Self-Ratings in Attitude Measurement: Resistance to Short-Term Recalibration and Contrast

Abstract

An extension has been made of past research on the theory of "psychological perspective" (Ostrom and Upshaw, 1968) that emphasizes the concept of rating scale calibration in attitude measurement. Perspective theory may hold implications for attitude surveys in that differences in attitude across groups or individuals may be diluted, exaggerated, or real depending on differences in perspective when completing self-ratings of attitude on a graphic scale. A second implication, however, is that scales may become recalibrated transiently, as in the classic contrast effect. A conservative test of this second implication of the model was provided to investigate whether the use of simple graphic rating scales in attitude measurement may be complicated by this type of transient scale shift. Hypothesized initial shifts and their temporal decay were investigated. However, the data did not support the short term recalibration effect. Overall, the data supplemented past research that supports the use of graphic rating scales as valid and reliable measures of attitude. It is also suggested that in some situations, a single graphic rating may be effectively substituted for longer and more sophisticated scaling techniques.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brickner, M. A. , Harkins, S. G. , and Ostrom, T. M. (1986). The effects of personal involvement: Thought provoking implications for social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 763-769.

Edwards, A. L. (1957). Techniques of attitude scale construction. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.

Golembiewski, R. J. , Billingsley, K. R. , and Yeager, S. (1976). Measuring change and persistence in human affairs. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 12, 133-157.

Howard, G. S. , Ralph, K. M. , Gulancik, N. A. , Maxwell, S. E. , Nance, D. W. , and Gerber, S. K. (1979). Internal invalidity in pretest-posttest self-report evaluations and a re-evaluation of retrospective pretests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13, 1-23.

Kinder, D. , Smith, T. , and Gerard, H. (1976). The attitude labeling process outside of the laboratory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 480-491.

Murphy, K. R. , Balzer, W. K. , Lockhart, M. C. , and Eisenman, E. J. (1985). Effects of previous performance evaluations on evaluations of present performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 72-84.

Ostrom, T. M. and Upshaw, H. S. (1968). Psychological perspective and attitude change. In A. Greenwald , T. Brock and T. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological Foundations of Attitudes. New York: Academic Press.

Petty, R. and Caccioppo, J. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Company, Publishers.

Riker, B. L. (1944). A comparison of methods used in attitude research, Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 39, 24-42.

10.

Taylor, J. B. and Parker, H. A. (1964). Graphic ratings and attitude measurement: A comparison of research tactics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48, 37-42.

11.

Upshaw, H. S. (1978). Social influence on attitudes and on anchoring of congeneric attitude scales. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 327-339.

12.

Upshaw, H. S. , Ostrom, T. M. , and Ward, C. D. (1970). Content versus self-rating in attitude research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 272-279.

13.

Webster, E. (1982). The employment interview: A social judgement process. Schomberg, Ontario, Canada: S.I.P. Publications.

14.

Wexley, K. , Yukl, G. , Kovacs, S. , and Sanders, R. (1972). Importance of contrast effects in employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 45-58.