable. None of the research studies, however, have investigated an ordering principle for the lateral structioned, social distance situations. According to the principles of proximity and structural 96 97 order, various structural outcomes are predicted by facet theory dependent upon a mixture of ordered and unordered facets. As shown in Chapter II, these structures include simplexes, circumplexes, radexes, and cylindrexes, to name only a few of the possible struc- tural outcomes. .Furthermore, no research studies have investigated the interaction of joint and lateral structioning across attitude objects. Thus, a test of the construct validity of the metatheory of facets occurs when selected (and unordered) attitude objects and the two ordered structions (joint and lateral) are measured simultaneously. The metatheory of facets together with the ordering princi- ples, structural hypothesis and smallest space analysis, specify certain structural outcomes, which is the true sense of a theory as defined by Guttman (Chapter 1). Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the construct validity of the metatheory of facets applied to attitude behavior: (a) can the relationship be repre- sented in a multi-dimensional model, (b) can the facets discriminate between attitude objects, and (c) what is the joint-lateral inter- action when the joint and lateral structioned facets are held con- stant across selected attitude objects. In brief, three attitude-behavior scales utilizing facet theory procedures were deve10ped: (a) a Mental Retardation Scale, (b) a Race Scale, and (c) a Blind Scale. Essentially, existent ABS, were modified such that the "same" ordered life situation questions on a social distance continuum (lateral struction) were asked at three selected joint structioned levels: stereotypic, moral 98 evaluation, and personal feeling. The research was designed to con- trol for sources of variation due to the joint and lateral dimen- sions, by holding constant these dimensions, and changing only the subject/object-in-situation relationship. The scales were adminis- tered to a homogeneous sample to enable reduction of variance due to differential contact with the attitude object, social class, age, etc. The order of scale administration was balanced to control for progressive error and response set (Underwood, 1966). Order Effect The hypothesis of no scale order effect was rejected. Vari- ance did change dependent upon the attitude object and the order of scale administration. More specifically, it appears that a complex interaction of scale order, objects, and joint structioned attitude level was obtained. The purpose of counterbalancing the order of scale administration was to allow for collapsing of the scale order. Thus, error due to fatigue, practice effects, etc., could be equal- ized across the possible orders. The finding of a significant interaction suggests several possible answers and therefore is con- founded. §§_responded differentially dependent upon which object, which joint structioned attitude level, and which order of scale administration they were taking. Further research is necessary to ferret out the effects of this interaction. For example, it appears that the interaction of object, joint structioned level, and order' of scale administration reveals that subjects were least positive toward the mentally retarded when the social distance situation 99 involved primary group relations at the stereotypic joint struc- tioned level, and when their responses toward the mentally retarded were preceded by responses toward the blind. It can be speculated that attitudes may be influenced by subjects' responses to other objects; that is, once §§_have responded at a certain magnitude (as, for example, in the psychophysical technique of magnitude estimation) toward one attitude object, they may tend to utilize that object as their standard for remaining attitude objects. The remaining analysis was conducted on the scale, ignoring the order of scale adminstration (which was the intent of the research), because it was assumed that the correlations between the variables would only be reduced, due to the increased variances from the order of scale presentation. Simplex for Social Distance Items All of the nine possible simplex structures for the inter- correlations of the nine social distance items were obtained, and therefore the hypothesis of the simplex order for the social dis- tance items was supported. This finding lends support for a lateral structioned social distance scale of increasing complexity. While the items fall short of the ideal simplex, refinement of the social distance continuum should lead to more perfect simplexes and, consequently, better prediction. There appears to be an interaction of the social distance items with the attitude objects and joint structioned levels; this suggests that specific items may be more 100 valid for specific objects at specific attitude joint structioned levels than for other objects or levels. In general, the "societal relations items" did not correlate very strongly with the "primary and secondary" relation items, but they did form part of the simplex structure, and therefore function as elements of the social distance continuum. Refinement of the societal relation items may be necessary. It may be that these items were not relevant or highly ego-involved. Conclusions concern- ing these items from these data is confounded, partially due to the fact that the sample was a homogeneous college population and highly sensitive to social inequalities implied in the societal relations items. The hypothesized simplex structure of the facet derived sub- scales (the primary group relations, secondary group relations, and societal group relations subscales) was also obtained. This is not a surprising finding in that the individual social distance items formed a simplex. However, while seven of the nine possible sim- plexes formed simplex approximations, two were reversed in their' order. These reversals may be due to the lack of clarity in the societal relations items (discussed above). Smallest Space Analysis and the Structural Hypotheses The a priori faceted mapping sentence (Figure 4 in Chapter III) predicted that three facets would partition the Cartesian space accepted by the correlations. This finding was confirmed