<http://www.w3.org/2009/08/skos-reference/skos.html#note>
"A TWO MODEL DESCRIPTION OF ATTITUDINAL CHOICE PROCESSES FOR SUBJECTS WITH HIGH, MEDIUM AND LOW INVOLVEMENT IN THREE SOCIAL ISSUES by KEITH WOOD B .A . , The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1964 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n t h e Depar tment o f P s y c h o l o g y We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s a s c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1967 In presenting t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I f u r t h e r agree that permission f o r extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s representatives. It i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Psychology  The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver 3, Canada. Date April 28. 1967 i ABSTRACT The research reported here used Coombs' (1964) theory of data and evidence drawn from a t t i t u d e change research to construct two models which, i f correct, would describe the a t t i t u d i n a l choice and judgmental processes of, for the f i r s t model, an uninvolved S_ and, for the second model, a highly involved S_. Both models were depen dent on two of Coombs' (1964) eight classes of data, Petrusic's (1966) findings using single stimulus response latencies and the evidence from Sherif and Hovland (1961) and Ager and Dawes (1965) that a judge's attitude w i l l a f f e c t his judgment of f a v o u r a b i I i t y of a l t e r  native positions on a socia l issue. The t e s t of the models occurred when sing l e stimulus response latencies were c o l l e c t e d from Ss who were required to accept or reject a position and then indicate i f the po s i t i o n was more-pro or less-pro than his ideal p o s i t i o n on issues of high, medium, and low involvement. The accept-reject task was, according to Coombs' (1964) formulation, Q l l b data and the more-pro, less-pro task was QIIa(c..)- (categorization r e l a t i v e to an ideal p o i n t ) . The data did not follow the predictions of the models f o r any of the four Ss used. Thus, our major hypothesis that an individual who is not involved in a socia l issue w i l l judge a l t e r n a t i v e positions according to our f i r s t model (J-scale model) and that an individual who is highly involved in a so c i a l issue w i l l judge a l t e r n a t i v e positions according to our second model (I-scale model) was rejected. Additional classes of data col Iected did, however, r e p l i c a t e and confirm the findings of Petrusi.c (1966). We were able to show that i i t h e l a t e n c y d a t a c o l l e c t e d , whatever t h e a t t i t u d i n a l c h o i c e p r o c e s s i n v o l v e d , was r e l i a b l e and o r d e r l y f o r each S_ o v e r each i s s u e . ( E x c e p t f o r one S_on one i s s u e where a speed o r i e n t a t i o n was c l e a r l y shown). The o r d e r I i n e s s o f t h e d a t a was shown by t h e a b i l i t y o f QI3'a(c -.) and QI l b i n f e r r e d o r d e r i n g s t o p r e d i c t t h e o r d e r i n g o f QIa ( p r e f e r e n c e o r d e r i n g ) d a t a . i f i TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS \u2022\u00AB I LIST OF TABLES &gt;v LIST OF FIGURES v ACKNOWLEDGMENT..'. v i CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION 1 I . A t t i t u d e change and Involvement: An Overview 2 I I . Theory of Data: An Overview 7 CHAPTER I I - EXPERIMENTAL METHOD 20 I . Subjects \u2022 20 I I . S t i m u l i 20 I I I . Method and Apparatus 21 IV. Experimental Design 22 V. Procedure... 24 Part 1 24 Part 2..... 28 CHAPTER I I I - RESULTS 32 Part 1 32 Part 2 34 CHAPTER IV - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 46 APPENDIX - Compilation of a l l i n s t r u c t i o n s used in t h i s experiment ....&gt;\u2022 50 BIBLIOGRAPHY -r ' 6 0 i y L I S T OF T A B L E S T A B L E 3 . 1 . - T h e n u m b e r o f Q u i a SD pa.i r s c o r r e c t l y p r e d i c t e d by the Q T l a SD p a i r s 3 3 T A B L E 3 . 2 . - . Q ' j ib -v Q i a a n d Qna ( c ' t . ) -\u00BB\u2022 Q i a . T h e t o t a l n u m b e r o f c o r r e c t p a . i r w i s e p r e d i c t i o n s f o r e a c h i s s u e o f Q i a p a i r e d c o m p a r i s o n c h o i c e s f o r _S a n d S2 ; f r o m t h e Q l l b a n d Q l l a ( c _ . ) s i n g l e s t i m u I us d a t a 1 39 V LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1.1. - The e i g h t c l a s s e s of data In Coombs' (1964) Theory of Data 8 FIGURE 1.2. - Behavioral r e f e r e n t s of each quadrant 9 FIGURE 1.3. - A t y p i c a l - J - s c a l e 10 FIGURE 1.4. - I l l u s t r a t i n g J and I - s c a l e s a c c e p t - r e j e c t regions.. 11 FIGURE 1.5. - Latencies f o r a J - s c a l e r when asked (1) If any statement i s more-pro or less-pro than h i s own most pr e f e r r e d p o s i t i o n (c' 4.) and (2) If he accepts or r e j e c t s the various statements 17 FIGURE 1.6. - P a r t i a l f o l d i n g of J - s c a l e r around the ideal point (c j ) , representing increase - involvement from A t o D. 18 FIGURE 2.1. - S i n g l e stimulus s c a l e 21 FIGURE 3.1. - Q1lb and Ql1a ( c e J ) median SD SSRL's f o r high, medium, and low involvement f o r subjects 1 and 2 34a FIGURE 3.2. - Q l l b and QlI a (c..) median SD SSRL's f o r high, medium, and low involvement f o r subjects 3 and 4 34b v l ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would l i k e t o express my g r a t e f u l a p p r e c i a t i o n t o Dr. W. M. Pe t r u s t c who guided and supported t h i s research and Dr. T. Storm who took the time and t r o u b l e t o read and d i r e c t much of the pre- paratfon of t h i s paper. I would a l s o l i k e t o thank my w i f e , Aud, and Miss Sonja Sather f o r doing the most d i f f i c u l t task of a l l i n t y p i n g t h i s t h e s i s and Mr. H. K. Scherbler f o r the e x c e l l e n t work in drawing; the graphs. 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION It i s apparent a f t e r considerable experimental work in the area of a t t i t u d e change t h a t several relevant v a r i a b l e s have been i s o l a t e d . Research in t h i s area has freq u e n t l y proceeded in the absence of any systematic t h e o r e t i c a l framework. Moreover, the c o o r d i n a t i n g l i n k s between the c o g n i t i v e processes involved in a t t i t u d e change and the type of data u t i l i z e d to study these processes have r a r e l y been s p e c i f i e d . In p a r t i c u l a r , much of the research in t h i s area has u t i l i z e d a p a r t i c u l a r s c a l i n g technique - u s u a l l y a r a t i n g s c a l e . Whether the em p i r i c a l r e g u l a r i t i e s present i n t h i s research remain i n v a r i a n t under a l t e r n a t i v e s c a l i n g techniques and a l t e r n a t i v e response measures i s an open question. The purposes of t h i s study are t w o - f o l d . The f i r s t i s to i n v e s t i g a t e in an exp l o r a t o r y manner the f e a s i b i l i t y of u t i l i z i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s c a l i n g techniques 3S well as a l t e r n a t i v e response measures in a t t i t u d i n a l choice research. The second i s to u t i l i z e response latency and to process t h i s response measure according to the s c a l i n g methods provided in Coombs' (1964) Theory of Data, in order to s p e c i f y the r o l e of involvement in a t t i t u d i n a l choice processes. In order to provide some h i s t o r i c a l background f o r t h i s problem we w i l l f i r s t b r i e f l y review the studies, which have demonstrated t h a t \"ego-involvement\" i s a relevant v a r i a b l e in a t t i t u d e change. Since how we u t i l i z e response latency data depends on how we conc e p t u a l i z e the data generated by a subject in an a t t i t u d i n a l choice study, we w i l l next b r i e f l y review the main features of Coombs' (1964) Theory  of Data. F i n a l l y , we w i l l present two models which define ego-2 involvement in terms of basic choice processes and show how latency data can be u t i l i z e d to t e s t these models. 1. ATT I TUDE CHANGE AND INVOLVEMENT: AN OVERVIEW The concern show by several researchers ( H o v l a n d , H s r v o y , and Sherif, 1957; Freedman,. 1964; Sherif and NebergaI 1, 1965; Ager and Dawes, 1965) over the issue of involvement has grown from a great deal of research b a s i c a l I y concerned with a t t i t u d e change. Hovland and P r i t z k e r (1957) conducted a study on the extent of opinion change as a function of the amount of change advocated. The aim of the authors\u2022was to determine how much opinion change could, act ually be produced by communications that were s i i g h t l y y moderately, or markedly d i f f e r e n t from the audience's o r i g i n a I posit ion. The authors-found-that'their studies supported t h e i r contention that there wiII be greater change the greater the amount of change advocated, but i t should be noted that there was smaller r e l a t i v e change the greater the amount of change advocated., I t was also found that the number of boomerang responses, that is responses in the d i r e c t i o n opposite to the communication, was approximately the same for each condition. In th i s study, the 12 top ics used were not issues which involved- deep seated b e l i e f s or attitudes and could not be considered \"ego- involving\". It was also found that the r e l a t i v e amount of change produced becomes less the more change advocated. This suggests that there.will be some cut-off point beyond which no matter how much change is advocated, there w i l l be no change in opinion. Hovland,. Harvey and Sherif (1957) f e l t that one of the most important variables in a t t i t u d e change was ego-involvement. In order 3 t o e n s u r e i n v o l v e m e n t , t h e i s s u e chosen was t h e c o n t r o v e r s y o v e r p r o  h i b i t i o n and r e p e a l i n a \" d r y \" s t a t e . The s u b j e c t s were c a r e f u l l y chosen so as t o f a l l i n t o one of t h r e e g r o u p s ; t h o s e s t r o n g l y i n f a v o u r o f r e p e a l , t h o s e s t r o n g l y a g a i n s t r e p e a l and t h o s e h o l d i n g m i d d l e - o f - t h e - r o a d p o s i t i o n ? ; . Three equal and p a r a l l e d communications were p r e p a r e d , one r e  p r e s e n t i n g t h e extreme d r y s t a n d , one t h e extreme wet s t a n d and one a m o d e r a t e l y wet s t a n d . The r e s e a r c h e r s found a v e r y c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e s u b j e c t ' s own s t a n d and t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e communciation a l o n g t h e di m e n s i o n s of l i k i n g and f a i r n e s s . The communciat i o n s a d v o c a t i n g extreme s t a n d s have t h e i r peak of f a v o u r a b l e r e s p o n s e s among s u b j e c t s h a v i n g extreme p o s i t i o n s . I t was a l s o found t h a t s u b j e c t s w i t h more extreme p o s i t i o n s were l i k e l y t o r e j e c t p o s i t i o n s opposed t o t h i e r own. Freedman (1964) noted t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i s c r e p a n c y and change i s non-monotonic, w i t h maximum change o c c u r i n g a t moderate l e v e l s o f d i s c r e p a n c y . Freedman h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h e non-monotonic r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i s c r e p a n c y and change wou&gt;ld h o l d r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e degree.of i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n . Involvement would, however, be an i m p o r t a n t d e t e r m i n a n t o f t h e l e v e l o f d i s c r e p a n c y a t which maximum change occurs.. Freedman chose a c o n c e p t f o r m a t i o n t a s k as t h e i s s u e . S u b j e c t s had no i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n on t h e i s s u e and were m a n i p u l a t e d so as t o have h i g h o r low i n v o l v e m e n t . Freeedman found t h a t w i t h low i n v o l v e  ment a t t i t u d e change was monotonic w i t h a i l l e v e l s o f d i s c r e p a n c y t e s t  ed, but w i t h h i g h i n v o l v e m e n t a t t i t u d e change was non-monotonic w i t h 4 I n c r e a s e s i n d i s c r e p a n c y . S h e r i f and Hovland (1961) p o i n t e d o u t t h a t T h u r s t o n e ' s s c a l i n g a s s u m p t i o n t h a t a j u d g e ' s own a t t i t u d e w i l l not a f f e c t h i s r a t i n g s o f f &amp; v o u r a b i I i t y o f o t h e r p o s i t i o n s on t h e same i s s u e i s i n c o r r e c t . As Ager and Dawes (1965) p o i n t o u t , t h i s a s s u m p t i o n i s i n d i r e c t c o n t r a  d i c t i o n t o t h e w e l l a c c e p t e d a s s e r t i o n t h a t p e r c e p t i o n i s i n f l u e n c e d , by t h e a t t i t u d e o f t h e p e r c e i v e r . From t h i s i t f o l l o w s t h a t , R a t i n g o f f a v o u r a b i I i t y o f a t t i t u d e i s a sub- domain of r a t i n g o f a t t i t u d e , which i s a sub- domain of p e r c e p t i o n o f a t t i t u d e . And i f p e r c e p t i o n ' i s i n f l u e n c e d by t h e a t t i t u d e o f t h e p e r c e i v e r i t would be odd i f a narrow subdomain of p e r c e p t i o n were n o t . (Age r , J SW. and Dawes, R.M., 1965, p. 533) S h e r i f and N e b e r g a l l (1965) extended t h e Hovland s t u d i e s t h a t were c e n t e r e d around t h e a s s i m i l a t i o n - c o n t r a s t and e g o - i n v o l v e m e n t i s s u e . In t h e i r book, t h e a u t h o r s s t a t e t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l ' s r e  a c t i o n s t o a t t i t u d e r e l a t e d items a r e p r o d u c t s o f an u n d e r l y i n g judgemental p r o c e s s i n which t h e p e r s o n ' s a t t i t u d e s o p e r a t e as a d e t e r m i n i n g i n f l u e n c e . In o t h e r words, t h e a c c e p t a b l e and o b j e c t i o n  a b l e p o s i t i o n s on some i s s u e form t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s r e f e r e n c e s c a l e f o r j u d g i n g s p e c i f i c s t a t e m e n t s , o b j e c t s and e v e n t s on t h e same i s s u e . Thus, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e a u t h o r s , t h e i n d i v i d u a l s c a r r y around i n t h e i r heads s e t s o f d e f i n a b l e , a c c e p t a b l e and o b j e c t i o n a b l e p o s i t i o n s on any i s s u e . Moreoever, t h e more i n v o l v e d an i n d i v i d u a l i s i n t h e i s s u e , t h e more r e s t r i c t e d t h e r e f e r e n c e s c a l e f o r e v a l u a t i o n w i l l be; t h a t i s , t h e more i n v o l v e d t h e person i s , t h e more r e s t r i c t i v e he wiI I be \u2022 as t o t h e p o s i t i o n s which a r e a c c e p t a b l e . When a p e r s o n i s f a c e d w i t h some p o s i t i o n on an i s s u e , t h e p o s i t i o n i s e v a l u a t e d i n terms of t h e 5 r e f e r e n c e s c a l e t h e person i s c a r r y i n g around w i t h him. In most of t h e s t u d i e s t o d a t e t h e v a r i o u s p o s i t i o n s on some i s s u e have been e v a l u a t e d by independent j u d g e s a l o n g a s e m a n t i c continuum. T h i s continuum i s c o n s t r u c t e d such t h a t a t one extreme t h e s e m a n t i c meaning o f t h e s t a t