Zdep and Marco's criticisms of Kerlinger's criterial referent theory of attitudes, with one exception, lack validity. The criterial referent notion is misconstrued, attitudes are defined too narrowly, bipolarity of attitudes is plucked out of an unrotated factor matrix, and the nature and purpose of scientific theory seem to be misconceived.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CattellR. B.Factor analysis. New York: Harper & Row, 1952.
2.
HarmanH. H.Modern factor analysis. (2nd Ed.) Chicago: Univer. of Chicago Press, 1967.
3.
KerlingerF. N.Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1964.
4.
KerlingerF. N.Social attitudes and their criterial referents: A structural theory. Psychological Review, 1967, 74, 110–112.
5.
KrechD.CrutchfieldR. S.Theory and problems of social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1948.
6.
McGuireW. J.The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In LindzeyG.AronsonE. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology. (2nd ed.) Vol. 3. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1969. Pp. 136–314.
RokeachM.Beliefs, attitudes, and values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968.
9.
RosenblattS. M.Empirical study of the sampling error of principal components and varimax rotation factor loadings. American Psychological Association, Proceedings, 77th Annual Convention, 1969, 3, 115–116.
10.
ShawM. E.WrightJ. M.Scales for the measurement of attitudes. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
11.
ThurstoneL. L.Multiple-factor analysis. Chicago: Univer. of Chicago Press, 1947.
12.
ZdepS. M.MarcoG. L.A commentary on Kerlinger's structural theory of social attitudes. Psychological Reports, 1969, 29, 731–738.