in the smallest space analysis: the space could effectively be partitioned 101 by “object," joint level, and lateral structioned social distance dimensions. In the obtained structure, the joint structioned atti- tude levels served as an axial facet, the unordered attitude object served as a polarizing facet at each level, and the social distance (lateral structioned) facet served as a modulating dimension at each level. The structural hypothesis was thus confirmed: the a priori definition of the universe was predicted by the faceted design. The finding of the expected structure demonstrates the usefulness of facet theory in that the structure was predicted and thus further support for the construct validity of the metatheory of facets was obtained. According to previous research, the stereotypic joint struc- tioned level was expected to have fallen further away from the per- sonal feeling joint structioned attitude level; the stereotypic dimension being the weakest, least complex structuple, and personal feeling being the strongest, with moral evaluation falling between the two. Therefore, it was expected that the joint structioned structuples of stereotypic, moral evaluation, and personal feeling would have fallen in that order along the axial facet. At this point speculation leads to the conclusion that the ordering princi- ple of the earlier attitude research may be incorrect; or that the homogeneous college population was more likely to experience disso- nance in their feelings as compared to what they judge is morally _ right or wrong with respect to various attitude objects. The social distance subscores did modulate the distance from the axis at each level. The societal relations subscores appear 102 to function as a convergent subscore (i.e., these items are less likely to differentiate between objects) and the primary group relations subscores function as divergent and possibly polarizing items. While the order of the social distance modulating facet was not clearly obtained at each joint structioned level for each object, it was approximated; thus, the structure at each level for each object for the societal distance subscore did approximate the weak-to-strong (societal, secondary group, and primary group rela- tions) ordering principle. Although the three-dimensional space was open in many areas, it is important to recall that only three of the joint structioned levels were researched and that only nine social distance situations were examined. Increasing the number of social distance situations (lateral structioned situations) and investigating all six of the levels most likely would result in filling in more of the space. In addition, adding situations, clarifying the social distance items, and increasing the number of items, should also result in filling in the space and clarifying the structural relations. Also, increasing the number of objects would further tend to fill in the space. Nevertheless, the hypothesized cylindrex would still be expected to remain, provided that the variables were properly ordered. In summary, smallest space analysis revealed the expected a priori structure: a cylindrex. Each of the major facets of the. design played the expected roles in the cylindrex and thus further support for the construct validity of the concept of the metatheory of facets was obtained. 103 Factor Analysis Orthogonal factor analysis utilizing the varimax rotation method resulted in seven factors. Again, this finding is consistent with previous research in that a greater space was necessary to explain the relations by factor analysis than by smallest space analysis. Therefore, it is concluded that smallest space analysis in comparison to factor analysis is a more parsimonious method. Facet theory, then, in an a priori sense, provided the mean- ing for the dimensions which was obtained via the smallest space analysis. The implication for further research suggests that facet theory is a useful theory for designing research, specifying the content of the design, and predicting the outcome of the structure of the relations. Speculation concerning the usefulness of facet theory in designing experimental manipulations of variables in the classical experimental sense includes ordering the levels of inde— pendent variables, specifying relations between dependent variables where multiple dependent variables were utilized, and in general serving as a useful tool for formulating the research and predicting the outcome. While facet theory and the principles of structural order and structural relations and smallest space analysis are still in their infancy, many new developments are expected. As with any new approach, literature is difficult to locate and proponents few; it takes diligence and dedication for the researcher to follow facet theory and the construction of facetized designs. 104 Recommendations for Future Research 1. An ordering principle for attitude objects should be explored. Objects may be ordered by social distance, importance to the subject, ego involvement, etc. 2. The possibility of refining an equal interval unidimen- sional social distance (situations) scale should be explored. Selec- tion of situation by ego involvement and relevance appears to be confounded, as it is not possible to have one without the other. 3. Further research with the existing or refined scales, with different, more heterogeneous populations and larger samples, is necessary in order to clarify the findings obtained in this study. 4. Designing an experiment to clarify the obtained inter- action of attitude objects (i.e., how responding toward one attitude object may influence §s_responses to another object) may be fruitful in exploring the ordering principle for objects. 