Kirwin and Shaffer recently conducted a study examining the role of dogmatism as a possible moderator of the relationship between judge's instructions and mockjury decisions. The study was defwient in that it inappropriately applied an individuallevel construct (dogmatism) to groups; used incorrect scaling procedures and an inappropriate statistical analysis, leading to incorrect conclusions; and used aggregate data to draw conclusions concerning individual behavior, thereby losing information available in the data. Implications of these problems for research design are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, L. R. , & Ager, J. W. (1978). Analysis of variance in small group research. Penonalty and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 341-345.
2.
Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press.
3.
Dixon, W. J. (Ed.). (1983). BMDPstatistical softwareBerkeley: University of California Press.
4.
Forsyth, D. R. (1990). Group dynamics (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
5.
Galtung, J. (1967). Theory and methods of social rsearch. New York: Columbia University Press.
6.
Ghiselli, E. E. , Campbell, J. P., & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences. New York: W. H. Freeman.
7.
Hastie, R. , Penrod, S. D., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press.
8.
Hopkins, K. D. (1982). The unit of analysis: Group means versus individual observations. Amemican Educational Researchjournal19, 5-18.
9.
James, L R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 67, 219-229.
10.
Judd, G. M. , & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Estimating the effects of social inter- ventions. New York: Columbia University Press.
11.
Kerwin, J. , & Shaffer, D. R. (1991). The effects ofjury dogmatism on reactions to jury nullification instructions. Personality and Social Psychology Buletzi, 17, 140-146.
12.
Kirk, R. E. (1982). Experimental design (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
13.
Lazarsfeld, P. F. , & Menzel, H. (1961). On the relation between individual and collective properties. In A. Etzioni (Ed.), Complex organizations: A sociological reader (pp. 422-440). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
14.
Lunney, G. H. (1970). Using analysis of variance with a dichotomous dependent variable: An empirical study.Joumnal of Educational Mea- surement, 7, 26-269.
15.
Marascuilo, L. A. , & Busk, P. L. (1987). Loglinear models: Away to study main effects and interactions for multidimensional contingency tables with categorical data. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 443-455.
16.
Michell, J. (1986). Measurement scales and statistics: A clash of paradigms. Psychological BuUetin, 100, 398-407.
17.
Myers, J. L. , DiCecco, J. V., White, J. B., & Borden, V. M. (1982). Repeated measures on dichotomous variables: Qand Ftests. PsychologicalBulletin, 92, 517-525.
18.
Roberts, K. H. , Hulin, C. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1978). Developing an interdisciplinary science of organizations. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
19.
Zeller, R. A. , & Carmines, E. G. (1980). Measurment in the social sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