e m e n t i s more pro t h a n any o t h e r s t a t e  ment on t h a t i s s u e . The n e x t p o s i t i o n a l o n g t h e continuum Would be t h e n e x t most pro s t a t e m e n t and so on, down t o t h e s t a t e m e n t which i s most s t r o n g l y a g a i n s t t h e i s s u e . S i n c e t h e s u b j e c t ' s own p o s i t i o n a f f e c t s how he p e r c e i v e s and j u d g e s t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s on t h i s c o n tinuum t h e r e i s no g u a r a n t e e t h a t he sees them as h a v i n g t h e same s p a c i n g o r as b e i n g i n t h e same o r d e r as t h e j u d g e s who r a t e d them. S h e r i f and Hovland (1965) have shown t h a t a h i g h l y i n v o l v e d i n d i v i d u a l views a l t e r n a t i v e p o s i t i o n s as b e i n g much f u r t h e r removed from h i s own p a r t i c u l a r p o s i t i o n t h a n i s a c t u a l l y t h e c a s e . The non- i n v o l v e d i n d i v i d u a l does not d i s p l a c e a l t e r n a t i v e p o s i t i o n s s i n c e h i s p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s i s not i n f l u e n c e d by a w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d a t t i t u d e towards t h e i s s u e . S h e r i f and Hovland (1961) and S h e r i f and N e b e r g a l l (1965) have both shown t h a t t h e number of a l t e r n a t i v e s a c c e p t a b l e t o an i n d i v i d u a l ( h i s l a t i t u d e of a c c e p t a n c e ) i s v e r y much t h e same r e g a r d l e s s of whether t h e i n d i v i d u a l i s i n v o l v e d o r n o t - i n v o l v e d i n t h e i s s u e . They say, however, t h a t t h e number o f a l t e r n a t i v e s which a r e n e i t h e r a c c e p t  a b l e nor u n a c c e p t a b l e t o an i n d i v i d u a l ( h i s l a t i t u d e of non-commitments) i s h i g h e r f o r n o n - i n v o l v e d t h a n f o r i n v o l v e d i n d i v i d u a l s . S i n c e t h e i n v o l v e d i n d i v i d u a l i s non-committal on v e r y few of t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s t h e n t h e number o f p o s i t i o n s he r e j e c t s ( h i s l a t i t u d e o f r e j e c t i o n ) i s g r e a t e r than t h e n o n - i n v o l v e d i n d i v i d u a l ' s . The a u t h o r s have t h u s 6 c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e l a t i t u d e o f r e j e c t i o n i s t h e b e s t s i n g l e i n d i c a t o r o f i n v o l v e m e n t . I t s h o u l d be n o t e d , however, t h a t t h e l a t i t u d e o f non-commitment was not o b t a i n e d by a s k i n g t h e i n d v i d u a l on how many of t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s he p r e f e r r e d t o remain uncommitted. R a t h e r , t h e l a t i t u d e was o b t a i n e d by d e t e r m i n i n g which a l t e r n a t i v e s were l e f t o v e r a f t e r t h e i n d i v i d u a l had i n d i c a t e d which p o s i t i o n s were a c c e p t a b l e o r u n a c c e p t a b l e . As we have s t a t e d , t h e i n v o l v e d i n d i v i d u a l w i t h a c l e a r l y d e f i n e d p o s i t i o n t e n d s t o v-iew a l t e r n a t i v e p o s i t i o n s as b e i n g f u r t h e r removed from h i s own p o s i t i o n than i s a c t u a l l y t h e c a s e . To go one s t e p f u r t h e r , we c o u l d s u ggest t h a t s i n c e t h e a l t e r n a t i v e p o s i t i o n s a r e d i s p l a c e d , t h e n what t h e i n d i v i d u a l has done i s t o c a t e g o r i z e t h e s e a l t e r n a t i v e s t o g e t h e r . Thus, when asked which p o s i t i o n s a r e a c c e p t a b l e and which ar e u n a c c e p t a b l e , t h e i n d i v i d u a l has no r e a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n t o make. He s i m p l y has t o know i n which c a t e g o r y t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s b e l o n g . I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l w i l l be uncommitted on any o f t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s . On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e n o n - i n o l v e d i n d i v i d u a l can c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h between t h e v a r i o u s a l t e r n a t i v e s but i s not f o r c e d t o make a d e c i s i o n as t o t h e a c c e p t a b i l i t y o r u n a c c e p t a b i I i t y o f each o f t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s . T h i s r e s u l t s i n t h e i n d i v i d u a l a c c e p t i n g . c e r t a i n a l t e r n a t i v e s and r e j e c t i n g o n l y t h o s e a l t e r n a t i v e s which a r e c l e a r l y f a r removed from h i s own p s o i t i o n . R a t h e r t h a n b e i n g non c o m m i t t a l on t h e r e m a i n i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s ( i n t h e sense t h a t he r e a l l y cannot d e c i d e whether t o a c c e p t o r r e j e c t them) i t i s much more l i k e l y t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l s i m p l y has not b o t h e r e d t o make a d e c i s i o n . S i n c e t h e n o n - i n v o l v e d i n d i v i d u a l i s c a p a b l e o f making d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s between a l t e r n a t i v e s we would p r e d i c t t h a t , i f f o r c e d t o make a d e c i s i o n , he 7 would r e j e c t v i r t u a l l y a l l o f t h e \"non-committed\" a l t e r n a t i v e s . T h i s p r e d i c t i o n i s made on t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t a c c e p t a n c e o f anymore t h a n two o r t h r e e p o s i t i o n s would be n o n s e n s i c a l s i n c e t h e i n d i v i d u a l would be a c c e p t i n g p o s i t i o n s ( i . e . t h e two extremes of h i s l a t i t u d e s o f a c c e p t a n c e ) which he can see a r e d i v e r g e n t t o t h e p o i n t o f b e i n g oppos i t e s . Ager and Dawes (1965) have p r o v i d e d f u r t h e r s u p p o r t f o r t h e s e p r e d i c t i o n s . They f o u n d , i n s t u d y i n g t h e a f f e c t s o f j u d g e s ' a t t i t u d e s on judgement, a tendency f o r i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h extreme p o s i t i o n s t o see a l t e r n a t e p o s i t i o n s i n terms of b l a c k and w h i t e and t h a t t h i s j udgmental p r o c e s s i s d i f f e r e n t t h a n may be e x p e c t e d . They s u g g e s t t h a t , t h a t f o r example, When t h e r i g h t - w i n g e r says t h a t he sees no d i f f e r  ence among t h e v a r i e t i e s o f l e f t - w i n g e r s , t h i s i m p l i e s an i n a b i l i t y t o d i s c r i m i n a t e . a m o n g them o v e r and above a p r e f e r e n c e f o r c a t e g o r i z i n g them t o g e t h e r . (Ager,J.W., and Dawes, R.M., 1965, p.535) I t would seem, i n l i g h t o f t h e s e c r i t i c i s m s , t h a t a more t h o r o u g h i n v e s t i g a t i o n , w i t h i n t h e bounds of a c l e a r l y d e f i n e d t h e o r e t i c a l framework, s h o u l d be undertaken t o d e t e r m i n e what a r e t h e u n d e r l y i n g p r o c e s s e s of i n v o l v e m e n t . Coombs' (1964) t h e o r y o f d a t a p r o v i d e d t h e b a s i s f o r t h e p r e s e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of i n v o l v e m e n t and t h e e s s e n t i a l s o f t h i s t h e o r y w i l l be r e v i e w e d n e x t . I I . THEORY OF DATA: AN OVERVIEW Coombs (1964) has s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e r e a r e d i f f e r e n t p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s e s used by an i n d i v i d u a l t o e v a l u a t e d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of s t i m u l i and he has gone on t o c a t e g o r i z e both t h e s t i m u l i and t h e p r o c e s s e s . The Theory o f Data, an a b s t r a c t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system o f t h e v a r i e t y o f measurement models, i s based on t h e axiom: 8 i ) a r e l a t i o n e x i s t s on a p a i r o f p o i n t s (a dyad o r on a p a i r o f dy a d s ) ; i i ) t h e el e m e n t s o f a p a i r o f p o i n t s a r e from two d i s t i n c t s e t s o r from one s e t ; and i i i ) t h e r e l a t i o n i s e i t h e r an o r d e r r e l a t i o n (&gt;) o r a p r o x i m i t y r e l a t i o n (0) . From t h e above axiom e i g h t c l a s s e s o f data f o l l o w . These e i g h t c l a s s e s a r e i n d i c a t e d i n F i g u r e 1.1 below. PAIRS OF POI NTS PAIRS OF DYADS Qua POINTS ! 0 FROM ! ? SETS &gt; z 3 D i QJIb ; &gt; POINTS | 0 V FROM I 1 SET Q U I b Q l l l a ! &gt; I 0 I Qlb 0 QlVb Qia QlVa F i g u r e 1 . 1 . The e i g h t c l a s s e s o f d a t a i n Coombs' Theory o f Data. As can be seen t h e r e a r e e i g h t o c t a n t s , o r f o u r q u a d r a n t s - each q u a d r a n t c o n s i s t i n g o f two s u b q u a d r a n t s - as d e t e r m i n e d by t h e o r d e r - p r o x i m i t y dichotomy. The t y p i c a l o b s e r v a t i o n s ( b e h a v i o r a l r e f e r e n t s ) a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each q u a d r a n t a r e g i v e n i n F i g u r e 1 . 2 . 9 S i n g l e S t i m u l u s P r e f e r e n t i a 1 \u2022 Data o r C h o i c e Data o r 1ndividua1 - Stimu1 us I n d i v i d u a l - S t i m u l u s Compari son Di f f e r e n c e s Compari son St imu1 us S i m i l a r i t i e s Comparison Data o r Data S t i m u l u s - D i f f e r e n c e s Compari son F i g u r e 1.2. B e h a v i o r a l r e f e r e n t s o f each q u a d r a n t . Coombs (1964) has s u g g e s t e d t h a t u n d e r l y i n g t h e d a t a o f each q u a d r a n t t h e r e may e x i s t a c o r r e s p o n d i n g p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s . . He has v e n t u r e d t h a t t h e s e may be p r e f e r e n t i a l c h o i c e , d e t e c t i o n , d i s  c r i m i n a t i o n , and s i m i l a r i t y judgment b e h a v i o r f o r Q l , Q l l , Q U I and Qiv r e s p e c t i v e l y . In t h i s s t u d y , t h e c l a s s e s o f data i n which we'are p r i m a r i l y i n t e r  e s t e d a r e Q l a , Q U a , O l l a ( c . ) , Q l l b , and Q u i a . We a r e f i r s t i n t e r - \u2022 i e s t e d i n u s i n g s i n g l e s t i m u l u s r esponse l a t e n c y (SSRL) t o o b t a i n Qua d a t a t h a t w i l l g i v e a p r e f e r e n c e o r d e r i n g o f s t i m u l i . In t h i s i n s t a n c e , \u2022the s t i m u l i a r e complex s o c i a l i s s u e s . A h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n between Q l l a d a t a and Q u i a d a t a ( o b t a i n e d by h a v i n g t h e s u b j e c t rank o r d e r t h e same s t i m u l i ) would be s t r o n g s u p p o r t f o r t h e a c c u r a c y o f t h e Q U I a rank o r d e r i n g . Q l l a ( c .) d a t a ( s t i m u l u s c a t e g o r i z a t i o n r e l a t i v e t o some i d e a l p o i n t ) i s o b t a i n e d by t a k i n g t h e re s p o n s e ia+ency o f t h e s u b j e c t when he i s asked t o use some i n t e r n a l r e f e r e n c e p o i n t ( h i s i d e a l p o i n t ) a g a i n s t which t o make judgments about a l t e r n a t i v e s on a p r c - c o n d i m e n s i o n . Q l l b d a t a i s o b t a i n e d by t a k i n g t h e s u b j e c t ' s 10 res p o n s e l a t e n c y when he i s asked t o e i t h e r a c c e p t o r r e j e c t t h e v a r i o u s s t i m u l i . F i n a l l y , we a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n o b t a i n i n g Q i a d a t a , t h i s t i m e a rank o r d e r i n g o f s t i m u l u s s c a l e s t h a t w i l l a c t as a check on how s e n s i  t i v e t h e Q I I a ( c .) and Q l l b d a t a a r e t o t h e s u b j e c t ' s i d e a l p o i n t on a \u2022 i s o c i a l i s s u e . The data o f q u a d r a n t Q l l y i e l d what a r e c a l l e d j o i n t s p a ces ( J - s e a l e s ) s i n c e two d i s t i n c t s e t s o f p o i n t s a r e i n v o l v e d . U s u a l l y , t h e s e s e t s i n v o l v e i n d i v i d u a l s and s t i m u l i . F i g u r e 1.3 below i l l u s t r a t e s a t y p i c a l J - s c a l e . F i g u r e 1.3. A t y p i c a l J - s c a l e . In O l l a , f o r example, suppose t h e q. . v a l u e s r e p r e s e n t t h e mean v a l u e on a pro-con continuum o f t h e j . \u2022 s t a t e m e n t o f o p i n i o n about some p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e . Each s t i m u l u s may be p e r c e i v e d d i f f e r e n t l y a t d i f f e r e n t moments i n ti m e f o r each i n d i v i d u a l . T h i s i s c a p t u r e d by assuming each s t i m u l u s has a p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n about i t s mean v a l u e . Each i n d i v i d u a l can be c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a c . on t h e continuum which i n d i c a t e d h i s ''ideal p o i n t \" , o r p o s i t i o n . T h i s . p o i n t a l s o has a d i s t r i b u t i o n about i t s mean v a l u e r e f l e c t i n g momentary f l u c t u a t i o n i n t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s p o s i t i o n on d i f f e r e n t o c c a s i o n s . The t y p i c a l o b s e r v a t i o n i n Q l l b w i t h which we a r e c o n c e r n e d i s 11 t h e SSRL of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s d e c i s i o n t o a c c e p t o r r e j e c t a s t i m u l u s , f o r example, whether he a g r e e s o r d i s a g r e e s w i t h a s t a t e m e n t of o p i n i o n ; whether he would buy a p a r t i c u l a r c a r o r n o t . We assume t h a t t h o s e s t i m u l i he a c c e p t s a r e p r e f e r r e d o v e r t h o s e he r e j e c t s , so t h e problem t h a t remains i s t o use t h e l a t e n c y o f c h o i c e t o o r d e r h i s p r e  f e r e n c e s w i t h i n each of t h e s e two c l a s s e s . Coombs' (1964) model f o r c h o i c e on a u n i d i m e n s i o n a I continuum i s g i v e n e s s e n t i a l l y by t h e f o l l o w i n g : i ) l e t c. e 0 denote an i d e a l p o i n t and q. e Q a s t i m u l u s p o i n t which a r e p o i n t s on a common di m e n s i o n c a l l e d a J - s c a l e . i i ) Assume a symmetric e - r e g i o n on t h e J - s c a l e o r a s i n g l e r e g i o n on t h e i - s c a l e ( f o l d e d J - s c a l e ) and a c h o i c e r u l e o f t h e form whenever Ic, . - q, . . I &lt; e , . a c c e p t s t i m u l u s j ' h i ' h i j ' - h i K J whenever I c ,. - q | &gt; E, . r e c e c t s t i m u l u s j 1 hi H h i j l hi J T h i s model i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 1 .4-. J - s c a l e q 1. q 1 . c 1 . I - s c a I e h i h i c 1 .. q I . q 1, \u2022 i M - j M - k F i g u r e 1.4. I l l u s t r a t i n g J and I - s c a l e s a c c e p t - r e j . e c t r e g i o n s , S t i m u l i such as j . , w i t h i n a d i s t a n c e e, . a r e a c c e p t e d and t h o s e h i beyond, such as k a r e r e j e c t e d . So e d e f i n e s a c a t e g o r y boundary on 12 t h e l - s c a l e between an \" a c c e p t \" r e g i o n and a '''reject\" r e g i o n . In o u r model f o r l a t e n c y of a c c e p t - r e j e c t d a t a we s h a l l assume t h a t t h e c r i t i c a l r e f e r e n c e p o i n t i s t h e e-boundary between a c c e p t and r e j e c t r e g i o n s on t h e 1 - s c a l e , and t h a t l a t e n c y w i l l be a montone d e c r e a s i n g f u n c t i o n w i t h a b s o l u t e d i s