5. Studies examining the utility of facet theory in clini- cal and institutional settings should be designed. For example, is facet theory a useful technique in developing instrumentation to study a comprehensive health delivery system and the evaluation instruments required? The following is based solely on the author's insights and intuitions. Facet theory seems to be a valuable technique in exploring the relationships of variables and in developing research designs and questions. It is indeed theory development. Smallest space analysis also seems to be a useful, easily understood tech- nique which enables examination of correlational structure and 105 therefore the validity of the facet theory. Other useful applica- tions of facet theory may be along the line of clinical uses, such as exploring the "facets" of personality of individual clients, the various elements which prove to become stronger and thus sensitize the patient, etc. In the study of institutions, one may be able to facetize the various dimensions and order corresponding elements. Finally, facet theory appears to be heuristic as a useful framework for developing new scales and research designs. That is, the technique requires that all of the known facets and their eleo ments be included in the design. This is not usually the case in typical factorial research. Instead, facet theory and the resultant mapping sentences require a logical concatenation of facets and their elements before the research is begun. Once the mapping sentences are complete, the theory has been stipulated and subsequently can be put to a scientific test. APPENDICES 106 APPENDIX A GLOSSARY 107 APPENDIX A GLOSSARY* Approximation-~See "simplex approximation." Attitude--"Delimited totality of behavior with respect to something" (Guttman, 1950, p. 51). Content--Situation (action, feeling, comparison, circumstances) indicated in an attitude item; generally corresponds to "lateral struction." Definitional statement--Specification of characteristics proper to an item of a given level member, typically stated in phrase or clause form. Definitional system-Ordered group of definitional statements or of . the corresponding level members; typically, either the group constituting a "semantic path" or the complete group of 12 level members in the "semantic map." Directionality--Characteristic of an item, sometimes called positive or negative, determining agreement with the item as indi- cating favorableness or unfavorableness toward the attitude object. Element-~One of two or more ways in which a facet may be expressed; in the present system, all joint facets are dichotomous, expressed in one. Facet--One of several semantic units distinguishable in the verbal expression of an attitude; in the present system, five dichotomous facets are noted within the joint struction. Facet profile--See "struction profile." * Credit is given to Maierle (1969) and Gottlieb (1973) for most of the work in developing this glossary. 108 109 Interest group--Any group that, on the basis of one or more shared attitudes, makes certain claims upon other groups in the society for the establishment, maintenance, or enhancement of forms of behavior that are implied by the shared atti- tudes. Fundamentally, interest groups are the representa- tion of homogeneous interests seeking influence. In the present study, they are functionally somewhat equivalent to "occupational groups." Joint struction--See also "struction," lateral struction"--"opera- tionally defined as the ordered sets of . . . five facets from low to high across all five facets simultaneously" (Jordan, 1968a, p. 76); that part of the semantic structure of attitude items which can be determined independently of specific response situations. Attitude levels; structuples which occur across levels for all possible attitude objects. Lateral struction--Specific situations in which objects are placed; may vary dependent on object. See also "struction," "joint struction"--that part of the semantic structure of attitude items which is directly dependent on specification of situ- ation and object; a more precise term than "content." Leve1--Degree of attitude strength specified by the number of strong and weak facets in the member(s) of that level; in the pres- ent system, six ordered levels are identified: Level 1 is characterized by the unique member having five weak facets; Level 2, by members having four weak and one strong facet . . Level 6, by the unique member having five strong facets. Level member--One of one or more permutation(s) of strong and weak facets which are common to a given level; in the present system, 12 level members have been identified: three on Level 2, four on Level 3, two on Level 4, and one each on Levels 1, 5, and 6. Mgp7-See "semantic map." Member--See "level member." Path--See "semantic path." 'Profile--See "struction profile." Reversal--Change in a specified order of levels or of correlations, involving only the two indicated levels or correlations. Semantic-~Pertaining to or arising from the varying meanings, gram- matical forms, or stylistic emphasis of words, phrases, or clauses. 110 Semantic maps-Two-dimensional representation of hypothesized rela- tionships among six levels and among 12 level members. Semantic path--Ordered set of level members, typically six, such that each member has one more strong facet than the immedi-_ ately preceding member and one less strong facet than the immediately following member. Semantic possibility analysis--Linguistic discussion of the implica- tions of the five dichotomous joint facets identified in the present system; of 32 combinations, only 12 are considered logically consistent. Simplex--Specific form of (correlation) matrix, diagonally dominated and decreasing in magnitude away from the main diagonal; see Table 8 for comparison of equally spaced and unequally spaced diagonals. Simplex approximation--Matrix which approaches more or less per- fectly the simplex form; existing tests (Kaiser, 1962; Mukherjee, 1966) reflect both ordering of individual entries and sizes of differences between entries and between diagonals. Strong(er)--Opposite of weak(er)--term functionally assigned to one of two elements, to a facet expressed by its strong element, or to a level member characterized by more strong facets than another level member; the strong-weak continuum is presently examined as unidimensional. Struct--E1ements-of a facet. Struction--See also "joint struction," "lateral struction"--semantic pattern identifiable in any attitude item, or the system of such identifications. Struction profile--Specification, typically indicated by small let- ters and numerical subscripts, of the combination(s) of weak and strong elements or facets in a level member or a set of level members; or of combinations of lateral elements or facets. Structuple--A combination of elements (structs) from the facets in a design. Transposition--Change in a specified