Table Of ContentINFORMATION TO USERS
This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as
received.
Xerox University Microfilms
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
Th-hlpO
“ 3907 1
1951 Zalkind, Sheldon S ., 1922-
22 ^•lie ef f ects of d irectio n al bias of
j * context on the responses to attitu d e
I itemso
! iii,li|-3po tab les, form s.
I Thesis (Ph.D .) - N.Y.U., Graduate
| School, 1951o'
! B ibliogroohy:n.139-1^3.
tude (Psychology) 2 .D isserta-
\ tio n s, Academic - K.Y.U. - 1951 •
! I.T itle:D irectio n a3 bias of context on
i the responses to attitu d e item s.
.3
Shell List
Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED.
SHE EFFECTS OF DIRECTIONAL BIAS OF CONTEXT OH SHE
RESPONSES TO ATTITUDE ITEMS
oy
Sheldon S. Zalkind
April 1951
A dissertation in the department of Psychology
submitted in partial fulfillm ent of the
reauirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy at New York University.
A CKNOWXSDG-MENTS
The writer wishes to express his deep appreciation to
Professor George B. Vetter for the sustained and keen interest,
guidance, and criticism throughout all phases of this study. To
the many members of the Departments of Psychology of the
Washington Square College of Arts and Science and the University
College of Arts and Science of New York University, the author is
indebted for permission to use their classes at various stages of
the experiment. To the members of his family and friends who have
greatly assisted in many of the necessary tasks this brief statement
is an inadequate expression of the deep gratitude which he feels.
lOAtc
10
Table of Contents
Page
Statement of the Purpose of the Experiment 1
Historical Background 3
I- Experimental studies of the effect of varying
ranges of stimuli upon the response 3
A- The method of absolute judgment 6
B- Studies in which the stimuli varied along
a physical dimension 7
C- Experiments involving an affective or
evaluative response to varied ranges of
stim uli 10
D- The effects of the direct introduction of
social norms lU
II- H istorical background from the study of attitudes
and opinions 16
A- Definitions of attitude 18
B- Variation only in the sequence of presentation
of the material 20
C- Variation in the context of material, involving
content interaction 23
D- Variation in the range of the stimulus context
presented to the subject 2?
Description of the Experiment 31
A- Terminology employed in this experiment 31
3- Restatement of the problem, and the purpose of
the experiment 33
C- The variables studied 3h
D- The design of the experiment 3b
E- I hypotheses 37
Procedure Ii3
I- Selection of the topics 1j3
A- Responses to open-end questions 1+U
B- Information from other sources bS
C- Rating of topics from a prepared lis t U6
II- Selection of the items 51
A- Sources of items 51
B- Classification of items 3b
IH - Construction and administration of the
experimental forms 59
A- Construction of the forms 59
B- Administration of the experiment 62
IV- Treatment of the data
A- Mechanics of handling 66
B- S tatistical techniques and formulae used 68
ii
Results 73
I- Results for key items for each topic 7U
II- The final information pages of the questionnaire 106
Discussion 108
I- The number of significant differences 108A
II- The magnitude of the differences 110
III- The nature of the differences 111
IV- Relationship of findings to previous work in
the field 121
A- Previous studies 122
B- The variables used 12l|.
C- Recapitulation 3.29
Summary and Conclusions 133
Bibliography 139
iii
List of Tables and Appendices
Tables Page
I - Mean ratings on 7 questions for selection of
14 topics. 50
II - Frequency distributions for item classification. 58 - 58F
p
III - Comparisons of mean and s which were made for
each topic. ~J2
IV - Results for key items for each topic. 79 - 105
V - Summary of the number of statistically significant
mean and s^ differences and the number of differences
tested, (summed for a ll l4 topics). 109
VI - Three-fold classification of items for which
statistically significant differences were found. 113
Appendices
I - List of 95 topics used for topic selection.
II - Instructions for item classification and item sets
on l4 topics.
Ill - Instructions for response to experimental forms.
p
IV - Pinal page of questionnaire; mean and s on 7 questions
for ratings of l4 topics.