t a n c e from t h a t p o i n t ( P e t r u s i c , 1966). In-QIIa d a t a we a r e d e a l i n g w i t h o r d e r r e l a t i o n s on a p a i r o f p o i n t s i n which each p o i n t i s an element of a d i s t i n c t s e t . Tasks r e q u i r i n g a s u b j e c t t o i n d i c a t e i f a g i v e n l i n e i s a \" l o n g \" l i n e o r n o t , whether a p a r t i c u l a r s t a t e m e n t of o p i n i o n e x p r e s s e s a \" p r o \" o r \"con\" a t t i t u d e , o r whether t h e s u b j e c t i s \" i n v o l v e d \" o r \"not i n v o l v e d 5 ' in a p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e a r e i l l u s t r a t i v e o f such d a t a . In t h e s e - c a s e s t h e r e i s no e x p l i c i t s t i m u l u s d i f f e r e n c e t o c o n s i d e r , but an i m p l i c i t d i r e c t i o n a l judgement i s i n v o l v e d . In O l l a , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e f o r m u l a t i o n of t h e Theory of D a t a , t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s i d e a l p o i n t , c^.., s e r v e s as a c a t e g o r y boundary. Such data have been denoted Q I I a ( c . ) . A t a s k such as \" i s t h i s s t a t e m e n t ^ \u2022 i more o r l e s s pro t h a n y o u r own p o s i t i o n ? \" , i s i l l u s t r a t i v e o f Q I I a ( c .. d a t a . N e i t h e r Coombs' Q l l b c h o i c e model nor S h e r i f and N e b e r g a l l ' s l a t  i t u d e of a c c e p t a n c e models ( t h e y a r e f o r m a l l y i d e n t i c a l ) s p e c i f y t h e s u b ^ p r o c e s s e s i n v o l v e d i n making a c c e p t - r e j e c t c h o i c e s . I t i s t h e p r i n c i p l e h y p o t h e s i s o f t h i s paper t h a t t h e key t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e n a t u r e of e g o - i n v o l v e m e n t l i e s i n t h e a r t i c u l a t i o n o f s u b - p r o c e s s e s i n v o l v e d i n a c c e p t - r e j e c t c h o i c e b e h a v i o r . We now p r e s e n t two e x p l o r  a t o r y models which s p e c i f y t h e s e s u b - p r o c e s s e s i n some d e t a i l . These models were i n i t i a l l y p r e s e n t by P e t r u s i c (1966) and a r e s i n g l e s t i m u l 13 anologues o f Greenberg's (1961) two s t a g e l a t e r a l i t y model f o r Q l a p a i r e d comparison c h o i c e s . J - S c a l e Model In t h i s model t h e f i r s t s t a g e i n v o l v e s a Q I I a ( c .) judgement and t h e f i n a l s t a g e i s based on a Qllb p r o x i m i t y r e l a t i o n . These s t a g e s and t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r l a t e n c y o f c h o i c e s a r e g i v e n below. Stage 1: L a t e r a l i t y Judgement. In t h i s s t a g e t h e i n d i v i d u a l d e t e r m i n e s i m p l i c i t l y ( o r even perhaps e x p l i c i t l y ) whether a g i v e n s t i m u l u s j has more o r l e s s o f t h e a t t r i  b ute u n d e r l y i n g h i s p r e f e r e n c e s t h a n h i s i d e a l p o i n t has. That i s , a l a t e r a l i t y judgement i s made: i s t h e s t i m u l u s r i g h t o r l e f t o f t h e i d e a l p o i n t . L e t L ^ - ^ ( j , c . ) denote t h e l a t e n c y o f t h i s judgement. Stage 2: A c c e p t - R e j e c t C a t e g o r i z a t i o n . T h i s s t a g e i n v o l v e s comparing t h e d i f f e r e n c e o b t a i n e d from t h e f i r s t s t a g e w i t h t h e r e l e v a n t c a t e g o r y boundary. I f , f o r example, t h e s t i m u l u s i s judged as \"more pro than me\", then t h e f i n a l s t a g e i n v o l v e s t h e judgement 'Ms i t t o o p r o ? \" . L e t L p I I t ) ( j ,c. ,e.) denote t h e l a t e n c y of t h i s judgement. The t o t a l l a t e n c y t o s t i m u l u s j i s g i v e n by (assuming a s e q u e n t i a l p r o c e s s ) : L g i I b ( j ) = L ( j , c . ) + L ( j , c . , e . ) + RT (where RT denotes t h e r e a c t i o n t i m e and motor e x e c u t i o n components of th e t o t a l l a t e n c y ) . Thus, i n t h e two s t a g e model, t i m e i s t a k e n , so t o speak, t o f o l d t h e J - s c a l e , and form t h e I - s c a l e . T h i s t i m e t o f o l d i s a p a r t i a l component of t h e t o t a l t i m e t a k e n t o a c c e p t o r r e j e c t a 14 s i n g l e a l t e r n a t i v e . We now c o n s i d e r an a l t e r n a t i v e model. I - S c a l e Model In t h i s model we a r e d e a l i n g w i t h a p r o c e s s where t h e J - s c a l e i s no l o n g e r b e h a v i o r a l l y r e l e v a n t and a l l c h o i c e s a r e made on t h e i - s c a l e . Thus, r e l a t i v e t o t h e J - s c a l e model', t h e I - s c a l e model i n v o l v e s o n l y Stage 2 of t h e two s t a g e J - s c a l e model i n t h a t o n l y t h e f i n a l p r o x  i m i t y r e l a t i o n i s i n v o l v e d . We denote t h e l a t e n c y of t h i s r e sponse by L Q I I b ( j , c . , \u00A3 j ) . In summary, t h e J - s c a l e model i n v o l v e s a judgement based on an o r d e r r e l a t i o n which precedes t h e f i n a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n based on a p rox i m i t y r e l a t i o n . From th e f o r e g o i n g d i s c u s s i o n i t would seem p o s s i b l e t h a t we may be a b l e t o u t i l i z e both t h e J - s c a l e model and t h e i - s c a l e model i n d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between i n v o l v e d and n o n - i n v o l v e d i n d i v i d u a l s on c e r t a i n s o c i a l i s s u e s . P e t r u s i c (1966) has shown t h a t when a s o c i a l i s s u e ( c o l l e g e f r a t e r n i t i e s ) p r o v i d e d t h e s t i m u l i , t h r e e o f t e n s u b j e c t s b e s t f i t t e d an I - s c a l e model and seven b e s t f i t t e d a J - s c a l o model. However, when s u b j e c t s were asked t o make judgements about i s o s c e l e s t r i a n g l e s , a l l of t h e s u b j e c t s were b e t t e r f i t t e d by t h e J - s c a l e model. As P e t r u s i c (1966) p o i n t s o u t , I t may be t h e c a s e t h a t , i n i t i a l l y , d u r i n g t h e a c q u i s i t i o n and c o n s o l i d a t i o n o f p r e f e r e n t i a l c h o i c e o r d e r i n g s i n a g i v e n domain, t h e two s t a g e model i s a p p r o p r i a t e . S i n c e in t h i s s t a g e t h e g r e a t e r f l e x i b i l i t y on t h e J - s c a l e ( r e l a t i v e t o I - s c a l e ) may be e s s e n t i a l i n e v a l u a t i n g and a s s i m i l a t i n g communications from a v a r i e t y of s o u r c e s , say i n s o c i a l c o n t e x t . Once, however, a s t a b l e p r e f e r e n c e o r d e r i n g i s c o n s o l i d a t e d , then t h e J - s c a l e and i t s 'supor- f l u o s ' i n f o r m a t i o n a r e no l o n g e r r e l e v a n t . C o n t i g u o u s w i t h t h e c o n s o l i d t t i o n p r o c e s s , an 15 i n f o r m a t i o n r e d u c t i o n p r o c e s s o c u r r s and t h i s i s m a n i f e s t e d i n t h e I - s c a l e p r o c e s s . ( P e t r u s i c , W.M., 1966, p.33) Thus, on any s o c i a l i s s u e t h e r e a r e two p o s s i b l e ways i n which t h e i n d i v i d u a l may view t h e i s s u e . The f i r s t i s t h a t a l l of t h e p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s on t h e i s s u e a r e seen by t h e i n d i v i d u a l as h a v i n g some p o s i t i o n on a continuum. The continuum would range from pro t o con w i t h a l t e r n a t i v e p o s i t i o n s and the i n d i v i d u a l ' s own p o s i t i o n between the e x t r e m e s . T h i s i s t h e J - s c a l e model. The second p o s s i b i l i t y i s t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l views a l l o t h e r p o s i t i o n s in r e l a t i o n t o h i s own p o s i t i o n on t h e i s s u e . The i n d i v i d u a l o p e r a t e s on t h e I - s c a l e model. I t i s o b v i o u s t h a t on t h i s s c a l e t h e i n d i v i d u a l i s e a s i l y a b l e t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e between wh:.: i\" he a c c e p t s o r r e j e c t s . There i s , however, no r e f e r e n c e on t h i s s c a l e t o whether the a l t e r n a t i v e p o s i t i o n s a r e more-pro o r l e s s - p r o t h a n t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s own p o s i t i o n . In e t h e r words, most of t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s , whether p r o o r c o n , a r e lumped t o g e t h e r i n t o a s i n g l e r e j e c t i o n c a t e g o r y . I t was noted e a r l i e r t h a t Ager and Dawes (1965) were ab'\u00B0 t o show t h a t r a t i n g s of f a v o u r a b i I i t y of a l t e r n a t i v e p o s i t i o n s a r e a f f e c t e d by t h e j u d g e ' s a t t i t u d e . They a l s o s a i d t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h extreme p o s i t i o n s t e n d t o see a l t e r n a t i v e s i n terms o f b l a c k and w h i t e , i . e . he f a i l s t o see d i f f e r e n c e s between a l t e r n a t i v e p o s i t i o n s and s i m p l y c a t e g o r i z e s them t o g e t h e r . I f we were t o go one s t e p f a r t h e r we c o u l d s t a t e t h a t t h i s p r o c e s s i s a f u n c t i o n o f t h e amount of i n v o l v e m e n t r a t h e r t h a n e x t r e m i t y of p o s i t i o n . From t h i s argument i t would seem c l e a r t h a t t h o s e who a r e h i g h l y i n v o l v e d would use an I - s c a l e as t h e i r frame o f r e f e r e n c e . In o t h e r words, t h e y a c c e p t c e r t a i n p o s i t i o n s and r e j e c t a I I o t h e r s w i t h o u t 16 r e g a r d f o r t h e p r o - n e s s o r con-ness of t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s . The non- i n v o l v e d p e r s o n , however would use a J - s c a l e . As mentioned p r e v i o u s l y , t h e J - s c a l e model i s a two s t a g e p r o c e s s . When asked t o e v a l u a t e any s t a t e m e n t t h e \" J - s c a l e r \" must f i r s t see where t h i s s t a t e m e n t f a l l s on th e continuum ( i t s p r o - n e s s o r con-ness) b e f o r e he can p e r f o r m t h e second s t e p of a c c e p t i n g o r r e j e c t i n g t h e s t a t e m e n t . The \" i - s c a l e r \" , on t h e o t h e r hand, can t e l l us v e r y q u i c k l y whether he a c c e p t s o r r e j e c t s a s t a t e m e n t but f i n d s i t much more d i f f i c u l t t o t e l l us whether i t i s more-pro o r l e s s - p r o than h i s own p o s i t i o n . B e f o r e he can do t h i s he has t o u n f o l d h i s I - s c a l e so t h a t he can view t h e e n t i re c o n t i nuum. We s h o u l d p o i n t out- t h a t t h e e s s e n t i a l d i s t i n c t i o n between I and J - s c a l e models i s whether o r not an o r d e r judgement ( Q u a ) p r e c e d e s t h e p r o x i m i t y c a t e g o r i z a t i o n ( Q l l b ) . I t may w e l l be t h e c a s e t h a t t h e s p e c i f i c form of t h e I and J - s c a l e models proposed by P e t r u s i c (1966) f o r s i n g I e .stimuI us c h o i c e d a t a i s i n c o r r e c t . I f t h i s i s t h e c a s e then o u r hypotheses c o n c e r n i n g i n v o l v e m e n t a r e i n c o r r e c t . However,' as was p o i n t e d o u t e a r l i e r , we w i s h t o d e t e r m i n e whether response l a t e n c y f o r complex s o c i a l i s s u e s would y i e l d o r d e r l y d a t a , and t h e c o r r e c t n e s s o r i n c o r r e c t n e s s of t h e s p e c i f i c form of t h e model' i s perhaps of secondary importance-... However, assuming t h a t t h e s e models r e f l e c t t h e a c t u a l p r o c e s s e s which a r e occ r i n g , then we would e x p e c t f i n d i n g s s i m i l a r , f o r t h e J - s c a l e r , t o t h o s e shown i n F i g u r e I.5. Latency i n seconds A c c e p t R e j e c t More-pro L e s s - p r o A D C D E F G H c . A l t e r n a t i v e p o s i t i o n s F i g u r e 1.5. L a t e n c i e s f o r a J - s c a l e r when asked (1) i f any s t a t e m e n t i s more-pro o r l e s s - p r o t h a n h i s own most p r e f e r r e d p o s i t i o n ( c ^ . ) and (2) i f he a c c e p t s o r r e j e c t s t h e v a r i o u s s t a t e m e n t s . The 1 - s c a l e r , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e h y p o t h e s i s would show m a r k e d l y d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s , as shown i n F i g u r e 1.6. A l t e r n a t i v e p o s i t i o n s F i g u r e 1.6. L a t e n c i e s f o r an I - s c a l e r when asked (1) i f 18 any s t a t e m e n t i s more-pro o r l e s s - p r o than h i s own most p r e f e r r e d p o s i t i o n (c .) and (2) i f he a c c e p t s o r r e j e c t s t h e v a r i o u s s t a t e m e n t s . The c u r v e s o f F i g u r e s 1.5 and 1.6 p r o v i d e us w i t h what appears t o be a p o s s i b l e means of e a s i l y d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between J - s c a l e r s and I - s c a l e r s , and t h u s between low and h i g h i n v o l v e m e n t . I t a I s o f o l l o w s , however, t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l v a r y i n t h e degree of i n v o l v e m e n t they have f o r v a r i o u s i s s u e s . In o t h e r words, i n v o l v e  ment i s viewed as r a n g i n g a l o n g a continuum w i t h t h e n o n - i n v o l v e d J - s c a l e r a t one extreme and t h e h i g h l y i n v o l v e d I - s c a l e r a t t h e o t h e r . I n t e r m e d i a t e p o i n t s a l o n g t h e continuum would be r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e p a r t i a l f o l d i n g o f a J - s c a l e as shown i n F i g u r e 1.7. c c . i \u2022 i / A B c c r F i g u r e 1.7. P a r t i a l f o l d i n g o f J - s e a l e s around t h e i d e a l p o i n t (c . ) , r e p r e s e n t i n g i n c r e a s - i n v o l v e m e n t from A t o D. 19 S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e h y p o t h e s e s t e s t e d i n t h i s s t u d y w e r e : 1. The i n d i v i d u a l who i s h i g h l y i n v o l v e d i n a n y s o c i a l i s s u e w i l l j u d g e a l t e r n a t i v e p o s i t i o n s on t h a t i s s u e d i f f e r e n t l y t h a n t h e i n d i v i d u a l who i s n o t i n v o l v e d . T h a t i s , t h e i n v o l v e d p e r s o n w i l l o p e r a t e on an I - s c a l e a n d t h e u n i n v o l v e d p e r s o n w i l l o p e r a t e on a J - s c a I e . 2. I t i s p o s s i b l e t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l s a s t o t h e amount o f i n v o l v e m e n t e a c h i n d i v i d u a l h a s f o r any g i v e n s o c i a l i s s u e i n t e r m s o f Coombs' u n f o l d i n g t h e o r y a n d s i n g l e s t i m u l u s r e s p o n s e l a t e n c y . 3. G i v e n an i n d i v i d u a l who i s h i g h l y i n v o l v e d i n o n e i s s u e , h a s medium i n v o l v e m e n t f o r a s e c o n d , a n d no i n v o l v e m e n t i n a t h i r d , t h e r e w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n : i ) t h e s i z e o f h i s l a t i t u d e s o f a c c e p t a n c e b e t w e e n e a c h i s s u e , a n d i i ) t h e s i z e o f h i s l a t i t u d e s o f r e j e c t i o n b e t w e e n e a c h i s s u e , p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e s u b j e c t i s f o r c e d t o make a c h o i c e b e t w e e n a c c e p t a n c e o r r e j e c t i o n o f a l l t h e a l t e r n a t i v e p o s i t i o n s on t h e s e i s s u e s . 