order of levels or correlatiOns involving a change in position of one level or correlation and the corresponding one-place shift in the position of fol- lowing or preceding levels or correlations. Weak--Opposite of "strong" (see "strong"). APPENDIX B ATTITUDE-BEHAVIOR SCALE: ABS-BK, MR, 80 111 APPENDIX B ATTITUDE-BEHAVIOR SCALE: ABS-BK, MR, 80 Instructions You should have received a booklet of questions, a pencil, and an answer sheet. Since your answers to these questions are con- fidential, and we guarantee your anonymity, DO NOT write your NAME anywhere on the booklet or answer sheet. NOTE: The booklet contains statements of how peeple behave in certain situations, or feel about certain things. You, yourself, or other persons.often behave in the same way, or sometimes you feel or behave differently than others. The questions are about racial groups, the mentally retarded, and blind persons. Although some of the statements may appear simi- lar, each statement is different. Your answer to the questions in each section may or may not be the same from section to section. RECORDING YOUR ANSWER: The answer sheet (IBM answer sheet) is to be filled out in the following manner. Sample Question: Other pe0ple believe the following things: 1. This college is the best college in the world. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree If other people strongly agree with this statement, you should shade the number 4 as shown on your IBM answer sheet. 22:7 Note that your answer sheet has a few of the boxes already- shaded; this simply indicates for us which form of the booklet you are answering. Now turn the page and begin answering the questions. Note also that we have different instructions for each section. Please read the instructions carefully. Your answer for each ques- tion may change within the section. *****************PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS BOOKLET**************** 112 113 BLACK-1 In this section you are asked to indicate how most other people believe that Black people compare to those who are not Blacks. Others believe the following things about Blacks as compared to Whites. 1. Others believe that they would not accept Blacks as well as Whites as a close family member. 1. strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree Others believe that they would accept Blacks as well as Whites. . strongly disagree . disagree . agree . strongly agree 1 2 3 4 Others believe that they can trust Blacks as well as Whites with their money. . strongly disagree . disagree . agree . strongly agree 1 2 3 4 Others believe that they would accept Blacks as well as Whites to live next door as neighbors. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree Others believe that they would accept Blacks as well as Whites as a member of their church community. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 114 Others believe that they would accept Blacks as well as Whites as fellow workers. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree Others believe that Blacks have the same eduational opportunities as Whites. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 0 W thers believe that Blacks have the same citizenship rights as hites. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 0 t thers believe that Blacks are not as satisfied as Whites with heir status in our society. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE 115 BLACK-2 This section contains statements of the right or wropg way of behav- ing or acting toward Blacks. You are asked to indicate what you think others believe is right or wrong with respect to Blacks. In respect to Blacks, what do you think others believe is right or wrong? 10. When others expect Blacks to be accepted as well as Whites as close family members, they are 1. wrong 2. usually wrong 3. usually right 4. right 11. When others expect Blacks to be accepted as well as Whites for close personal friends, they are 1. wrong 2. usually wrong 3. usually right 4. right 12. When others trust Blacks as well as Whites with their money, they are 1. wrong 2. usually wrong 3. usually right 4. right 13. When others do not accept Blacks as well as Whites to live as next door neighbors, they are 1. right 2. usually right 3. usually wrong 4. wrong 14. When others do not accept Blacks as well as Hhites as a member of their church community, they are right usually right usually wrong wrong th—J TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE 15. 16. 17. 18. 116 When others accept Blacks as well as Whites as a fellow worker, they are 1. wrong 2. usually wrong 3. usually right 4. right When others do not expect Blacks to have the same educational opportunities as Whites, they are 1. right 2. usually right 3. usually wrong 4. wrong When others do not expect Blacks to have the same citizenship rights as Whites, they are right usually right usually wrong wrong hen others expect Blacks to be as satisfied as Whites with heir status in our society, they are rt: #wN-d right usually right usually wrong wrong th-J TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE 117 BLACK-3 This section concerns actual feelings that ypuyyourself may have about Blacks. You are asked to indicate how you feel about Blacks as compared to Whites. How do you actually feel about Blacks? 19. When Blacks are not as accepted as Whites as close family mem- bers, I feel 1. very happy 2. happy 3. angry ’ 4. very angry 20. When Blacks are not as accepted as well as Whites for close personal friends, I feel 1. very happy 2. happy 3. angry 4. very angry 21. When Whites also trust Blacks as well as Whites with their money, I feel 1. very satisfied 2. satisfied 3. dissatisfied 4. very dissatisfied 22. When Blacks are not as accepted as well as Whites for neighbors, I feel 1 very good 2 good 3. bad 4. very bad 23. When Blacks are not accepted in a church community as well as Whites, I feel 1 very good 2. good 3. bad 4. very bad TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE 24. 25. 26. 27. 