Attitude Measurement
- Article's photo | Credit DQRD
AttitudesOpens in new window are complex mental states that influence our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors towards specific objects, people, or events. Since we can't directly observe them, measuring attitudes relies on various techniques to understand their underlying structure and strength.
What is Attitude Measurement?
Defining Attitude Formation:
Attitude measurement is the systematic evaluation of an individual's beliefs, feelings, and behavioral tendencies towards an object, person, or situation. These attitudes can range from the explicit to the implicit, shaping our responses to the world around us.
To measure attitudes effectively, researchers employ a diverse array of methodologies, each tailored to capture the nuanced nature of human perspectives.
Attitude Surveys
Attitude surveys are widely employed method entails presenting respondents with a set of questions, either through questionnaires or telephone interviews. Questions may be open-ended or close-ended, with the latter, such as "Are women qualified to be the President of India?", simplifying analysis. While open-ended questions yield in-depth information, they are often challenging to interpret.
Rating Scales
Rating scales, like Thurstone and Likert Scales, offer structured approaches. Thurstone Scales involve assigning numerical values to statements, requiring respondents to agree or disagree. Likert Scales simplify this process with a range of responses, allowing nuanced opinions.
Thurstone Scales
Developed by Thurstone, these scales assign numerical values to statements, producing a mean score indicating an individual's attitude.(see Exhibit I).
Exhibit I: Thurstone Scale Items Assessing Attitudes Toward Euthanasia (Tordella and Neutens, 1979) - Each item’s scale values (range = 1 to 5) is given in parentheses. The respondents do not know the values.
- A person with a terminal illness has the right to decide to die. (4.15)
- Inducing death for merciful reasons is wrong. (1.65)
- A person should not be kept alive by machines. (2.44)
- Euthanasia gives a person a chance to die with dignity. (4.29)
- The taking of human life is wrong, no matter what the circumstances. (1.36)
People check each of the statements to which they agree, and a mean score is computed, indicating their attitude. As the developer of the scale needs to make sure, that a wide range of possible views is expressed in the statements used, the Thurstone scales are quite complex and time consuming. This is particularly important, since the only responses allowed are agreement and disagreement. Thus, their main drawback is that they are very time-consuming, and therefore expensive to produce.
Likert Scales
Likert's approach simplifies the process by using a five-point scale, providing a range of responses from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
Exhibit II: Sample Liker Scale For each of the statements below, please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement by placing a tick (√) in the appropriate box. 1. People who commit murder should be hanged Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 2. Trial jury should be abolished Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree With this method, there is no requirement for the judges to categorize each statement, as the categorization is built into the scale. Assigning the score from 1 to 5 to each of the responses, scores the Likert scales. Then the totaling of the score is done, to give a final measure of the individual’s attitude.
Guttman Scales
Guttman's scales emphasize unidimensionality, where agreeing with one item implies agreement with all prior items. An example involves measuring attitudes towards refugees with a hierarchy of questions.
The sum of the affirmative responses represents the subject’s level of the attribute under study. The attitude construct is more narrowly focused on this scale, than on the other scaling methods.
The following is an example of a Guttman scale measuring the discriminative attitude:
- Would you marry a refugee?
- Would you accept a refugee as a close friend?
- Do you find refugees living in you neighborhood acceptable?
- Should refugees be allowed to live in the same neighborhood, as others?
Bogardus' Social Distance Scale
Designed to gauge racial or ethnic prejudice, this scale ranks acceptance levels across different relationships, assigning scores accordingly.
The respondent is given a series of statements concerning the possible relationships, and is asked to say to what extent he would accept the relationship depicted.
The scale asks the people, whether they would be willing to accept each group: - As close relatives by marriage (1.00)
- As my close personal friends (2.00)
- As neighbours on the same street (3.00)
- As co-workers in the same occupation (4.00)
- As citizens in my country (5.00)
- As only visitors in my country (6.00)
- Would exclude from my country (7.00)
A score of 1.00 for a group indicates no social distance and therefore no prejudice. The respondents would be asked to tick those relationships they would find acceptable, and overall the scale provides a measure of racial prejudice.
Semantic Differential Scale
Introduced by Osgood et al., this scale assesses attitudes along three dimensions—evaluative, potency, and activity—allowing for a nuanced understanding of attitudes.
To measure each of these three dimension, they developed the semantic differential, a scale consisting of a number of different dimensions, against which the attitude object could be evaluated. The dimensions would typically be:
-
1. Pleasant ………………... Unpleasant
2. Strong ………………….... Weak
3. Fast ……………………...... Slow
4. Active ………………….... Passive
5. Hard ……………………..... Soft
6. Good ……………………..... BadThe attitude object is evaluated along each of these dimensions, and the results can then differentiate among the three dimensions of the attitude, i.e. evaluative (1,6); potency (2,5) and activity (3,4).