20 CHAPTER II EXPERIMENTAL METHOD SUBJECTS Two male and two female subjects (Ss) were used i-rr t h i s experiment. Each S_ was an undergraduate student enrolled in an introductory psychology course. STIMULI 1. Soci a I Issues In order to t e s t the hypotheses previously proposed i t was nec essary to ensure that we obtained soci a l issues in which the Ss had high and low involvement. This was done by choosing twenty issues. It was hoped that these spanned a s u f f i c i e n t l y wide range, such that they varied from high social importance to inconsequential and t r i v i a l matters. The twenty issues chosen were: 1. Construct more high-rise apartments 2. The war in Viet Nam 3. Automation 4. Free education 5. American investment in Canada 6. B i r rh controI 7. Admit Red China to the U..N. 8. Nuclear disarmament 9. Withdrawal of Canada from NATO 10. Medicare .11. Free public t r a n s i t system 12. More control of organized labour 13. Fluoridation of water 14. LiberaI Iiquor Iaws 15. City redevelopment 16. Increased trade with B r i t a i n 17. College f r a t e r n i t i e s 18. Increasing the driving age to 18 years 19. A r t i f i c i a l insemination of women 20. Longer quarantine for animals imported into-Canada In the f i r s t part of the experiment the above twenty issues were used. Each issue was printed on a s l i d e that could be projected onto 21 a w h i t e s c r e e n . The p r i n t i n g on each s l i d e was i n w h i t e l e t t e r s on a b l a c k background. The p r i n t i n g on each s l i d e was o f t h e same s i z e . 2. S i n g l e S t i m u l u s S c a l e s In t h e second p a r t o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t i t was n e c e s s a r y t o p r o v i d e s t i m u l i w hich d e s c r i b e d d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n s t h a t c o u l d be a t t r i b u t e d t o any p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e . The t y p e o f s t i m u l u s s c a l e i n d i c a t i n g a p a r t i c u l a r p o s i t i o n ( i n t h i s c a s e s l i g h t l y i n f a v o u r o f t h e i s s u e ) i s shown i n F i g u r e 2.1. N i n e such s c a l e s were i ~ ~ i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 r ~ i \u2014 I -100 -75 -50 -25 0 +25 +50 +75 +100 F i g u r e 2.1. S i n g l e s t i m u l u s s c a l e c o n s t r u c t e d , each s c a l e i n d i c a t i n g a d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n on t h e i s s u e . The p o s i t i o n s ranged from +100 ( m a x i m a l l y i n f a v o u r o f t h e i s s u e ) t o -100 ( m a x i m a l l y a g a i n s t t h e i s s u e ) . Each o f t h e n i n e s c a l e s were p r e p a r e d on s l i d e s w i t h w h i t e p r i n t i n g on a b l a c k background. MATERIALS AND APPARATUS Three s e t s o f t h e t w e n t y s o c i a l i s s u e s were p r e p a r e d on s l i d e s , as were t h r e e s e t s o f t h e n i n e s t i m u l u s s c a l e s . A l l xhe s l i d e s were p r o j e c t e d on a P r a d o v i t n22 p r o j e c t o r . Each S^  was p r o v i d e d w i t h a r e s p o n s e box c o n s i s t i n g of two b u t t o n s so spaced as t o r e q u i r e m i n i m a l movement t o o p e r a t e . In t h e f i r s t p a r t o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t ( u s i n g t h e s o c i a l i s s u e s ) t h e r i g h t hand b u t t o n was l a b e l l e d \" i n v o l v e d \" and t h e 22 l e f t hand b u t t o n \" n o t - i n v o l v e d \" . In t h e second p a r t o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t ( u s i n g t h e s t i m u l u s s c a l e s ) t h e r i g h t and l e f t b u t t o n s were l a b e l l e d \" a c c e p t \" and \" r e j e c t \" o r \"more-pro ; ; and \" l e s s - p r o \" depending on t h e t a s k . The e x p e r i m e n t e r (E_) c o n t r o l l e d t h e r a t e o f p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e s t i m u l i by means o f a c o n t r o l box c o n s i s t i n g o f one b u t t o n and two l i g h t s . . The b u t t o n was used t o p r e s e n t t h e s t i m u l i t o t h e S_ and t h e l i g h t s i n d i c a t e d which c f t h e two r esponse b u t t o n s t h e S_ used when he responded. The r esponse l a t e n c y was measured by a Beckman 5230 EPUT t i m e r which r e c o r d e d l a t e n c i e s t o t h e n e a r e s t one hundredth of a second. An e l e c t r i c - e y e s t a r t e d t h e t i m e r as scon as t h o s i i d o was f l a s h e d on t h e s c r e e n and t h e t i m e r was s t o p p e d as soon as t h e S_ p r e s s e d e i t h e r of t h e b u t t o n s . _E r e c o r d e d S_'s r e s p o n s e and i t s l a t e n c y . EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN The E xperiment was c o n d u c t e d o v e r a s e r i e s of seven h o u r l y s e s s i o n s f o r a l l f o u r Ss. Two a d d i t i o n a . l s e s s i o n s were h e l d f o r two o f t h e Ss. Each s e s s i o n was s e p a r a t e d from t h e next by a t l e a s t 48 h o u r s . The e x p e r i m e n t was d i v i d e d i n t o two main p a r t s . P a r t one was composed of s e s s i o n one, two and t h e b e g i n n i n g o f s e s s i o n t h r e e and was devoted t o o b t a i n i n g t h e t h r e e s o c i a l i s s u e s used i n t h e second p a r t o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t . The d e c i s i o n as t o which i s s u e s were t o be used was not made u n t i l t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e t h i r d s e s s i o n when t h e second r e p l i c a t i o n of t h e Q i a d a t a was o b t a i n e d . P a r t two o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t was composed o f t h e l a t t e r p a r t o f s e s s i o n t h r e e p l u s a l l r e m a i n i n g s e s s i o n s . The t a s k s u n d e r t a k e n , t h e t y p e o f d a t a c o l l e c t . and, where i m p o r t a n t , t h e o r d e r i n which t h e d a t a was c o l l e c t e d i n each s e s s i o n a r e I i s t e d below. U n l e s s o t h e r w i s e s t a t e d , one r e p l i c a t i o n o f t h e Q l l a ( c _ . ) and Q l l b t a s k s r e f e r s t o one r e p l i c a t i o n of each of t h e s o c i a l i s s u e s . P a r t I S e s s i o n 1: R e c o g n i t i o n t a s k ( r e d u c t i o n o f reading t i m e d i f f e r  e n t i a l f o r t h e twenty s o c i a l i s s u e s ) . S e s s i o n 2 : R e c o g n i t i o n t a s k r e p e a t e d ( t h r e e r e p l i c a t i o n s ) , Q l l a d a t a and Q l l l a d a t a . S e s s i o n 3: Q l l l a d a t a . P a r t I I S e s s i o n . 3 : Q l i a t c ^ ) d a t a and Q l l b d a t a . S e s s i o n 4. Q l l l a d a t a , Q I I a ( c .) d a t a and Qub d a t a . S e s s i o n 5. Q l l a ( c .) d a t a and Q l l b d a t a . S e s s i o n 6. Q I I a ( c .) d a t a and Q l l b d a t a . \u2022 i S e s s i o n 7. Q I I a ( c .) d a t a and Q l l b d a t a . The r e m a i n i n g s e s s i o n s i n v o l v e d o n l y two Ss. S e s s i o n 8, Q l l a ( ( ; _ . ) d a t a ( t h r e e r e p l i c a t i o n s ) , Q l l b d a t a ( t h r e e r e p l i c a t i o n s ) and Q i a d a t a ( r a n k o r d e r p r e f e r e n c e s f o r t h e s t i m u l u s s c a l e s ) . S e s s i o n 9 : Q i a d a t a , Q l l a ( c .) d a t a ( t h r e e r e p l i c a t i o n s ) , Q l l b d a t a ( t h r e e r e p l i c a t i o n s ) and a r e p e a t of Q i a d a t a 24 PROCEDURE P a r t 1 P r e l i m i n a r y I n s t r u c t i o n s Upon e n t e r i n g t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l room t h e S_ was s e a t e d and t h e f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s were read t o him: Let me read you t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s so t h a t we can be s u r e t h a t e v e r y o n e w i l l have t h e same i n s t r u c t i o n s . We are i n t e r e s t e d i n how i n d i v i d u a l s r e a c t t o a v a r i e t y of o b j e c t s . Let rne say a t t h e o u t s e t t h a t in t h i s s t u d y we a r e not i n t e r e s t e d i n any way i n t r y i n g t o e v a l u a t e you o r y o u r p e r f o r m a n c e . One o f t h e main purposes of t h i s s t u d y i s t o l e a r n something about t h e n a t u r e and t h e i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s o f v a r i o u s methods of s t u d y i n g c h o i c e s . The a c t u a l c h o i c e s them s e l v e s t h a t you make a r e o n l y o f secondary importance t o us: we a r e much more con c e r n e d w i t h t r y i n g t o d i s c o v e r t h e p r o c e s s e s t h a t u n d e r l y c h o i c e b e h a v i o r . So r e l a x as much as p o s s i b l e : we a r e not t r y i n g t o \"psych you o u t \" The S_ was t h e n i n t r o d u c e d t o t h e twenty s o c i a l i s s u e s which were used i n t h i s e x p e r i m e n t . The i n s t r u c t i o n s were: D u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f t h i s e x p e r i m e n t we w i l l be a s k i n g you t o c o m plete v a r i o u s t a s k s . I wiI I e x p l a i n each o f t h e t a s k s as we come t o i t . B e f o r e we b e g i n , however, we want you t o be v e r y f a m i l i a r w i t h a l l o f t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s we w i l l be a s k i n g you t o make c h o i c e s about. Thus, I am g o i n g t o show you a l l of t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s on s l i d e s one a t a t i m e . The twenty i s s u e s were then p r e s e n t e d t o t h e S_ and he was r e q u i r e d t o read each i s s u e a loud t o E. S i n c e t h e i s s u e s were s t a t e m e n t s o f d i f f e r e n t l e n g t h i t was deemed n e c e s s a r y t o t r a i n each S_ so t h a t he would r e c o g n i z e each i s s u e t h e moment i t was f l a s h e d on t h e s c r e e n . In o r d e r t o do t h i s , t h e S_ was f i r s t f a m i l i a r i z e d w i t h t h e a p p a r a t u s . He was i n s t r u c t e d as t o how t h e a p p a r a t u s worked and was shown how t o o p e r a t e t h e r e s p o n s e box. The Ss were t o l d t o use t h e r i g h t hand t o 25 o p e r a t e t h e r i g h t hand b u t t o n and t h e l e f t hand f o r t h e l e f t hand b u t  t o n . In o r d e r t o reduce t h e r e a d i n g t i m e d i f f e r e n t i a l and t o g i v e t h e S p r a c t i c e i n t h e use of t h e equipment, he was t o l d : OK, t o a c q u a i n t you w i t h t h i s ( t h e a p p a r a t u s and t h e p r o c e d u r e ) we w i l l do a s i m p l e r e c o g n i t i o n t a s k . I wi I I show you each o f t h e s l i d e s , one a t a t i m e . As soon as you r e c o g n i z e t h e s t a t e m e n t on t h e f i r s t s l i d e I want you t o p r e s s t h e b u t t o n s s q u i c k l y as p o s s i b l e . F o r t h e f i r s t s e t of s l i d e s use you r r i g h t hand t o p r e s s t h e b u t t o n on t h e r i g h t . On t h e next s e t use y o u r l e f t hand t o o p e r a t e t h e b u t t o n on t h e l e f t . I w i l l t e l l you when t o change hands. The s l i d e w i l l remain on t h e s c r e e n u n t i l you p r e s s one o f t h e b u t t o n s . I w i l l say \" r e a d y \" , as a s i g n a l t o you when t h e next s l i d e i s t o appear. A f t e r a few t r i a l s you s h o u l d be a b l e t o r e c o g n i z e each s t a t e m e n t as soon as i t i s f l a s h e d on t h e s c r e e n . Any q u e s t i o n s ? Ready. Three s e t s o f twenty i s s u e s were used, each s e t r e p r e s e n t i n g one r e p l i c a t i o n . The i s s u e s were randomly o r d e r e d i n each s e t , and t h e t h r e e s e t s were randomly o r d e r e d o v e r s i x r e p l i c a t i o n s . Task I n s t r u c t i o n s E x h a u s t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n s were g i v e n f o r each t a s k . The S_ was f u l l y i n s t r u c t e d as t o t h e n a t u r e o f t h e t a s k and i t s p u r p o s e . I n s t r u c  t i o n s were p r o v i d e d c o o r d i n a t i n g t h e res p o n s e box bu t o n s w i t h t h e t a s k and s t i m u l i . The i n s t r u c t i o n s were i n t e n d e d t o e s t a b l i s h a c c u r a c y i n t h e d e c i s i o n component of t h e t o t a l r e sponse l a t e n c y and a speed o r i e n t a t i o n i n t h e response e x e c u t i o n p o r t i o n o f t h e response I a t e n c y . S i n g l e S t imu I us:_ 011a ( I n v o l v e m e n t C a t e g o r i z a t i o n ) The second s e s s i o n was begun by h a v i n g t h e S_ r e p e a t t h e r e c o g  n i t i o n t a s k f o r t h r e e r e p l i c a t i o n s . T h i s was done t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e 26 S reached t h e same l e v e l of r e s p o n d i n g as e v i d e n c e d i n t h e f i r s t s e s s i on. The r e c o g n i t i o n t a s k was f o l l o w e d by t h e O l l a s i n g l e s t i m u l u s t a s k . The g e n e r a l i n s t r u c t i o n s were as f o l l o w s ; As you can see I have l a b e l l e d both b u t t o n s . The b u t t o n on t h e r i g h t Is l a b e l l e d \" i n v o l v e d \" and t h e b u t t o n on t h e l e f t \" n o t - i n v o I v e d \" . OK, now l e t me e x p l a i n what we mean by i n v o l v e m e n t . There a r e some s o c i a l i s s u e s about which some p e o p l e f e e l v e r y s t r o n g l y . F o r example, an a r t i s t may have v e r y s t r o n g f e e l i n g s and o p i n i o n s about a b s t r a c t a r t . He may .