118 When Blacks are not accepted as well as Whites for felow workers, I feel 1. very good 2. good 3. bad 4. very bad W W hen Blacks do not have the same educational opportunities as hites, I feel 1. very satisfied 2. satisfied 3. dissatisfied 4. very dissatisfied W W hen Blacks are not allowed the same citizenship rights as hites, I feel 1 very happy 2. happy 3 angry 4. very angry When Blacks are not as satisfied as Whites with their status in our society, I feel 1. very angry 2. angry 3. happy 4. very happy TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE 119 MR-1 In this section you are asked to indicate how most other people believe that mentally retarded people compare to those who are not retarded. Others believe the following things about mentally retarded as com- pared to non-retarded. 28. Others believe that they would not accept mentallyyretarded as well as a non-retarded person as a close family member. 1. strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree 29. Others believe that they would accept a mentally retarded as well as a non-retarded person as a close personal friend. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 30. Others believe that they can trust mentally retarded as well as non-retarded with their money. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 31. Others believe that they would accept mentally retarded as well as non-retarded to live next door as neighbors. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 32. Others believe that they would accept mentally retarded as well as non-retarded as a member of their church community. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE 33. 34. 35. 36. 120 Others believe that they would accept mentally retarded as well as non-retarded as fellow workers. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree Others believe that the mentally retarded have the same educa- tional opportunities as non-retarded. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree Others believe that the mentally retarded have the same citizenship rights as the non-retarded. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree Others believe that the mentally retarded are not as satisfied as the non-retarded with their status in our society. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE 121 MR-2 This section contains statements of the right or wrong way of behav- ing or acting toward the mentally retarded. You are asked to indicate what you think others believe is right or wrong with respect to men- tally retarded persons. In respect to mentally retarded, what do you think others believe is right or wrong. 37. When others expect mentally retarded to be accepted as well as the non-retarded as close family members, they are 1. wrong 2. usually wrong 3. usually right 4. right 38. When others expect the mentallyyretarded to be accepted as well as non-retarded for a close personal friend, they are 1.. wrong 2. usually wrong 3. usually right 4. right 39. When others trust the mentally retarded as well as non-retarded with their money, they are 1. wrong 2. usually wrong 3. usually right 4. right 40. When others do not accept mentally retarded as well as non- retarded to live next door as neighbors, they are right usually right usually wrong wrong th-d TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 122 When others do not accept the mentally retarded as well as the non-retarded as a member of their church community, they are . right . usually right . usually wrong . wrong hen others accept mentally retarded as well as non-retarded as ellow workers, they are 1 2 3 4 N f 1. wrong 2. usually wrong 3. usually right 4. right When others do not expect mentally retarded to have the same educational opportunities as non-retarded, they are right usually right usually wrong wrong «th—fi When others do not expect the mentally retarded to have the same citizenship rights as non-retarded, they are right usually right usually wrong wrong (+2 hum—a hen others expect the mentally retarded to be as satisfied as he non-retarded with their status in our society, they are right usually right usually wrong wrong DOOM-d TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE 123 MR-3 This section concerns actual feelings that youyypurself may have about the mentally retarded. You are asked to indicate how you feel about mentally retarded as compared to non-retarded. How do you actually feel about the mentally retarded? 46. When mentally retarded are not as accepted as non-retarded as close family members, I feel 1. very happy 2. happy 3. angry 4. very angry 47. When mentally retarded are not as accepted as well as ppp: retarded as close personal friends, I feel 1. very happy 2. happy 3. angry 4. very angry 48. When non-retarded also trust mentally retarded as well as ppp: retarded with their money, I feel 1. very satisfied 2. satisfied 3. dissatisfied 4. very dissatisfied 49. When the mentally retarded are not as accepted as well as ppp: retarded for next door neighbors, I feel 1. very good 2. good 3. bad 4. very bad 50. When the mentally retarded are not accepted in a church commu- nity as well as non-retarded, I feel 1. very good 2. good 3. bad _ 4. very bad TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE 51. 52. 53. 54. 124 When the mentally_retarded are not accepted as well as ppp: retarded for fellow workers, I feel 1. very good 2. good 3. bad 4. very bad When the mentally retarded do not have the same educational opportunities as non-retarded, I feel 1. very satisfied 2. satisfied 3. dissatisfied 4. very dissatisfied When the mentally retarded are not allowed the same citizenship rights as non-retarded, I feel 1. very happy 2. happy 3. angry 4. very angry When the mentally retarded are not as satisfied as the ppp; retarded with their status in our society, I feel 1. very angry 2. angry 3. happy 4. very happy TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE 125 BLIND-1 In this section you are asked to indicate how most other people believe that the blind compare to those who are not blind. Others believe the following things about the blind as compared to the sighted. 55. 56. 57. 58. Others believe that they would not accept a blind as well as a sighted person as a close family member. 1. strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree Others believe that they would accept a blind as well as a sighted person as a close personal friend. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree Others believe that they can trust the blind as well as the sighted with their money. , 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree Others believe that they would accept the blind as well as the sighted to live next door as neighbors. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE 59. 60. 61. 62. 126 Others believe that they would accept the blind as well as the sighted as a member of their church community. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree Others believe that they would accept the blind as well as the sighted as fellow workers. . strongly disagree . disagree . agree . strongly agree 1 2 3 4 Others believe that the blind have the same educational oppor- tunities as the sighted. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree Others believe that the blind have the same citizenship rights as the sighted. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. sstrongly agree TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE 127 BLIND-2 This section contains statements of the right or wrong way of behaving or acting toward the blind. You are asked to indicate what you think others believe is right or wrong with respect to the blind. In respect to the blind, what do you think others believe is right or wrong? 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. When others expect the blind to be accepted as well as the sighted as close family members, they are 1. wrong 2. usually wrong 3. usually right 4. right When others expect the blind to be accepted as well as the sighted as a close personal friend, they are 1. wrong 2. usually wrong 3. usually right 4. right When others trust the blind as well as the sighted with their money, they are 1. wrong 2. usually wrong 3. usually right 4. right When others do not accept the blind as well as the sighted to live next door as neighbors, they are right usually right usually wrong wrong hen others do not accept the blind as well as the sighted as a ember of their church community, they are a z boom—- right usually right usually wrong wrong ~5de TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE 69. 70. 71. 72. 128 When others accept the blind as well as the sighted as fellow workers, they are . wrong . usually wrong . usually right . right 1 2 3 4 When others do not expect the blind to have the same educa- tional opportunities as the sighted, they are 1. right 2. usually right 3. usually wrong 4. wrong When others do not expect the blind to have the same citizenship rights as the sighted, they are 1. right 2. usually right 3. usually wrong 4. wrong When others expect the blind to be as satisfied as those who are sighted with their status in society, they are right usually right usually wrong wrong th-fl TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE 129 BLIND-3 This section concerns actual feelings that ygu yourself may have about the blind. You are asked to indicate how you feel about the blind as compared to the sighted. How do you actually feel about the blind? 73. When the blind are not as accepted as the sighted as a close family member, I feel 1. very happy , 2. happy 3. angry 4. very angry 74. When the blind are not accepted as well as the sighted for close personal friends, I feel 1. very happy 2. happy 3. 'angry 4. very angry 75. When the sighteg_also trust the blind as well as the sighted with their money, I feel 1. very satisfied 2. satisfied 3. dissatisfied 4. very dissatisfied 76. When the blind are not accepted as well as the sighted for next door neighbors, I feel 1. very good 2. good 3. bad 4. very bad 77. When the blind are not accepted in a church community as the sighted, I feel 1. very good 2. good 3. bad 4. very bad TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE 78. 79. 80. 81. 130 When the blind are not accepted as well as the sighted for fellow workers, I feel 1 very good 2. good 3 bad 4: very bad When the blind do not have the same educational opportunities as the sighted, I feel 1. very satisfied 2. satisfied 3. dissatisfied 4. very dissatisfied W t hen the blind are not allowed the same citizenship rights as hes sighted, I feel 1. very happy 2. happy 3 angry 4: very angry When the blind are not as satisfied as the sighted with their status in our society, I feel 1. very angry 2. angry 3. happy 4. very happy TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 131 Please indicate your sex. 1. female 2. male To which radial group do you belong? 1. Black 2. White 3. Oriental 4. other Please indicate your age as follows: 1. under 20 2. 20-30 3. 31-45 4. over 45 What is your marital status? 1. single 2. married 3. divorced 4. widowed What is your religion? 1. Catholic 2. Protestant 3. Jewish 4. other Please indicate your level of education. 1. college freshman 2. college sophomore 3. college junior 4. college senior Where were you mainly "brought up" in your youth? country country town city suburb city wa-d 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 132 The following questions have to do with kinds of experiences you have had with Blacks. If more than one experience applies, please choose the answer with the highest number. 1. I have read or studied about Blacks through reading, movies, lectures or observations. 2. A friend or relative is a Black. 3. I have personally worked with Blacks as teacher, counselor, volunteer, child care, etc. Considering all of the times you have talked, worked, or in some other way had personal contact with Blacks, about how much A has it been altogether? i 1. only a few casual contacts 1 2. between one and three months . 3. between three and six months 4. between six months and one year 5. more than one year of contact When you have been in contact with Blacks, how easy for you, in general, would you say it would have been to have avoided being with them? I have had no contact. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts only at great cost or difficulty. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts but with some inconvenience. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts without any difficulty or inconvenience. hum-J How have you generally felt about your experience with Blacks? no experience. I definitely dislike it. I did not like it very much. I like it somewhat. I definitely enjoyed it. (”DOOM-d The following questions have to do with kinds of experiences you have had with mentally retarded. If more than one experience applies, please choose the answer with the highest number. 1. I have read or studied about mentally retarded through reading, movies, lecture or observation. 