It has often been observed in experimental studies that the reliability of items increases if the same questions are asked of the same respondents more than once. This phenomenon, called the “Socratic effect,” also occurs in nonexperimental, short-wave panel studies. In the first section of this article a number of hypotheses presumed to underlie the “Socratic effect” are presented. It is argued that a distinction must be made between consistency processes at the structural level (latent attitudes) and the observational level (respondent behavior). Given this distinction, the hypotheses are tested within a LISREL framework that takes this differentiation into account. The hypotheses are then evaluated using four items to measure respondents' attitudes toward guestworkers in West Germany. By and large the central hypotheses are confirmed. It is also shown that two different models can be fit to the observed data equally well, and therefore a nonstatistical criterion has to be invoked to decide which model to use as the basic model for describing the stability and reliability of the attitude.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ABELSON, R. P.
and M. J. ROSENBERG (1958) “Symbolic psychologic: a model of attitudinal cognition.”Behavioral Sciences3: 1-13.
2.
BENTLER, P. M.
and D. G. BONNETT, D. G. (1980) “Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.”Psych. Bull.88: 588-606.
3.
BOGOZZI, R. D.
and C. FORNELL (1982) “Theoretical concepts, measurements and meaning,” pp. 24-38 in C. Fornell (ed.) The Second Generation of Multivariate Statistics, Vol. 2: Measurement and Evaluations. New York: Praeger.
4.
CAMPBELL, D. T.
and T. D. COOK (1979) Quasi-Experimentation, Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
5.
CONVERSE, P. E.
(1964) “The nature of belief systems in mass publics,” pp. 206-261 in D. E. Apter (ed.) Ideology and Discontent. New York: Free Press.
6.
CONVERSE, P. E.
(1970) “Attitudes and non-attitudes: continuation of a dialogue,” pp. 168-189 in E. R. Tufte (ed.) The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
7.
ESSER, H.
(1975) Soziale Regelmässigkeiten des Befragenverhaltens. Meisenheim am Glan: A. Hain.
8.
ESSER, H.
(1977) “Response set: methodische problematik und soziologische interpretation.”Zeitschrift für Soziologie6: 253-263.
9.
ESSER, H.
(1986) “Können befragte lügen? Zum konzept des `wahren wertes'im rahmen der handlungstheoretischen erklärung von situationseinflüssen bei der befragung.”Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie37: 314-336.
10.
FESTINGER, L.
(1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
11.
HEIDER, F.
(1958) The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: John Wiley.
12.
HEISE, D.
(1969) “Separating reliability and stability in test-retest-correlation.”Amer. Soc. Rev.34: 93-101.
13.
HEISE, F.
(1969) “Separating reliability and stability in test-retest-correlation.”Amer. Soc. Rev.34: 93-101.
14.
HEISE, D. R.
and G. BOHRNSTEDT (1970) “Validity, invalidity and reliability,” pp. 104-129 in E. F. Borgatta and G. W. Bohrnstedt (eds.) Sociological Methodology 1970. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
15.
HOLT, L. E.
(1970) “Resistance to persuasion on explicit beliefs as a function of commitment to and desirability of logically related beliefs.”J. of Personality and Social Psychology16: 583-591.
16.
IRLE, M.
(1975) Lehrbuch der Sozialpsychology. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
17.
JAGODZINSKI, W.
(1981) “Sozialstruktur, wertorientierungen und parteibindung: zur problematik eines sozialisationsmodells.”Zeitschrift für Soziologie10: 170-191.
18.
JAGODZINSKI, W.
(1984) “Wie transformiert man labile in stabile relationen? Zu den problemen der minderungskorrektur mit LISREL.”Zeitschrift für Soziologie13: 225-242.
19.
JAGODZINSKI, W. and S. K. KUHNEL (1986) “Wie zuverlassig lassen sich einstellungen zum sozialstaat messen? Ergebnisse einer retest-studie zur allgemeinen bevölkerungsumfrage sozialwissenschaften 1984.” Unpublished manuscript, Bremen.
20.
JÖRESKOG, K. G.
(1974) “Analyzing psychological data by structural analysis of covariance matrices,” pp. 1-56 in C. Atkinsonet al. (eds.) Contemporary Developments in Mathematical Psychology. San Francisco: Freeman.
21.
JÖRESKOG, K. G.
and D. SÖRBOM (1977) “Statistical models and methods for analysis of longitudinal data,” pp. 285-352 in D. J. Aigner and A. S. Goldberger (eds.) Latent Variables in Socio-Economic Models. Amsterdam: North Holland.
22.
JÖRESKOG, K. G.
and D. SÖRBOM (1985) LISREL VI User's Guide. Uppsala.
23.
JUDD, C. M.
, J. A. KROSNICK, and M. A. MILBURN (1981) “Political involvement and attitude structure in the general public.”Amer. Soc. Rev.46: 660-669.
24.
JUDD, C. M.
and M. A. MILBURN (1980) “The structure of attitude systems in the general public: comparisons of a structural equations model.”Amer. Soc. Rev.45: 627-643.
25.
LORD, F. M.
and M. R. NOVICK (1968) Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
26.
McGUIRE, W. J.
(1960) “Cognitive consistency and attitude change.”J. of Abnormal and Social Psychology3: 345-353.
27.
MELLENBERG, G. J.
, H. KELDERMAN, J. G. STIJLEN, and E. ZONDAG (1979) “Linear models for the analysis and construction of instruments in a facit designs.”Psych. Bull.86: 766-776.
28.
OLSSON, U.
(1979a) “Maximum likelihood estimation of the polychoric correlation coefficient.”Psychometrica44: 443-460.
29.
OLSSON, U.
(1979b) “On the robustness of factor analysis against crude classification of the observations.”Multivariate Behavior Research11: 485-500.
30.
RAFFALOVICH, L. E.
and G. W. BOHRNSTEDT (forthcoming) “Common, specific, and error variance components: estimation with longitudinal data.”Soc. Methods and Research.
31.
ROSEN, N. A.
and R. S. WYER (1970) “Some further evidence for the `Socratic Effect' using a subjective probability model of cognitive organization.”J. of Personality and Social Psychology24: 420-424.
32.
SARIS, W. E.
(1982) “Different questions, different variables?” pp. 78-95 in C. Fornell (ed.) The Second Generation of Multivariate Statistics, Vol. 2: Measurement and Evaluations. New York: Praeger.
33.
SATORRA, A.
and W. E. SARIS (1985) “Power of the likelihood ratio test in covariance structure analysis.”Psychometrica50: 83-90.
34.
SCHUESSLER, K. F.
(1982) Measuring Social Life Feeling Scales. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
35.
SOBEL, M. E.
and G. W. BOHRNSTEDT (1985) “Use of null models in evaluating the fit of covariance structure models,” pp. 152-178 in N. B. Tuma (ed.) Sociological Methodology 1985. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
36.
STEGMÜLLER, W.
(1973) Probleme und Resultate der Wissenschaftstheorie und analytischen Philosophie. Band 2: Theorie und Erfahrung. New York: Springer.
37.
TAYLOR, H. F.
(1970) Balance in Small Groups. New York: Van Nostrand.
38.
WILEY, D. E.
and J. A. WILEY (1970) “The estimation of measurement error in panel data.”Amer. Soc. Rev.35: 112-117.
39.
ZAJONC, R. B.
(1980) “Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences.”Amer. Soc.35: 151-175.