\u2022 f e e l t h a t a b s t r a c t a r t i s t h e o n l y t r u e form of a r t and t h a t e v e r y t h i n g e l s e i s a waste of t i m e . A n o t h e r a r t i s t may be v e r y much opposed t o a b s t r a c t a r t and c l a s s i t as t r a s h . Both of t h e s e p e o p l e a r e h i g h l y i n v o l v e d , one h a v i n g p o s i t i v e i n v o l v e m e n t and t h e o t h e r n e g a t i v e . A b r i c k - l a y e r , however, may be c o m p l e t e l y i n d i f f e r e n t t o a b s t r a c t a r t , not c a r i n g about i t one way o r t h e o t h e r . And t h e r e a r e , o f c o u r s e , p o s i t i o n s which v a r y a l l t h e way from c omplete i n d i f f e r e n c e t o v e r y h i g h i n v o l v e m e n t . The S_ was next t o l d what h i s t a s k was t o be and how he was t o o p e r a t e t h e r e s p o n s e box. I am a g a i n g o i n g t o show you t h e i s s u e s we used t h e l a s t day and i f you a r e i n v o l v e d i n a p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e I want you t o push t h e b u t t o n on t h e r i g h t . I f you a r e not i n v o l v e d i n t h e i s s u e t h e n push t h e b u t t o n on t h e l e f t . Do not f e e l t h a t you must i n d i c a t e i n v o l v e m e n t f o r i s s u e s which a r e c u r r e n t l y p o p u l a r i f you, y o u r s e l f , a r e not i n v o l v e d i n t h a t i s s u e . We s i m p l y want you t o I n d i c a t e which i s s u e s you a r e i n v o l v e d i n o r not i n v o l v e d i n a t t h e p r e s e n t t i m e . Once t h i s t a s k was c o m p l e t e d ( t h r e e r e p l i c a t i o n s ) t h e S_ was asked t o rank o r d e r t h e i s s u e s ( Q l l l a d a t a ) . The o r d e r i n g was t o be from i n v o l v e d t o not i n v o l v e d . Here a r e twenty c a r d s . On each c a r d i s w r i t t e n one of t h e i s s u e s w i t h which you have become f a m i l i a r . I want you t o a r r a n g e t h e s e c a r d s so t h a t on t h e extreme l e f t you have t h e i s s u e s i n which you a r e l e a s t i n t e r e s t e d . On the extreme r i g h t p l a c e t h e i s s u e i n which you ar;e rhe most i n v o l v e d . Range t h e r e s t o f t h e c a r d s betwce\" t h e s e two extremes so t h a t t h e y i n c r e a s e from l e a s t i n t e r e s t t o most 27 i n v o l v e m e n t . I n d i c a t e a t which p o i n t you would d i v i d e t h e c a r d s i n t o t h e i n v o l v e d and n o n - i n v o l v e d s i d e s . Any q u e s t i o n s ? Thus, two independent rank o r d e r i n g s o f t h e i s s u e s , a l o n g an i n v o l v ment d i m e n s i o n , were o b t a i n e d . SSRL was used t o o b t a i n t h e Q l l a d a t a t h a t p r o v i d e d us w i t h a p r e f e r e n c e o r d e r i n g of t h e twenty s o c i a l i s s u e s T h i s p r e f e r e n c e o r d e r i n g was independent of t h e rank o r d e r i n g o b t a i n e d from t h e Q U I a t a s k . Three r e p l i c a t i o n s of both Q l l a and 0111a t a s k s were c o l l e c t e d . To e n s u r e independence between o r d e r i n g s , t h e Q U I a data was c o l l e c t e d o n l y a f t e r a l l of t h e r e p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e Q l l a t a s k had been c o m p l e t e d . Thus, Q U I a d a t a was c o l l e c t e d a t t h e end of t h e second s e s s i o n and a t t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h e t h i r d and f o u r t h s e s s i o n s . I t was n e c e s s a r y t o use two independent and u n r e l a t e d methods of o b t a i n i n g t h e same d a t a i n o r d e r t o a s s e s s whether o r not t h e Q U I a rank o r d e r i n g a c t u a l l y d i d r e f l e c t v a r y i n g degrees of i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e i s s u e s . A h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e Q l l a p r e f e r e n c e o r d e r  i n g and t h e Q U I a rank o r d e r i n g would be s t r o n g s u p p o r t f o r t h e a c c u r acy of t h e Q U I a d a t a . A f t e r the second r e p l i c a t i o n o f t h e Q U I a t a s k , t h r e e ' i s s u e s were chosen from t h e Q U I a d a t a of each S^ . The i s s u e s were ones f o r which t h e S_ had h i g h , medium, and low i n v o l v e m e n t . The hi.gti i n v o l v e m e n t i s s u e was t h a t i s s u e ranked below a l l o t h e r s . S i n c e t h e i s s u e s were d i v i d e d i n t o two c a t e g o r i e s t h e d i v i s i o n p o i n t . b e i n g t h e c a t e  g ory boundary, t h e i n v o l v i n g i s s u e next t o t h e c a t e g o r y boundary was chosen t o r e p r e s e n t t h e medium i n v o l v e m e n t i s s u e . Thus, t h e i s s u e s c o u l d , and i n f a c t d i d , d i f f e r f o r each of t h e Ss. 28 P a r t 2 In t h i s p a r t o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t , each S_ was t h o r o u g h l y t r a i n e d u s i n g a dummy i s s u e and t h e s i n g l e s t i m u l u s s c a l e s t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e y were f u l l y a c q u a i n t e d w i t h t h e i r t a s k s . S i n g l e S t i m u l u s : Q I I a ( c .) ( C a t e g o r i z a t i o n r e l a t i v e t o i d e a l p o i n t ) For t h i s t a s k t h e _S was f i r s t farni I i a r i z e d w i t h t h e s i n g l e s t i m u l u s s c a l e s , what h i s t a s k was t o be, and how he was t o o p e r a t e t h e res p o n s e box. To e n s u r e t h a t t h e S_ was f u l l y a c q u a i n t e d w i t h t h e t a s k and t h a t he would have s u f f i c i e n t warm up he was asked t o f i r s t c o m p l e t e t h e t a s k u s i n g a dummy i s s u e . The i n s t r u c t i o n s were as f o l l o w s : Now we a r e ready f o r t h e next t a s k . F o r t h i s t a s k you w i l l have n o t i c e d t h a t I have l a b e l l e d t h e two b u t t o n s a g a i n . The r i g h t hand b u t t o n i s l a b e l l e d \"more-pro\" and t h e l e f t hand b u t t o n i s l a b e l l e d \" l e s s - p r o \" . Now, r e f e r r i n g back t o t h e i s s u e o f a b s t r a c t a r t - you p r o b a b l y have some s t a n d on t h i s p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e . Any p o s i t i o n i n d i c a t e d by an arrow on t h e s l i d e can be more i n f a v o u r of t h e i s s u e than you a r e , i n o t h e r words more-pro, o r i t can be l e s s i n f a v o u r o r l e s s - p r o than you a r e . In r e l a  t i o n t o t h e i s s u e o f a b s t r a c t a r t I want you t o look a t each s l i d e t h a t I show you and d e c i d e whether t h e p o s i t i o n i n d i c a t e d on t h e s l i d e i s more-pro o r l e s s - p r o t h a n y o u r own p o s i t i o n . If t h e p o s i t i o n i s more-pro th e n p r e s s t h e r i g h t hand b u t t o n a n d i f i t i s l e s s - p r o then p r e s s t h e l e f t hand b u t t o n . You s h o u l d a l s o note t h a t i n each c a s e you must make a d e c i s i o n . Take as much t i m e as you wish and t r y t o be as a c c u r a t e as p o s s i b l e . Once you d e c i d e then p r e s s t h e b u t t o n i m m e d i a t e l y . Once t h e S_ had completed t h e t a s k he was i n t r o d u c e d t o t h e a c t  ual i s s u e s t h a t were t o be used. The i n s t r u c t i o n s were: Now * a r e g o i n g t o do t h e same t a s k , o n l y t h i s t i m e we w i l l be u s i n g d i f f e r e n t i s s u e s . In r e l a t i o n t o t h e i s s u e o f ( t h e a c t u a l i s s u e was i n s e r t e d here) I want you t o look a t each s l i d e t h a t I show you and d e c i d e whether t h e p o s i  t i o n i n d i c a t e d on t h e s l i d e i s more-pro o r l e s s - p r o t h a n 29 y o u r own most p r e f e r r e d p o s i t i o n . If t h e p o s i t i o n i s more-pro th e n p r e s s t h e r i g h t hand b u t t o n and i f i t i s l e s s - p r o then p r e s s t h e l e f t hand b u t t o n . Take as much t'i me as you wis h and t r y t o be as a c c u r a t e as p o s s i b l e . Once you d e c i d e t h e n p r e s s t h e b u t t o n i m m e d i a t e l y . The S_ was t h e n asked t o complete t h e s i n g l e s t i m u l u s Q l l b t a s k u s i n g t h e same i s s u e . The i s s u e was changed on c o m p l e t i o n o f bpth t a s k s such t h a t t h e r e was one r e p l i c a t i o n f o r both t a s k s on each i s s u e . S i n g l e S t i m u l u s : Q l l b ( A c c e p t R e j e c t ) The i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r t h i s t a s k were t h e same as f o r t h e Q l i a ( c .) t a s k e x c e p t t h a t t h e S_ was r e q u i r e d t o i n d i c a t e whether he a c c e p t e d o r r e j e c t e d each o f t h e p o s i t i o n s on t h e s i n g l e s t i m u l u s s c a l e s . In t h e second p a r t o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t , e x c e p t f o r s e s s i o n s 8 and 9, one r e p l i c a t i o n was o b t a i n e d from each o f t h e i s s u e s on t h e Q I I a ( c . . ) and Q l l b t a s k s d u r i n g each s e s s i o n . The i s s u e s were randomly o r d e r e d f o r each t a s k . To e n s u r e t h a t t h e r e were no o r d e r e f f e c t s , t h e Q I I a ( c . . ) and Q l l b t a s k s were i n t e r c h a n g e d both w i t h i n and between S_s o v e r a l l s e s s i o n s . Independence between r e p l i c a t i o n s was c o n t r o l l e d t o some e x t e n t by s p a c i n g t h e s e s s i o n s two days apart.. S e s s i o n s E i g h t and Ni n e : A d d i t i o n a l Data Two Ss r e c e i v e d an e x t r a two s e s s i o n s which f o l l o w e d a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t p r o c e d u r e than t h e e a r l i e r s e s s i o n s . In t h e e i g h t h and n i n t h s e s s i o n , i n s t e a d o f u s i n g one i s s u e a t a t i m e , t h e t h r e e i s s u e s were combined. Any s i n g l e i s s u e had n i n e s t i m u l u s s c a l e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i t . However, com b i n i n g t h e t h r e e i s s u e s r e s u l t s i n a b l o c k o f 2 7 s t i m u l u s s c a l e s . I f we ask t h e S t o e v a l u a t e t h e f i r s t s c a l e o f 30 t h e b l o c k on one i s s u e , t h e next s c a l e on t h e second i s s u e , and t h e next s c a l e on t h e t h i r d i s s u e , we can o b t a i n a r e p l i c a t i o n from a l l t h r e e i s s u e s a t once. By u s i n g t h i s method, we were a b l e t o o b t a i n t h r e e r e p l i c a t i o n s f o r each of t h e t a s k s d u r i n g one s e s s i o n and s t i l l have a measure o f independence between r e p l i c a t i o n s . The independence a r i s e s from t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e i s I n t e r v e n i n g a c t i v i t y between any two e v a l u a t i o n s on t h e same i s s u e and from a l t e r n a t i n g t h e t a s k s and c h a n g i n g t h e o r d e r i n g o f t h e i s s u e s and t h e s t i m u l u s s c a l e s w i t h i n a b l o c k , The i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r t h e f i n a l two s e s s i o n s were: Let me f i r s t e x p l a i n how we w i l l p r oceed frpm t h i s p o i n t on. B e f o r e any s l i d e i s p r e s e n t e d I w i l l t e l l you which o f t h e t h r e e i s s u e s we are c o n s i d e r i n g . Your t a s k i s t o i n d i c a t e whether t h e p o s i t i o n on t h e s l i d e i s more- pro o r l e s s - p r o than y o u r own most p r e f e r r e d p o s i t i o n i n r e g a r d t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e we a r e c o n s i d e r i n g a t t h e t i m e . The o r d e r i n which t h e i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d w i l l be kept c o n s t a n t . In o r d e r t o e l i m i n a t e any p o s s i b l e c o n f u s i o n I w i l l a l s o t e l l you b e f o r e each s l i d e which i s s u e we a r e c o n s i d e r i n g . The o r d e r o f t h e i s s u e s i s Remember p r e s s t h e b u t t o n on t h e r i g h t f o r more-pro and t h e b u t t o n on t h e l e f t f o r l e s s - p r o . Take as long as you w i s h . t r y t o be as a c c u r a t e as p o s s i b l e . Once you de c i d e t h e n p r e s s t h e b u t t o n i m m e d i a t e l y . I w i l l say \" r e a d y \" i m m e d i a t e l y b e f o r e I p r e s e n t t h e s l i d e . Any q u e s t i o n s ? Ready. The same i n s t r u c t i o n s were g i v e n f o r t h e Qllb t a s k e x c e p t t h a t t h e Ss were r e q u i r e d t o i n d i c a t e whether t h e p o s i t i o n was a c c e p t a b l e o r u n a c c e p t a b l e t o them. Rank O r d e r P r e f e r e n c e s : Q i a The i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e i d e a l p o i n t ( i . e . rank o r d e r i n g s o f p r e f e r e n c e s o f t h e s i n g l e s t i m u l u s s c a l e s f o r each i s s u e ) was o b t a i n  ed o n l y w i t h t h e two Ss r e c e i v i n g t h e e x t r a two s e s s i o n s . The o t h e r two S_s were not a v a i l a b l e f o r f u r t h e r study. The rank, order preferences were c o l l e c t e d in order to determine how s e n s i t i v e the response latency data from the Q I I a ( c _ j ) and Q-ilb was in i n d i c a t i n g the S_'s ideal point on each issue. To obtain the rank order preferences the S_s were, f o l d : Here are nine cards. Each card has the s c a l e you are f a m i l i a r with p r i n t e d on i t . I want you to range these cards s t a r t i n g with the card the p o s i t i o n on which best i n d i c a t e s your own most pre f e r r e d p o s i t i o n . The next card in the ranking should be the one which next best i n d i  cates your p o s i t i o n and so on down t o the l a s t card. I n d i  cate at what p o s i t i o n you would d i v i d e the cards i n t o accept able and unacceptable p o s i t i o n s . Do t h i s f i r s t f o r the issue of \" \". Three r e p l i c a t i o n s of the QIa data were obtained from each S_ r e p l i c a t i o n s were made at the end of the f i r s t e x t r a session and at the beginning and end of the l a s t e xtra s e s s i o n . CHAPTER I I I 32 RESULTS In keeping with the experimental procedure, the r e s u l t s have been d i v i d e d into two p a r t s . Part one i s a t e s t of how c l o s e l y the Q U I a rank ordering matches the Q l l a o r d e r i n g . In part two, our major hypotheses were t e s t e d . In t h i s s e c t i o n , many of the most i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t s were found t o be contained w i t h i n the data f o r i n d i v i d u a l Ss. For t h i s reason, as well as f o r c l a r i t y and c o n t i n u i t y , there w i l l be some d i s c u s s i o n of the r e s u l t s included in t h i s s e c t i o n (rather than in the d i s c u s s i o n i t s e l f ) leaving the more general f i n d i n g s to be evaluated in the next chapter. Part 1 Our task in t h i s s e c t i o n i s to determine how c l o s e l y the Q l l l a o r derings of involvement match those i n f e r r e d from the Q l l a SSRL's. This can be done in the f o l l o w i n g manner: i ) i f j Is judged as \" i n v o l v i n g \" and 1 i s judged as \"non-involv ing \" , then obviously j w i l l be judged as \"more i n v o l v i n g \" , i i ) If both j and k are judged as \" i n v o l v i n g \" then the stimulus with the shorter SSRL w i l l be judged as \"more i n v o l v i n g \" , i i i ) If both 1 and m'are judged as \"non-invoIving\" then the stimulus with the shorter latency w i l l be judged as the \"most non- i nvoIv i ng\". It should be noted that here we are applying P e t r u s i c ' s (1966) model f o r processing SSRL to obt a i n paired comparison (PC) o r d e r i n g s , but in t h i s case we are probably working in a much more complex doma i n. 33 Three r e p l i c a t i o n s of both O l l a and Q l l l a data were c o l l e c t e d . The orderings were compared to determine how c l o s e l y the Q l l a o r dering c o r r e l a t e d with the Q l l l a o r d e r i n g . The f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n i s necess ary to c l a r i f y the method used to compare o r d e r i n g s . S t o c h a s t i c Dominance (SD) Let P r ( j , k ) = p r o b a b i l i t y with which j is chosen over k. Then j i s s t o c h a s t i c a l l y dominant over k (j(SD)k) i f and oniy i f P r ( j , k ) &gt; P r ( k , j ) . Stimulus j i s the s t o c h a s t i c a l l y dominant choice and k i s the s t o c h a s t i c a l l y non-dominant (SND) choice. Thus, SD can be defined on the Q l l a i n f e r r e d orderings and the Q l l l a rank o r d e r i n g s . The e m p i r i c a l problem i s to determine the degree to which the two SD orderings match. For the twenty s t i m u l i used there are a p o s s i b l e 190 p a i r s . The scores f o r each subject were obtained by counting the number of times j was s t o c h a s t i c a l l y dominant over k in both sets of data. That i s , j had to be dominant over k in both sets of data before i t was counted as being c o r r e c t l y p r e d i c t e d . The data are given in Table 3.1. Subject P o s s i b l e number Number of p a i r s P r e d i c t i v e of p a i r s c o r r e c t Iy accuracy predicted 1 .1.90 161 .847 2 190 157 .826 3 190 161 .847 4 190 154 .810 Table 3.1. The number of Q l l l a SD p a i r s c o r r e c t l y p r edicted by the Q l l a SD p a i r s . 