2. A friend or relative is mentally retarded. 3. I have personally worked with the mentally retarded, as a teacher, counselor, volunteer, care, etc. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 133 Considering all of the times you have talked, worked or in some way had personal contact with mentally retarded, about how much has it been altogether? 1. only a few casual contacts 2. between one and three months 3. between three months and six months 4. between six months to one year 5. more than one year of contact When you have been in contact with the mentally retarded, how easy for you, in general, would you say it would have been to have avoided being with them? I have had no contact. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts only at great cost or difficulty. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts but with some inconvenience. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts without any difficulty or inconvenience. «hWN-J How have you generally felt about your experiences with mentally retarded? no experience I definitely dislike it. I did not like it very much. I like it somewhat. I definitely enjoyed it. m-wa-H The following questions have to do with kinds of experiences you have had with the blind. If more than one experience applies, please choose the answer with the highest number. 1. I have read or studied about the blind through reading, movies, lectures or observation. 2. A friend or relative is blind. 3. I have personally worked with the blind as a teacher, counselor, volunteer, care, etc. When you have been in contact with the blind, how easy for you, in general, would you say it would have been to have avoided being with them? 1 I have had no contact. ‘ 2 I could generally have avoided these personal contacts only at great cost or difficulty. 3. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts but with some inconvenience. 4 I could generally have avoided these personal contacts without any difficulty or inconvenience. 134 99. Considering all of the times you have talked, worked or in some way had personal contact with the blind, about how much time has it been altogether? 1. only a few contacts 2. between one and three months 3. between three months and six months 4. between six months and one year 5. more than one year of contact H p 100. ow have you generally felt about your experiences with blind 1 no experience 2. I definitely dislike it. 3. I did not like it very much. 4 I definitely enjoyed it. Thank you. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. REFERENCES 135 REFERENCES Allport, G. W. Attitudes. In C. M. Murchison (Ed.), The handbook of social psychology, Worchester, Mass.: Clark University Press, 1935. Anatasi, A. Psychological testing(2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan, 1961. Audi, R. On the conception of measurement of attitudes in contem- porary Anglo-American psychology. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 1972 9(2), 179-203. . Bastide, R., & Vandenberghe, P. Stereotypes, norms, and interracial behavior in Sao Paulo, Brazil. American Sociologjcal Review, 1957. 22, 689-694. Bogardes, E. C. Social distance and its practical implications. Sociology and Social Research, 1933, 17, 265-271. Brodwin, M. A facet theory analysis of "What's In a Name“ black versus negro. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973. Dobb, L. W. The behavior of attitudes. Psychological Review 1974, §fl, 134-156. Elizur, D. Adapting to innovation: A facet analysis of the case of the computer. Jerusalem: Jerusalem Academic Press, 1970. Elizur, D., and Guttman, L. The structure of attitudes toward work and technological change within an organization. The Israel Institute of Applied Social Research, 1976. Erb, D. L. "Racial attitudes and empathy": A Guttman facet theory examination of their relationships and determinants. Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Fishbein, M. A., & Ravin, B. H. The AB Scales: An operational defi- _ nition of belief and attitude. Human Relations, 1962, 19, 35-44. Foa, U. New developments in facet designed analysis. Psychological Review, 1965, 195, 262-274. 136 137 Foa, U. G. Three kinds of behavioral change. Psychological Bulle- 310, 1968, 19(6). 460-473. Foa, U. G., & Turner, J. L. Psychology in the year 2000: Going structural. American Psychologist, 1970 99(3), 244-247. Frechette, E. J. Attitudes of French and English speaking Canadians toward West Indian immigrants: A Guttman facet analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Goode & Hatt. Methods in social research. New York: McGraw Hill, 1‘ 1952. .: Gottlieb, K. R. A Guttman facet analysis of attitudes toward the mentallyyretarded in Colombia: Content, structure, and I, determinants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973. Gratch, H. Twenty~five years of social research in Israel. Jerusa--~ lem: Jerusalem Academic Press, 1973. Guttman, L. A basis for scaling qualitative data. American Soci-. ologjcal Review, 1944, 9, 139-150. Guttman, L. The Cornell technique for scale and intensity analysis. Educational and Psyehological Measurement, 1947, 9(2), 247- 280. Guttman, L. The problem of attitude and opinion measurement. In S. H. Stauffer et a1., Measurement and Prediction. Princeton, 1950. Guttman, L. Image theory for the structure of quantitative variates. Psychometrika, 1953, 19, 277-296. Guttman, L. An outline of some new methodology for social research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1954-55, 19, 395-404. Guttman, L. A new approach to factor analysis: The radex. In P. F. Lazarafeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking in the social sciences, 1954. Guttman, L. A structural theory for intergroup beliefs and actions. American Sociological Review, 1959, g5, 318-328. Guttman, L. A faceted definition of intelligence. In Studies in psychology, Scripta Hierasalynitana. Jerusalem: The Hewbrew University, 1965, 15, 166-181. 