V - Frequency distributions on personal data of subjects
grouped according to experimental forms.
The Effects of Directional Dias of Context on the Response to Attitude Items
Statement of the purpose of the experiment:
Reference has been made in the psychological literature to the
differences in the acceptability of an attitude statement with differences
in the context with which the statement is presented. This is part of the
general problem of whether variations in the interrelationships of certain
symbolic stimulus material results in differences in the responses of groups
of individuals to particular stim uli.
A great deal of work has shown that the response to a given
stimulus is affected by the other stim uli which are present. Certainly the
use of such terms as frame of reference, context, suggestibility, set,
adaptation level, norms, anchoring effects, and figure-ground relationsliip,
and the emphasis on the relational character of perception, by the workers
tillin g various field s of psychology indicates widespread recognition of the
idea that the response to a stimulus may be affected by other stim uli in the
situation.
As w ill be discussed in the first part of the background section,
various studies have been conducted which show that the range of stim uli
previously experienced w ill influence the response to a given stimulus in an
experimental situation.
An area in which the stress on the interrelationships of stim uli
has been tacitly recognized without being system atically linked to other
psychological areas in an experimentally demonstrated manner is that of opini
and attitude measurement. Here the concern with stimulus interrelationships
has involved such problems as question wording, interviewer effects, and the
order of statements on a questionnaire. That these problems have not
been formulated in terms more in line with the work on psychophysics
or perception does not mean that there is not an underlying kinship in
the nature of the problems, despite differences in the materials used
(as well, frequently, as differences in the "experimental" vs. "applied"
interests of the investigators).
The experiment which is the basis of this report is an attempt
at adapting the findings of some of the experimental studies using vary
ing ranges of stimuli to the concerns of the attitude research worker.
The experiment performed was an attempt at investigating some of the
effects which variations in attitude item contexts have on the responses
to other attitude items which follow these contexts. These effects have
been studied for each of lh topics. (For the detailed, specific state
ment of the problem, please see p. 33.) Three sorts of directions of
context were used; one context consisted only of attitude items which
had previously been judged as unfavorable to the given topic; the second
consisted only of items which had previously been judged as neither
favorable nor unfavorable to the given topic; the third direction of
context consisted only of attitude items which had previously been
judged as favorable to the given topic. The investigation attempted to
determine whether or not the responses to a specified (key) attitude
item would be influenced by the direction of the context items which
preceded it.
Historical Background
As indicated in the introductory statement, there are two major,
and historically more or less discrete, background areas for the present
study: First, those investigations of the effect^of other stimuli in a
situation on the response to a given or specified stimulus; and second,
various of the public opinion and attitude measurement studies. From each
of these areas let us consider the material relevant to our study.
I- Experimental studies of the effects|of varying ranges of stimuli upon
the response:
In presenting this section of the historical background, it is
necessary to delimit the area from which studies w ill be selected. Those
studies to be reviewed below w ill include those in which there was variation
in the range of stimuli presented to the subjects; and also those which deal
more or less directly with some aspect of contextual influence in line with
either the conceptualization or the methodology of the problem (i.e ., a
criterion of relevance is being used).
By the term "range of stimuli" we mean variation along some physical
or psychological dimension. For instance, with weights as the physical stimuli,
the range would be expressed in terms of heaviness or lightness; the term
"restricted range" would mean the use or only relatively "heavy" or "light"
weights in the given situation. Esthetic preference would be considered to
involve a psychological dimension; the stimuli could be judged in terms of
pleasantness or unpleasantness. A restricted range would ihdicate the use
of only stimuli of either the pleasant or unpleasant sort. In terms of other
evaluative situations, the desirability or undesirability of some form of
stimulus might be the dimension used. Evaluation might also be expressed
as including some dimension of favorable or unfavorable attitudes toward
the stimuli; restriction of the range in this area would mean using only the
stimuli previously called desirable, or only the undesirable. With
attitude statements, one could attempt experimentedly to