34 The hypothesis that the p r o b a b i l i t y that the orderings for a given pair match is 0.5 was c l e a r l y rejected (one-tailed binomial t e s t s ) . From Table 3.1 i t is c l e a r that the p r e d i c t i v e accuracy is rather high: i t is not perfect, however, since the paired comparison consistency estimate from the decompressed rank orderings were not equal to one for many p a i r s . Part 2 Figures 3.1 and 3,2 are graphic representations of the Qllb and Q l l a ( c . ) tasks at each position on a l l the issues. The issues are labelled high, medium and low and correspond to the degree the Ss f e l t involved in the issue. The data points are plotted such that i t is obvious which positions were accepted or rejected and which were more- pro or less-pro. A close inspection of the high involvement issue SSRL's for SI suggests that perhaps our main hypotheses may have been co r r e c t . The Q l l a ( c . ) (more-pro, less-pro) latencies, except for an inversion at the neutral p o s i t i o n , are c o n s i s t a n t l y longer than the Q l l b (accept-reject) latencies. For the medium involvement issue there is s t i l l orderly data but in t h i s case there is an inversion which v i o l a t e s our predic t i o n s . On the less-pro side of the category boundary the Q l l a ( c . ) latencies are again longer than the Qllb latencies but on the more-pro side the opposite is true. For the low involvement issue, SI has maintained the behavior displayed on a I I three Issues. That i s , the Qllb task appears to be an easier task (and therefore, exhibits shorter latencies) than the Q l l a ( c . ) task regardless of the degree of involvement in the _ Q Qllb MEDIAN SSRL's\u2014ACCEPT CATEGORY _\u00AE Qllb MEDIAN SSRL's\u2014REJECT CATEGORY -.FIGURE 3.1.' Qll b and Q 1 1 a ( c . ) MEDIAN.SD SSRL'SFOR HIGH, MEDIUM, ' ' AND LOW INVOLVEMENT FOR SUBJECTS 1 AND 2. - -.\" S3 . S4 34b Key A- .011a(e..) MEDIAN SSRL's\u2014LESS PRO 011a(c,.) MEDIAN SSRL's\u2014-MORE PRO CATEGORY BOUNDARY . INFERRED FROM Q11a(c.) .MEDIAN SSRL's ' O- O Qllb MEDIAN SSRL'S--ACCEPT CATEGORY - \u00A9 Q l l b MEDIAN SSRL's\u2014REJ ECT CATEGORY FIGURE 3.2. ; Qll b and QUaCc.) MEDIAN SD SSRL'S FOR HIGH, MEDIUM, . AND LOW INVOLVEMENT FOR SUBJECTS 3 AMD-4.. ' 35 issue. T h i s , of course, d i r e c t l y c o n t r a d i c t s hypotheses 1 and 2. With S2, on the high involvement issue we have data which is d i r e c t l y opposite t o our p r e d i c t i o n s . S2 apparently f i n d s the accept- r e j e c t task the more d i f f i c u l t (as evidenced by the long l a t e n c i e s ) than the Q l l a ( c . ) task. The extremely long latency (comparatively speaking) at the +50 p o s i t i o n Is a phenomenon f o r which we have no exp l a n a t i o n . For the medium involvement issue the Q l l b task s t i l l appears to be more d i f f i c u l t than the Q l l a ( c . ) t a s k . In the low involvement issue a reversal begins t o appear and the task we would p r e d i c t t o be the e a s i e s t f o r the uninvolved S_ seems t o be the more d i f f icu 11. For S3 on the high Involvement issue there i s very l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e between the Q l l b and Q l l a ( c . ) l a t e n c i e s . Both d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s were made with approximately the same speed. This holds t r u e f o r the medium involvement issue a l s o . On t h i s issue, however, at the +50 p o s i t i o n there are very long l a t e n c i e s associated with both t a s k s . These l a t e n c i e s suggest that the d e c i s i o n f o r both the a c c e p t - r e j e c t and the more-pro, less-pro tasks i s an extreme ly d i f f i c u l t one, and th a t the p o s i t i o n i s almost e x a c t l y on the S_'s category boundary. Tho low involvement issue f o r 53 e x h i b i t s much the same pattern as described f o r the high and medium involvement issues. S4, .in a l l of the issues, appears t o have adopted a speed o r i e n t a  t i o n . His l a t e n c i e s f o r the high involvement issue r e f l e c t almost pure r e a c t i o n time. It i s apparant that on the Q l l a ( c . ) task the S_ made no d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s at a l l . He simply indicated that every p o s i t i o n on the issue was less-pro than h i s ideal p o i n t . The main component of the l a t e n c i e s of both the medium and low involvement issues i s a l s o r e a c t i o n 36 time. In the region of the S_'s category boundary, however, the l a t e n c i e s do r e f l e c t t h a t some d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i s occ u r i n g . It i s obvious from the r e s u l t s in Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2 th a t both the f i r s t and second major hypotheses must be r e j e c t e d . The data does not d i s c r i m i n a t e between issues along the dimension of involvement. The data does, however, provide support f o r the t h i r d hypothesis. If the S_ i s forced t o make a choice on a l l of the p o s i t i o n s presented t o him he w i l l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y accept only a l i m i t e d number, regardless of h i s involvement in the issue, and r e j e c t a l l remaining a l t e r n a t i v e s . The number of p o s i t i o n s accepted or re j e c t e d by any S_ was c o n s i s t a n t over a l l of the issues. It can be observed in the data t h a t SI, S3, and S4 accepted only one p o s i t i o n on each issue and S2 accepted two p o s i t i o n s on each issue. Such narrow ranges f o r the l a t i t u d e s of acceptance, however, are unusual and these f i n d i n g s w i l l be more f u l l y discussed in chapter f o u r . While the major hypotheses t y p i c a l l y f i n d no support, there i s s t i l l a considerable amount of o r d e r l i n e s s w i t h i n the data. For example, the nature of the data i s such t h a t an ideal p o i n t f o r each _S, on each of h i s issues, can be i n f e r r e d from both the Q l l b and QllaCc..) data (by using category boundaries and l a t i t u d e s of acceptance). If the Q l l b and Q l l a f c . J data are a c c u r a t e l y d e s c r i b i n g each S_'s e v a l u  a t i o n of the a l t e r n a t i v e s then the ideal p o i n t , as i n f e r r e d from both t a s k s , should be the same. This has a c t u a l l y occurred over a l l issues f o r each of the S_s. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 show the actual ideal p o ints i n f e r r e d from both c l a s s e s of data. Moreover, as each S_ moved from high to low involvement the i n f e r r e d ideal points moved from extreme p o s i t i o n s to more neutral p o s i t i o n s . 37 SI and S2 provided a d d i t i o n a l data which were used in a more microscopic a n a l y s i s of the f i n d i n g s . It was f e l t t h a t even i f we found no support f o r our hypotheses we should s t i l l be able to demonstrate o r d e r l i n e s s w i t h i n the data. If such o r d e r l i n e s s e x i s t s then we can conclude t h a t any lack of support f o r our hypotheses did not a r i s e as a r e s u l t of random e f f e c t s . In other words, i t would be the models that we used to describe involvement which wore i n c o r r e c t rather than the t h e o r e t i c a l basis of SSRL and unfolding theory. To determine whether we have o r d e r l i n e s s w i t h i n the data, P e t r u s i c ' s (1966) model f o r the processing of SSRL data to o b t a i n PC orderings w i l l be used. This method would allow us to p r e d i c t an i n f e r r e d ordering from both the Q l l b and Q l l a ( c . ) SSRL's to the Qla preference orderings obtained from SLand S2. Furthermore, such a procedure would be a r e p l i c a t i o n , but again in a more complex domain, of P e t r u s i c ' s (1966) f i n d i n g s . If the p r e d i c t i o n s of Qla rank orderings are high then we w i l l have demonstrated the p r e d i c t i v e a b i l i t y of SSRL data and tha s e n s i t i v i t y of such data in the e v a l u a t i o n of the a t t i t u d e s held by the S_s. To c l a r i f y how the Q l l b data can be used to p r e d i c t the Qla ordering the f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n s are necessary: i) i f the i n d i v i d u a l accepts j and r e j e c t s 1 then c l e a r l y he w i l l p r e f e r j over 1. i i ) If the i n d i v i d u a l accepts both j and 1 then he w i l l p r e f e r the stimulus he accepts with the shorter latency, i i i ) If the i n d i v i d u a l r e j e c t s both 1 and m then he w i l l p r e f e r the stimulus he r e j e c t s with the longer latency. In a s i m i l a r manner, the p r e d i c t i o n of Qla from Q l l a ( c . ) SSRL 38 data is based on the following: i) i f the individual judges j as \"less-pro than him\" and 1 as \"more-pro than him\" then c l e a r l y 1 is \"more-pro' than j . i i ) If the individual judges both 1 and m as \"more-pro than him\" then the stimulus with the shorter SSRL is the \"more-pro\" st imu1 us. i t i ) If the individual judges both j and k as \"more-pro than him\" then the \"more-pro\" stimulus is the stimulus with the longer SSRL. From the three r e p l i c a t i o n s of the Qia data a SD ordering was obtained. The Qllb data was then analyzed and a PC ordering was obtained. The same method was used in predicting the Qia preference ordering from the Q l l a ( c . ) PC ordering. The re s u l t s are given in Table 3 . 2 . From the re s u l t s i t is obvious that the Qllb and Q l l a ( c . ) data c l e a r l y r e f l e c t the Ss preferences for the various positions on each of the issues. The only gross departure from t h i s pattern is again with S2 on the highly involving issue. This w i l l be discussed more f u l l y in chapter four. S u f f i c e i t to say, however, the re s u l t s of t h i s t e s t do indicate that our data were orderly and highly p r e d i c t i v e . 39 SI I2 TYPE OF INTERRELATION ISSUE TOTAL NUMBER CORRECT PAIRWISE PREDICTIONS BASED ON LATENCY ONLY TOTAL POSSIBLE NUMBER OF CORRECT PAIRWISE PREDICTS hi 27 28 10 22 Qllb-X?la med 21 28 16 22 low 21 28 15 22 hi 31 36 20 36 Q l l a ( c . . ) med 28 36 27 36 -&gt;Qla low 30 36 29 36 Table 3.2 Qllb-K?la and Q l l a ( c . ) -v Qia. The t o t a l number of c o r r e c t p a i r w i s e p r e d i c t i o n s f o r each issue of Ola paired comparison choices f o r SI and S2 from t'he Q l l b and Q l l a ( c . ) s i n g l e stimulus data. 40 CHAPTER I V DISCUSSION The a b i l i t y of an i n f e r r e d o rdering from Q l l a SSRL's t o p r e d i c t the orderings of Q l l l a data was c l e a r l y demonstrated. Moreover, these r e s u l t s have r e p l i c a t e d and confirmed P e t r u s i c ' s (1966) f i n d  ings, even though in t h i s case we have been dealing with what, in a l l p r o b a b i l i t y , i s a much more complex area. Thus, the interquad- rant r e l a t i o n s (at least between Q u a and Q l l l a ) appear t o hold over a wide range of s t i m u l i . The use of these interquadrant r e l a t i o n s h i p s was intended t o confirm our choice of issues f o r each S_ whether or not we a c t u a l I y did o b t a i n issues which d i f f e r e d in the required degrees of i n v o l v e  ment i s an open question. The assumption was made tha t i f we used a wide enough range of issues we would, by chance along, include one issue which had high involvement, one with medium involvement and one low involvement f o r each of our Ss. Perhaps a more con v i n c i n g method of determining involvement over a wide range of s t i m u l i could have been used. One p o s s i b l e way would be to make much more use of Coombs' (1964) concept of psy c h o l o g i c a l d i s t a n c e , in the sense that we could superimpose on the rank orderings of s t i m u l i the added requirement of spacing. That i s , we i m p l i c i t l y made the assumption t h a t the ordering we obtained would be graded as to the degree of involvement the S_ had in each' issue, j f the Ss had not only rank ordered the issues but a l s o spaced them, we may very well have found large groupings of s t i m u l i as well as large spaces along the continuum. It i s p o i n t l e s s to speculate f u r t h e r ; s u f f i c e i t to say that in orderings of any desc r i p t i o n , some consideration must be made for the subjective spacing of the s t i m u l i . In the second part of the study i t is only too c l e a r that the f i r s t and second hypotheses concerning the processes of involvement were compIetely unsupported by the data. Even though we must rej e c t our hypothesis, much of the intra-individuaI data is worth looking at. F i r s t , however, one aspect of the issues used in t h i s study should be considered. There was a f a i l u r e on the part of E_ to con t r o l for the number of dimensions along which an issue could be evaluated. Some of the issues were so stated that they could only be evaluated along a very few dimensions. For example, an issue such as \"increase the driving age to 18\" could be evaluated only along a very few dimensions, whereas there are many more dimensions to an issue such as \"the war in Viet Nam\". The important point here, however, is that during the experiment the S_ could evaluate the issue along one of the dimensions (perhaps one which has saliency for that p a r t i c u l a r S) or along many dimensions. If the l a t t e r should be the case then the latencies w i l l be accordingly increased. Thus, the S may be performing several tasks at once and our model for the evaluation of various stimuli does not allow for other sequential cognitive processes as part of a s i n g l e judgment. tn the data of S2 for the high involvement issue there is a marked v i o l a t i o n of t r a n s i t i v i t y where there is a sudden increase in the latency QIIa(c,.) data. It is possible that at t h i s p a r t i c u l a r p o sition the subject is viewing the issue along another dimension. 