138 Guttman, L. Order analysis of correlation matrices. In R. B. Cattel (Ed.), Handbook of multivariate experimentalypsy- chology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966. Guttman, L. The development of nonmetric space analysis: A letter to Professor John Ross. Multivariate Behavioral Research, January 1967, g, 71-82. Guttman, L. A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinate space for a configuration of points. Psycho- metrika, 1968, 99(4), 469-506. Guttman, L. Measurement as structural theory. Psychometrika, 1971, §§3 329-347. Guttman, L.. & Guttman, R. Theory of behavioral generality and specificity duripgymild stress. Jerusalem: Jerusalem School of Business Administration, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, February 1975. Guttman, L., 81 Levy, S. Adjustment to Retirement. Jerusalem: ‘ Hadassah Medical Organization and the Israel Institute of Applied Social Research, 1970. Green, 8. F. Attitude measurement. In G. Lendzey (Ed.), The hand- book of socialpsychology(Vol. 1). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1954. Hamersma, 11.-1. Construction of an attitude-behavior scale of Negroes and Whites toward each other using Guttman facet design in analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Harrelson, L. E. A Guttman facet analysis of attitudes toward the mentally retarded in the Federal Republic of Germany: Con- tent, structure, and determinants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Harrelson, L., Jordan, J. E., 3. Horn. H. An application of Gutt- man facet theory to the study of attitude toward the men- tally retarded in Germany. The Journal of Psychology. 1972, §Qs 323-335. Hoyt, C. J. Test reliability estimated by analysis of variance. In W. Mehrens and R. Ebel (Eds.), Principles of educational andypsychologjcal measurement. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967. Jordan, J. E. Attitudes toward education and physicallyydisabled persons in eleven nations. East Lansing, Mich.: Latin American Studies Center, Michigan State University, 1968. 139 Jordan, J. E. Attitude behaviors toward mentally retardegypersons: A cross-cultural analysis. Final report, U.S. Office of Education, Grant No. OEG-O-8-00126-0197, Project No. 7-E- 126, 1970. (b). Jordan, J. E. Attitude-behavior research on physical-mental-social disability and racial-ethnic differences. Psychological Aspects of Disability, 1971, 19(1), 5-26. Jordan, J. E. Facet theory and the study of behavior. Unpublished. 1976. Jordan, J. E., Adis-Castro, G., 81 Zuniga, E. Construccion de una escala transcultural de comportamiento actitudinal hacia el retardo mental de acuerdo con la teoria de facetas de Guttman. Revista Inter-Americana de Psicologia, 1974, 9, 1-2, 1-23. Jordan, J., 81 Guttman, L. Facet theory and cross-cultural research. Unpublished, 1976. Kaple, J. M. Development of an attitude-behavior toward drug users- scale employigq Guttman facet design and analysis. Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. Kats, R. Past and present in work life. Druk Roeland FOTO-Offset N.V., Den Haag, 1972. Krech, 0., Crutchfield, R. S., 8- Ballachey, E. L. Individual in society. New York: McGraw Hill, 1962. Levy, S. Use of the mapping sentence for coordinating theory and research: A cross-cultural example. Quality and Quantity: European-American Journal of Methodology. 1976, 19, Levy, 5., 81 Guttman. L. On the multivariate structure of wellbeing. Social Indicators Research 2 (1975), 361-388, 1975, by D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dor drecht - Holland. Lingoes, J. C. An IBM-7090 program for Guttman-Lingoes smallest space analysis--I. Behavioral Science, 1965, 19, 183-184. Lingoes, J. C. New computer developments in pattern analysis and nonmetric techniques. Uses of computers in psychological research--The 1964 IBM symposium of statistics. Paris: Gauthier-Villars, 1966. - Lingoes, J. C. The multivariate analysis of qualitative data. Multivariate Beavhioral Research, 1968. pp. 61-94. 140 Lingoes, J. C. The Guttman-Lingoes nonmetric program series. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Mathesis Press, 1973. Lingoes, J. C., 8: Roskam, E. A. A mathematical and empirical study of two multidimensional scaling algorithms. Multivari- ate Behavioral Research, 1971, g, Maierle, J. P. An application of Guttman facet analysis to attitude scale construction: A methodo1ggica1 study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. McGuire, N. J. The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindsey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (2nd ed.). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969, Vol. III. Morin, K. N. Attitudes of Texas Mexican-Americans toward mental retardation: A Guttman facet analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Nie, N., Hull, C., Jenkins, J., & Bent, D. Statistical Package for the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill, 1970. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tamrenbaum, P. H. The measurement of meaning. University of Illinois Press, 1957. Park, R. E. The concept of social distance. Journal of Applied Sociology, 1902, g, 339-344. Paulos, T. H. Attitudes toward the deaf: A Guttman facet theory analysis of their content, structure, and determinants. Michigan State University, 1970. Rokeach, M. Beliefs, attitudes and values. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1968. Scheifley, V. M., & Schmidt, N. H. Univariate and multivariate analysis of variance, co-variance, and regression. Occasional paper #22, Office of Research Consultation, College of Educa- tion, Michigan State University, 1973. Schlesinger, J. M., & Guttman, L. Smallest space analysis of intelligence and achievement tests. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 21, 95-100. Shaw, M. E., & Wright, J. M. Scales for the measurement of atti- tudes. New York: McGraw Hill, 1967. Staats, H. H. An outline of an integrated learning theory of atti- tude formation and function. In Martin Fishbein, Reading in attitude, theory and measurement. New York: John Wiley Press, 1967. 141 Thurston, L. L. The measurement of social attitudes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1931, 26, 249-266. Underwood, B. J. Experimental psychology. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, 1966. Vurdelja, D. Attitudes of mothers of mentally retarded and non- retarded in four nations: A Guttman facet ana1ysis. Unpub- 1ished master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1970. Williams, W. Attitudes of Black and White policemen toward the gpposite race. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES 1|1111111111111WWII“1111111”WWW 31293102804758