Using this technique, it is possible not only to find out if the attitude objects are judges as favorable or unfavorable, but also why that might be the case in terms of the three dimensions.
Physiological Measurements
Our emotions often leave subtle traces in our bodies. Techniques like Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) measure changes in skin conductivity, while facial Electromyography (EMG) detects muscle activity associated with positive or negative emotions. These methods offer objective data but can be influenced by various factors beyond just attitude.
Galvanic Skin Response
The Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) stands out as a crucial objective indicator of attitudes due to its ability to measure the electrical resistance of the skin, a factor that fluctuates with emotional arousal. This enables the assessment of an individual's emotional response towards a particular attitude object.
For instance, in a 1967 experiment conducted by Porier and Lott, black and white experimenters unintentionally touched white subjects. The extent of the subjects' racial prejudices, previously gauged through a questionnaire, correlated with the variations in their galvanic skin response when touched by the black experimenter compared to the white experimenter.
However, a notable limitation of psycho-physiological indicators like GSR is their focus on assessing the intensity of emotional responses rather than their direction. Factors such as the novelty and unexpectedness of attitudes can also impact these measures, presenting a challenge in accurately capturing the nuanced aspects of attitudes.
The Facial Electromyogram
The Facial Electromyogram (EMG) serves as an objective indicator of attitudes, enabling the measurement of attitude quality or direction (positiveness/negativity). This tool distinguishes between positive and negative attitudes by detecting subtle differences. When individuals hear an agreeable message, there is a relative increase in EMG activity in specific muscles and a relative decrease in another set, changes often imperceptible to the naked eye.
Despite its potential, physiological measures of attitudes, like the facial EMG, are infrequently utilized in practical settings. One reason is the instruments' limited sensitivity to the quality of attitudinal responses. Additionally, the challenge lies in the necessity of employing technical devices, which are not easily applicable in field settings.
Behavioral Measures
Behavioral measures involve deriving attitude indicators from observable behavior patterns. In most cases, subjects are aware of being observed, but non-reactive measurement involves observing subjects without their knowledge or analyzing certain behavior patterns indirectly.
These attitudinal measures are termed behavior indicators, observation techniques, and unobtrusive measures. For instance, in an early study, researchers determined voting preferences by counting bumper stickers for a specific candidate on cars in a parking lot (Wrightsman, 1969). Others assessed attitudes toward competing cola brands by examining garbage cans, or gauged the popularity of a museum exhibit by measuring wear and tear on the carpet (Webb et al., 1981).
Unobtrusive measurement methods are less susceptible to conscious distortions than self-report methods, but this advantage comes at the expense of significant interpretative ambiguities and ethical concerns, such as the questionable validity of the obtained measures. Deciphering the precise meaning of these objective indicators in relation to attitudes is challenging, often influenced by motives or situational constraints rather than genuine attitudes.
The lost-letter technique serves as an example of unobtrusive measurement. When seeking to measure a community's attitude toward foreigners, a researcher might encounter dishonest responses on a questionnaire. However, by using stamps and envelopes for the lost-letter technique, the researcher can drop envelopes with foreign-sounding names on crowded streets near the post office. The collected envelopes are then compared, revealing the community's attitude toward foreigners based on the names associated with the found envelopes.
Cognitive Measures
In recent years, a novel test has emerged to assess implicit attitudes, self-concepts, and other crucial aspects of our cognitive system. The term "implicit" refers to mental associations that are relatively automatic. The Implicit Association Test (IAT), developed by Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwarz (1998), stands out as the most well-known implicit measures test.
Implicit attitudes are those we hold but are unaware of, making direct reporting of these attitudes challenging. The IAT aims to gauge the strength of connections between two concepts. For instance, test-takers are prompted to rapidly associate stimuli, such as words or pictures, with a specific pair of targets. The IAT seeks to access our unconscious associations and has been utilized to delve into the unconscious foundations of various prejudicial attitudes.
Conclusion
Attitude measurement is a powerful tool for unlocking the secrets of human minds. By understanding our own and others' perspectives, we can navigate the complexities of social interaction, bridge divides, and foster positive change. So, the next time you find yourself pondering the motivations behind someone's actions or opinions, remember, the answer might lie not in their words, but in the intricacies of their attitudes, waiting to be measured and deciphered.
This blog post is just a starting point for your exploration of attitude measurement. Be sure to delve deeper into specific methods, explore the latest research, and consider the ethical implications of this fascinating field. After all, understanding attitudes is not just about numbers; it's about understanding the very essence of what makes us human.