42 It would be i n t e r e s t i n g and worthwhile t o i n v e s t i g a t e the mu I t i d imens iona I i ty of various issues w i t h i n a s i n g l e S_. i f we knew how a person evaluated various p o s i t i o n s on some hi g h l y i n v o l v  ing issue we would be much b e t t e r equipped to then i n v e s t i g a t e the involvement v a r i a b l e . We have already inspected the data f o r each and, t y p i c a l l y , we have found that each i n d i v i d u a l has 3 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c way of respond ing to the s t i m u l i regardless of h i s involvement in the issue. In other words, there seems to be no s i m i l a r i t y between Ss in the way they respond to the s t i m u l i . The data suggests at l e a s t two p o s s i b l e reasons, the f i r s t being t h a t the S has some s p e c i f i c response o r i e n t a t i o n which i s super-imposed upon the requirements of the task ( f o r example, the speed o r i e n t a t i o n of S 4 ) . The second p o s s i b i l i t y is t h a t each S_ has h i s own unique method of processing s t i m u l i which demand d e c i s i o n or choice making. For example, i t may well be t h a t a S_ i s processing the information in the manner our models suggest but added to t h i s process is the S_'s e v a l u a t i o n of the consequences of h i s d e c i s i o n s or choices. The hypothesis that the s i z e of each S_'s l a t i t u d e of acceptance and l a t i t u d e of r e j e c t i o n would not vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y over a l l issues was supported. However, there does appear to be a need to q u a l i f y these f i n d i n g s . In using stimulus s c a l e s to i n d i c a t e the various p o s i t i o n s on any issue we have overcome, in p a r t , the prob lem of spacing of p o s i t i o n s along a pro-con continuum. The only problem with such stimulus s c a l e s i s that we may have removed some of the stimulus c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which are an i n t e g r a l part of the 43 a t t i t u d i n a t statements u s u a l l y used in a t t i t u d e change research. In the Q l l b task ( a c c e p t - r e j e c t ) three of the Ss accepted only one and one S_ accepted only two of the p o s i t i o n s over each issue. The usual f i n d i n g (Hovland and S h e r i f , 1961; S h e r i f and N e b e r g a l l , 1965) i s that a S_ wi I I c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y accept the same number of p o s i t i o n s over a l l issues, g e n e r a l l y at least three. The c o n t r a d i c  t o r y f i n d i n g s in t h i s study suggest two p o s s i b i l i t i e s . E i t h e r the Ss in the Hovland or S h e r i f s t u d i e s are d i s p l a c i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s , s i m i l a r to t h e i r own p o s i t i o n , c l o s e r together and thus accepting more o r , in the case of t h i s study, the p a r t i c u l a r p o s i t i o n s , since t h e i r l o c a t i o n i s i n v a r i a n t , are too widely spaced f o r the Ss to accept r a t i o n a l l y more than a maximum of two. A f u r t h e r q u a l i f i c a t i o n on our f i n d i n g s i s t h a t in making the statement that a l l non- committed p o s i t i o n s w i l l be r e j e c t e d by a S_ forced .to make a choice on an a c c e p t - r e j e c t basis w i l l only hold true with the type of s t i m u l i used in both t h i s and other s t u d i e s . That i s , we c h a r a c t e r  i s t i c a l l y represent a continuum from pro to con (or as in the case of t h i s study from +100 t o -100) by a very l i m i t e d number of items ( u s u a l l y n i n e ) . If an i n d i v i d u a l accepted two p o s i t i o n s , r e j e c t e d four and was uncommitted on three, then we would expect these three p o s i t i o n s to be r e j e c t e d (according to the r a t i o n a l presented e a r l i e r ) when an a c c e p t - r e j e c t d e c i s i o n was forced upon the S_. As we have repeatedly pointed out throughout t h i s experiment a S_ category boundary ( i . e . between what he accepts and r e j e c t s ) can be c l e a r l y defined. Thus, a much more rigerous t e s t of our hypothesis would be to present a very large number of p o s i t i o n s and then compare the 44 l a t i t u d e s of acceptance and r e j e c t i o n between i n v o l v i n g and non- i n v o l v i n g issues. Associated with any continuum evaluated by a S i s the S_'s ideal point on that continuum. One of the f i n d i n g s o f t h i s study which c l o s e l y agrees with the Hovland and S h e r i f s t u d i e s i s t h a t as involvement increases the ideal point tends to l o c a l i z e towards the extremes of the continuum. While t h i s has been the case in v i r t u a l l y every instance, there i s no reason to suppose t h a t t h i s i s i n v a r i a n t . In f a c t , i n t u i t i v e l y one would expect that on any unidemsional continuum we could f i n d i n d i v i d u a l s who are h i g h l y involved occupy ing only s l i g h t l y p o s i t i v e , negative or even neutral p o s i t i o n s . Furthermore, i t has u s u a l l y been the case in studies concerned with \"ego-invoIvement\" t h a t in order to ensure involvement the experimenters have used extreme groups as Ss ( f o r example, the Women's.Christian Temperance Union where the issue was \"repeal or p r o h i b i t i o n \" ; Hovland, Harvey.and S h e r i f , 1957). Thus, involvement has come to be defined in terms of extremity of p o s i t i o n . The f a c t that an extreme person i s perhaps a l s o h i g h l y involved does not preclude high involvement f o r persons with more middle-of-the-road p o s i t i o n s . The data c o l l e c t e d in t h i s study, while not supporting our hypotheses has c e r t a i n l y displayed a considerable amount of order l i n e s s . We have c l e a r l y been able to show that the SSRL's are v a l i d data r e f l e c t i n g a t t i t u d i n a l choice processes. They have not, however, helped us t o determine the psychological basis f o r these processes. We do know from the data, however, that we now have a method that r e l i a b l y p r e d i c t s a preference ordering (Qla data) from both Q l l b and QIIa(c..) SSRL's. This. rep I i c a t ion of P e t r u s i c ' s (1966) work 45 confirms h i s f i n d i n g s . In only one instance was our a b i l i t y to p r e d i c t a Ola preference ordering s e r i o u s l y reduced. This was with the high involvement issue of S^, and in t h i s case we were aware of t h i s reduction because of the S_'s speed o r i e n t a t i o n . 46 CHAPTER V SUMMARY ANO CONCLUSIONS In the past, research i n v e s t i g a t i n g a t t i t u d e change has i n e v i t a b l y had t o concern i t s e l f with \"ego-invoIvement\". The f i n d i n g s of studies e v a l u a t i n g the discrepance between an audience's opinion and the opinion recommended in a communication have t y p i c a l l y been confound ed by the degree to which the audience was involved in the issue (Hovland and P r i t z k e r , 1957; Hovland, Harvey and S h e r i f , 1957; S h e r i f and Hovland, 1961; Freedman, 1964; S h e r i f and N e b e r g a l l , 1965). It was r e a l i z e d that Thurstone's s c a l i n g assumptions which formed the basis f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n of a t t i t u d e s c a l e s were i n c o r  r e c t . It became evident t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l ' s own p o s i t i o n on an issue w i l l a f f e c t h i s judgment about the f a v o u r a b i I i t y of a l t e r n a t i v e p o s i t i o n s on t h a t issue ( S h e r i f and Hovland, 1961). Furthermore, the higher the i n d i v i d u a l ' s involvement in the issue the more h i s e v a l u a t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e p o s i t i o n s w i l l be a f f e c t e d (Ager and Dawes, 1965). The m a j o r i t y of research on involvement has been conducted w i t h  out the a i d of a c l e a r l y defined t h e o r e t i c a l framework. The t h e o r e c t i c a l framework presented in t h i s study draws h e a v i l y upon the f a c t that Thurstone's s c a l i n g assumptions were incc o r e c t and, what i s even more important, upon the theory of data provided by Coombs (1964). The c l a s s e s of data described by Coombs and l a t e r work by P e t r u s i c (1966) has provided us with two models which were adapted to f i t into a research design f o r the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the i n v o l v e m e n t v a r i a b l e . The f i r s t model was t h o u g h t t o d e s c r i b e an i n d i v i d u a l who was not i n v o l v e d i n some s o c i a l i s s u e and t h e second model an i n d i v i d u a l who was h i g h l y i n v o l v e d i n t h a t i s s u e . These models depended on two o f t h e e i g h t c l a s s e s o f d a t a d e s c r i b e d by Coombs (1964) and t h e s i n g l e s t i m u l u s r e s p o n s e l a t e n c y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e s e c l a s s e s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e major h y p o t h e s e s t e s t e d i n t h i s s t u d y were: 1. The i n d i v i d u a l who i s h i g h l y i n v o l v e d i n any s o c i a l i s s u e w i l l j u d g e a l t e r n a t i v e p o s i t i o n s on t h a t i s s u e d i f f e r e n t l y t h a n t h e i n d i v i d u a l who i s n o t i n v o l v e d . T hat i s t h e n o n - i n v o l v e d p e r s o n w i l l o p e r a t e on a J - s c a l e and t h e i n v o l v e d p e r s o n w i l l o p e r a t e on an I - s c a l e . 2. I t i s p o s s i b l e t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e between i n d i v i d u a l s as t o t h e amount o f i n v o l v e m e n t each i n d i v i d u a l has f o r any g i v e n s o c i a l i s s u e i n terms o f Coombs' u n f o l d i n g t h e o r y and s i n g l e s t i m u l u s r e s p o n s e l a t e n c y . The e x p e r i m e n t was c o n d u c t e d , u s i n g f o u r S s, i n t h e f o l l o w i n g manner. Four c l a s s e s o f d a t a , from Coombs' (1964) Theory o f Data were o b t a i n e d . These c l a s s e s were Q l a (a p r e f e r e n c e o r d e r i n g ) , Q11a ( s t i m u l u s c a t e g o r i z a t i o n ) , Q 1 l a ( c . . ) ( c a t e g o r i z a t i o n r e l a t i v e t o an i d e a l p o i n t ) , Q l l b ( a c c e p t - r e j e c t ) and f i n a l l y Q l l l a ( r a n k o r d e r i n g ) . The Q l l l a d a t a was c o l l e c t e d f o r each S_. T h i s d a t a was a rank o r d e r i n g o f t w e n t y s o c i a l i s s u e s a l o n g an \" i n v o l v e d - not i n v o l v e d \" c o n t i n u u m . The h i g h e s t \" i n v o l v e d ' , l o w e s t \" i n v o l v e d \" and a medium \" i n v o l v e d \" i s s u e was chosen from each S/s o r d e r i n g . 4 8 The accuracy of the rank ordering v/as confirmed by using Q l l a data obtained from s i n g l e stimulus response latency (SSRL). The Ss were next required to complete the Q l l a ( c .) and Q l l b \u2014 \u2022 i tasks. This involved having the S_ categori ze, ni ne s t i m u l i , one at a time, as being (a) more-pro or less-pro than h i s own p o s i t i o n on each issue and (b) whether he would accept or r e j e c t each p o s i t i o n on each issue. The Ss response latency was measured during each t r i a l . Five r e p l i c a t i o n s of both the Q i i a ( c .) and Q l l b tasks were c o l l e c t e d from two Ss and eleven r e p l i c a t i o n s were c o l l e c t e d from the remaining two. The e x t r a r e p l i c a t i o n s were to provide a d d i t i o n  al data that could be used in analyzing inter-quadrant r e l a t i o n s in terms of the work of P e t r u s i c (1966) and to determine c l e a r l y whether or not our data was o r d e r l y . To make such an a n a l y s i s i t was necessary to c o l l e c t Qia data (a preference ordering) from the nine s i n g l e s t i m u l i used to c o l l e c t QIIa(c .) and Q l l b SSRL data. \u2022 i The data c o l l e c t e d f a i l e d to comply with our models of i n v o l v e  ment. The p o s s i b l e reasons were discussed at some length. The data d i d , however, r e p l i c a t e and confirm P e t r u s i c ' s (1966) f i n d i n g s . From the Q I I a ( c # . ) and Q l l b data we were able to use P e t r u s i c ' s (1966) model f o r processing SSRL data to o b t a i n PC orderings. Both types of data were found to be h i g h l y p r e d i c t i v e of the Qia o r d e r i n g . This suggested that our latency data was v a l i d but our models were i n c o r r e c t , r e s u l t i n g in our r e j e c t i n g the hypotheses. The wide range of a p p l i c a b i l i t y of SSRL f o r research was demon s t r a t e d and suggests that t h i s type of research holds much promise f o r the f u t u r e . Several suggestions f o r l i n e s of f u r t h e r research were made such t h a t some of the v a r i a b l e s of involvement may be i n v e s t i g a t e d . APPENDIX A COMPILATION OF ALL INSTRUCTIONS USED IN THIS STUDY 51 APPENDIX A COMPILATION OF ALL INSTRUCTIONS USED IN THIS STUDY The f o l l o w i n g are the the i n s t r u c t i o n s that were used in t h i s exper i ment. Pr e l i m i n a r y I n s t r u c t i o n s Let me read you the i n s t r u c t i o n s so that we can be sure t h a t everyone w i l l have the same i n s t r u c t i o n s . We are in t e r e s t e d in how i n d i v i d u a l s react to a v a r i e t y of o b j e c t s . Let me say at the outset that in t h i s study we are not int e r e s t e d , in anyway, in t r y i n g to evaluate you or your performance. One of the main purposes of t h i s study i s to learn something about the nature and the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s of various methods f o r studying choices. The actual choices themselves t h a t you make are only of secondary importance t o us: we are much more concerned with t r y i n g to discover the processes t h a t underly choice behaviour. So r e l a x as much as p o s s i b l e : we are not t r y i n g to :psych you out\" Introduction t o So c i a l Issues During the course of t h i s experiment we w i l l be asking you to complete various t a s k s . I w i l l e x p l a i n each of the tasks as we come t o i t . Before we begin, however, we want you to be very f a m i l i a r with a l l of the a l t e r n a t i v e s we w i l l be asking you t o make choices about. Thus, I am going to show you a l l of the a l t e r n a t i v e s on s l i d e s one at a time. Now as I present these 52 s l i d e s to you I would l i k e you to read them aloud to me. 0 . K.? At t h i s point the s l i d e s were presented to the subject: Now that you are f a m i l i a r with the s l i d e s we would l i k e you to become f a m i l i a r with the apparatus. The apparatus i s f u l l y automated and f o r i t to run properly a few d e t a i l s must be followed rather c l o s e l y . F i r s t i s the manner in which you operate the response box. Hold your hand in the f o l l o w i n g manner. (Show subject and i n s t r u c t him t o use whichever f i n g e r i s the most comfortable). When you make a response i t i s important t h a t you push the botton down with a quick f i r m snap. Recognition Task: Reduction of Reading Time D i f f e r e n t i a l 0 . K., t o acquaint you with t h i s we wi I I do a simple r e c o g n i t i o n task. I w i l l show you each of the s l i d e s , one at a time. As soon as you recognize the statement on the f i r s t s l i d e I want you to press the button as q u i c k l y as p o s s i b l e . For the f i r s t set of s l i d e s use your r i g h t hand to press the button on the r i g h t . On the next set use your l e f t hand to operate the button on the l e f t . I w i l l t e l l you when to change hands. The s l i d e w i l l remain on the screen unti I you press one of the buttons. I w i l l say \"ready\" as a s i g n a l to you when the next s l i d e i s to appear. A f t e r a few t r i a l s you should be able to recognize each statement as soon as i t i s flashed on the screen. Any questions? Ready. 53 Recognition Task Repeated Today we w i l l begin by repeating the r e c o g n i t i o n task. We w i l l f o l l o w the same procedure as in our l a s t s e s s i o n . I w i l l show you each of the s l i d e s one at a time. As soon as you recognize the s t a t e  ment on the s l i d e I want you to press the button as q u i c k l y as p o s s i b l e . Again, f o r the f i r s t set of s l i d e s use your r i g h t hand and press the button on the r i g h t . On the next set use your l e f t hand to operate the button on the l e f t . I w i l l t e l l you when to change hands. I w i l l say \"ready\" as a sign a l to you when the next s l i d e i s t o appear. Any questions? Ready. Involvement C a t e g o r i z a t i o n (Q l l a ) As you can see I have l a b e l l e d both buttons. The button on the r i g h t i s l a b e l l e d \" i n v o l v e d \" and the one on the l e f t \"not involved\". 0 . K., now l e t me e x p l a i n what we mean \"by involvement. There are some s o c i a l issues about which some people f e e l very s t r o n g l y . For example, an a r t i s t may have very strong f e e l i n g s and opinions about a b s t r a c t a r t . He may fee l that a b s t r a c t a r t is the only t r u e form of a r t and th a t everything e l s e i s a waste of time. Another a r t i s t may be very much opposed to a b s t r a c t a r t and c l a s s i t as t r a s h . Both of these people are highly involved, one having p o s i t i v e involvement and the other negative. A b r i c k - l a y e r , however, may be completely i n d i f f e r e n t to a b s t r a c t a r t , not c a r i n g about i t one way or the other. And there are, of course, p o s i t i o n s which vary a l l the way from complete i n d i f f e r e n c e to very high involvement. I am again going to show you the issues we used the l a s t day and i f you are involved in a p a r t i c u l a r issue I want you to push the button on the r i g h t (or l e f t ) . If you are not involved in the issue then push the button on the l e f t (or r i g h t ) . Do not f e e l t h a t you must i n d i c a t e involvement f o r issues which are c u r r e n t l y popular i f you, y o u r s e l f , are not involved in that issue. We simply want you to i n d i c a t e which issues you are involved in or not involved in at the present time. Again, press the button on the r i g h t ( l e f t ) f o r involvement and the one on the l e f t ( r i g h t ) f o r no involvement. Take as long as you wish and t r y to be as accurate as p o s s i b l e . Once you decide then press the button immediately. To prepare you f o r each s l i d e I w i l l say \"ready\" immediately before I present the s l i d e . Any questions? Ready. Rank Ordering of Issues Here are twenty cards. On each card i s w r i t t e n one of the issues with which you have become f a m i l i a r . I want you to arrange these cards so that on the extreme l e f t you have the issue in which you are least i n t e r e s t e d . On the extreme r i g h t place the issue in which you are most involved. Range the r e s t of the cards between these two extremes so that they increase from l e a s t i n t e r e s t to most involvement. Indicate at which point you would d i v i d e the cards into the non-involved side and the involved s i d e . Any questions? Rank Ordering of Issues f o r Remaining R e p l i c a t i o n s Here are the twenty cards again, I want you t o arrange these cards 55 according t o the same c r i t e r i o n as we did in our l a s t s e s s i o n . On the extreme l e f t put the card with the issue which i s l e a s t i n t e r  e s t i n g and on the extreme r i g h t the issue which is most i n v o l v i n g . Range the r e s t of the cards between these two extremes so that they increase from l a s t i n t e r e s t to most involvement. Indicate at the point you would d i v i d e the cards into the non-involved side and the i n  volved s i d e . Any questions? I n s t r u c t i o n s \u2014 M e a n i n g of Scales Before we go on to the next task, we want you t o become f a m i l i a r with some a l t e r n a t i v e s that we w i l l ask you to make choices on. Thus, I am going to show you these a l t e r n a t i v e s on s l i d e s one at a time. F i r s t l e t me e x p l a i n these s l i d e s to you. The f i r s t stimulus s c a l e s l i d e was shown here. As you can see, t h i s s l i d e has a s c a l e on i t and the s c a l e ranges from - 100 to zero t o +100. There i s an arrow on the scale i n d i c a t i n g +75. Now, i f we were co n s i d e r i n g the issue of a b s t r a c t a r t , the p o s i t i o n of +100 on the sca l e would mean a p o s i t i o n which i s maximally in favor of a b s t r a c t a r t . In the same way, an arrow i n d i c a t i zero on the s c a l e would r e f e r t o a p o s i t i o n that i s n e i t h e r f o r nor against a b s t r a c t a r t . I am now going to show you a s e r i e s of s l i d e s and I want you to describe t o me what p o s i t i o n , in r e l a t i o n to a b s t r a c t a r t , the arrow i n d i c a t e s on each of the s l i d e s . The remaining stimulus s c a l e s l i d e s were shown here. 56 Introduction to Q l l a ( c a t e g o r i z a t i o n r e l a t i v e t o ideal p o i n t ) Task Now we are ready f o r the next task. For t h i s task you w i l l have noticed t h a t I have l a b e l l e d the two buttons again. The r i g h t hand button i s l a b e l l e d \"more-pro\" and the l e f t hand button is l a b e l l e d \" l e s s - p r o \" . Now, r e f e r r i n g back t o the issue of a b s t r a c t a r t \u2014 y o u probably have some stand on t h i s p a r t i c u l a r issue. Any p o s i t i o n i n d i c a t e d by an arrow on the s l i d e can be more in favor of the issue than you are, in other words more-pro, or i t can be less in favour or less-pro than you are. In r e l a t i o n t o the issue of a b s t r a c t a r t I want you to look at each s l i d e that I show you and decide whether the p o s i t i o n indicated on the s l i d e in more-pro or less-pro than your own most preferred p o s i t i o n . If the p o s i t i o n i s more-pro then press the r i g h t hand button and i f i t i s less-pro then press the l e f t hand button. You should a l s o note that in each case you must made a d e c i s i o n . Take as much time as you wish and t r y to be as accurate as p o s s i b l e . Once you decide then press the button immediately. Any questions? Ready. Introduction to Q l l b (accept-ra,ject) Task Now we are ready f o r the next task. Often people are faced with a choice i n v o l v i n g a s i n g l e a l t e r n a t i v e , and they must decide whether they react p o s i t i v e l y or negatively to i t . For example, i s t h i s l o c a l p r o p o s i t i o n to be endorsed or not, do I accept t h i s speaker's p o l i t i c a l a s s e r t i o n s or do I r e j e c t them, would I go to t h i s national park f o r my vacation or not, am I w i l l i n g to buy t h i s commodity or not, i s t h i s an a t t r a c t i v e c a r , p a i n t i n g , woman or perhaps, should 57 I play t h i s horse or not, should I buy insurance or not. In the present study we are going to present you with the a l t e r n a t i v e s , with which you are. now f a m i l i a r , on s l i d e s one at a time, and you must decide b a s i c a l l y whether you can accept t h a t a l t e r n a t i v e or whether you must r e j e c t t h a t a l t e r n a t i v e . Now, as you can see I have l a b e l l e d the buttons. The r i g h t hand button is l a b e l l e d accept and the l e f t hand button i s l a b e l l e d r e j e c t . Considering the issue of a b s t r a c t a r t I want you to i n d i c a t e whether the p o s i t i o n s indicated on the s l i d e s are acceptable to you or not acceptable to you. If you can accept a p a r t i c u l a r p o s i t i o n then push the accept button or i t the p o s i t i o n i s unacceptable to you then push the r e j e c t button. Remember, you are accepting or r e j e c t i n g t h i s p o s i t i o n in r e l a t i o n to how you p e r s o n a l l y f e e l about a b s t r a c t a r t . Take as much time as you wish and make your d e c i s i o n s as c a r e f u l l y as p o s s i b l e , but once you decide then press the button as q u i c k l y as p o s s i b l e . Any questions? Ready. I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r Remaining R e p l i c a t i o n s of O l l a Task Now we are going to do the same tas k , only t h i s time we w i l l be using d i f f e r e n t issues. In r e l a t i o n t o the issue of (actual issue was inserted here) I want you to look at each s l i d e t h a t I show you and decide whether the p o s i t i o n i n d i c a t e d on the s l i d e i s more-pro or less-pro than your own most preferred p o s i t i o n . If the p o s i t i o n i s more-pro then press the r i g h t hand button, i f i t i s less-pro then press the l e f t hand button. Take as much time as you wish and t r y to be as accurate as p o s s i b l e . Once you decide then press the button immed i a t e I y . 58 I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the Remaining R e p l i c a t i o n s of the Q l l b Task Now we are going to do the same task, only t h i s time we w i l l be using d i f f e r e n t issues. In r e l a t i o n to the issue of (the actual issue was inserted here) I want you to look at each s l i d e t h a t i show you and decide whether the p o s i t i o n indicated on the s l i d e i s acceptable or unacceptable to you. If the p o s i t i o n is acceptable then press the accept button on the r i g h t or i f i t i s unacceptable to you then press the r e j e c t button on the l e f t . Take as much time as you wish and t r y to be as accurate as p o s s i b l e . Once you decide then press the button immediately. I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the Two Ss Receiving A d d i t i o n a l Sessions I. Q l l a data Let me f i r s t e x p l a i n how we w i l l procede from t h i s point on. Before any s l i d e i s presented I w i l l t e l l you which of the three issues we are c o n s i d e r i n g . Your task is to i n d i c a t e whether the p o s i t i o n on the s l i d e i s more-pro or less-pro than your most preferred p o s i t i o n in regard t o the p a r t i c u l a r issue we are co n s i d e r i n g at the time. The order in which the issues are presented w i l l be kept constant. In order t o e l i m i n a t e any p o s s i b l e confusion I w i l l a l s o t e l l you before each s l i d e which issue we are c o n s i d e r i n g . The order of issues is \" \". Remember, press the button on the r i g h t f o r more-pro and the button on the l e f t f o r less-pro. Take as long as you wish and t r y to be as accurate as p o s s i b l e . Once you decide then press the button immediately. I w i l l say \"ready\" immediately before I present the s l i d e . Any questions? Ready. 59 2. Q l l b data Now, f o r t h i s task, before any s l i d e i s presented, I w i l l t e l l you which of the three issues we are c o n s i d e r i n g . Your task i s to i n d i c a t e whether the p o s i t i o n shown on the s l i d e i s acceptable to you or unacceptable t o you. In other words, you must i n d i c a t e whether you accept or r e j e c t that p a r t i c u l a r p o s i t i o n in regard to the p a r t i c u l a r issue we are con s i d e r i n g at the time. The order in which the issues are presented w i l l be kept constant. In order to e l i m i n a t e any p o s s i b l e confusion I w i l l a l s o t e l l you before each s l i d e which issue we are c o n s i d e r i n g . The order of issues i s \" \". Remember, press the button on the r i g h t f o r accept and the button on the l e f t f o r r e j e c t . Take as long as you wish and t r y to be as accurate as p o s s i b l e . Once you decide then press the button immediately. I w i l l say \"ready\" immediately before I present the s l i d e . Any questions? Ready. I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r Qla data Here are nine cards. Each card has the s c a l e you are f a m i l i a r with p r i n t e d on i t . I want you to range these cards s t a r t i n g with the card the p o s i t i o n on which best i n d i c a t e s your own most pre f e r r e d p o s i t i o n . The next card in the ranking should be the one which next best i n d i c a t e s your p o s i t i o n and so on down to the l a s t card. Indicate at what p o s i t i o n you would d i v i d e the cards into acceptable and unacceptable p o s i t i o n s . Do t h i s f i r s t f o r the issue of \" \". 60 BIBLIOGRAPHY A g e r , J.W. and Dawes, R.M. E f f e c t o f j u d g e ' s a t t i t u d e s on judgements. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1965, 1, No. 5, 533-538. A r o n s o n , E., T u r n e r , J . and C a r l s m i t h , J.M. Communicator c r e d i b i l i t y and c ommunication d i s c r e p a n c y as d e t e r m i n a n t s o f o p i n i o n change. J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1963, 67, 31-36. Brehm, J.W., L i p s h e r , D. Communicator-communicatee d i s c r e p a n c y and p e r c e i v e d communicator t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s . J o u r n a l o f p e r s o n a l i t y , 1959, 27, 352-361. Coombs, C H . A Theory o f D a t a . New Y o r k , W i l e y , 1964. Freedman, J . L . Involvement, d i s c r e p a n c y and change. J o u r n a l o f  Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1964, 69, 290-295. G r e e n b e r g , M.G. Response l a t e n c y as a t e s t o f m a t h e m a t i c a l models f o r p r e f e r e n c e b e h a v i o r . U n p u b l i s h e d D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n , 1961. H o v l a n d , C . I . , Harvey, O.J. and S h e r i f , M. A s s i m i l a t i o n and c o n t r a s t e f f e c t s i n r e a c t i o n s t o communication and a t t i t u d e change. J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1957, 55, 244-252. H o v l a n d , C . I . and P r i t z k e r , H.A. E x t e n t o f o p i n i o n change as a f u n c t i o n o f amount o f change a d v o c a t e d . J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l  P s y c h o l o g y . 1957, 54, 257-261. H o v l a n d , C . I . and S h e r i f , M. Judgmental phenomena and s c a l e s o f a t t i t u d e measurement: item d i s p l a c e m e n t i n T h u r s t o n e s c a l e s . J o u r n a l o f AbnormaI and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1952, 47, 822-832. M a n i s , M. The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f o p i n i o n s t a t e m e n t s as a f u n c t i o n o f r e c i p i e n t a t t i t u d e and s o u r c e p r e s t i g e . J o u r n a l o f Abnormal  and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1961, 63, 82-86. P e t r u s i c , W.M. S i n g l e s t i m u l u s r e s p o n s e l a t e n c y and u n f o l d i n g t h e o r y . U n p u b l i s h e d D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n , 1965. Rosenbaum, M.E. and F r a n c , D.E. O p i n i o n change as a f u n c t i o n o f e t e r n a l commitment and amount o f d i s c r e p a n c y from t h e o p i n i o n o f a n o t h e r . J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1961, 61, 15. S h e r i f , M. and H o v l a n d , C . I . S o c i a l Judgment. New Haven, Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1961. 61 S h e i f , C.W., S h e r i f , M. and N e b e r g a l l , R.E. A t t i t u d e and A t t i t u d e Change: t h e S o c i a l Judgment-Involvement A p p r o a c h . P h i l a d e l p h i a , S a u n d e r s , 1965. T h u r s t o n e , L.L. and Chave, E . J . The Measurement o f A t t i t u d e . C h i c a g o , U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o P r e s s , 1929. Zimbardo, P.G. Involvement and communication d i s c r e p a n c y as d e t e r m i n a n t s o f o p i n i o n c o n f o r m i t y . J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , I960, 60, 86-94. "@en
<https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/831/items/1.0105421>