1. IMPLICIT MODEL OF ATTITUDE MEASURES
Attitude
Behavior
Support for Public Schools Survey
Degree values public schools
Votes to increase local taxes for schools.

2. Problems with Verbal Measures
Response Biases:
1. Social desirability
2. Sabotaging
Affected by situations and contexts: Current events in news ID of experimenter
Salience problem: Ss know that they are being measured.
a. High salience  attn, but  bias
b. Low salience  attn but  accuracy
Reactivity problem: IV = (IV + Measure)
Movie on discrimination + Aff. Action survey  “Ah, movie is propaganda!”
May require atypical depth of processing/introspection
May assume that people know own inner states/inner processes
more than they actually do.

3. Information Processing Model of Survey Response Strack & Martin, 1987

4. Behavioral Measures Advantages of Behavioral Measures  
1. Overt behavior
  2. Behavioroid
3. Physiological
Advantages of Behavioral Measures
1. More absorbing
2. Require less inference of rel. btwn IV and behavior, b/c measure IS behavior.
3. Tells a better story

5. Types of Behavioral Measures
Frequency Extent/Amount
Speed Intensity
Duration Preference
Latency Social/Physical Distance
Non-verbal Cues and
Expressive Behaviors
Unobtrusive Measures

6. DV: Distance

7. Non-Verbal Behavior as DV

8. Non-Verbal Behavior as DV

9. Behavioroid Measures
Defined: Measure INTENT to commit the behavior, w/o actually measuring or inducing behavior.
Used when actual behavior is too impractical, unethical, or otherwise inappropriate.

10. Example of Behavioroid Measure
Example of Behavioroid Measure
Freedman and Fraser "Foot in the Door" Study
JPSP, 1966
Behavioroid Measure:
Willingness to have 2.5 hour intrusive survey of house conducted by 5 strangers.
a. Not previously contacted: %
b. Familiarized with survey questions: %
c. “Complete short survey?”, not administered %
d. “Complete short survey?”, administered 52.8%

11. Physiological Measures
Defined: Bodily states that reflect psychological states
Blood pressure, heart rate, skin conductance
Examples:
Advantages:
Not under conscious control
Display mediation
Problems:
Costly; Intimidating to subjects;
Typically gross, rather than subtle;
Require inference to conceptual DV

12. Indirect Measures Measures that imply DV, without directly testing it.
Measures that imply DV, without directly testing it.
Observable Behavior
Implied State
Physical Distance from a minority person
Hostility
Reselling price for chosen vs. given item.
Valuation due to perceived control
Eye contact during "get acquainted" meeting.
Liking, attraction

13. Concluding Points Re. DVs
1. Which is the better feedback bias measure?
Feedback bias = Rating of essay “1 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 = good, 4 = great”
Feedback bias = (# pos. written comments − # neg. written comments) 
Aim for actual and behavioral, rather than general attitude
2. Which is better measure of hostility to out-group?
Amount of shock delivered during “learning” task
Physical distance during interview 
Expt. DV should be close to conceptual DV.
3. Which is better measure of health after disclosure?
Visit vs. Did Not Visit MD
Number of MD visits 
DV should be as precise and sensitive as possible

14. Experimental Designs
Class 10

15. IV Induces, DV Confirms C = Control Cond B = Black Writer Cond
W = White Writer Cond
Is my feedback measure any good?
* Reliable
* Valid

16. Reliability: DV provides consistent measurement
Temporal: Test/Re-test;
Rosenberg Self Esteem at start of semester and at end of
semester; r = .72
Inter-observer or Inter-rater
Voice tone—scared (on 1 – 5 scale): S1 S2 S3 S4
Rater 1 
Rater 2 
Correlation Rater 1 // Rater 2 = .78
Inter-item reliability (for scale development)

17. Inter-Item Reliability for Optimism Measure AKA “Cronbach’s Alpha”
SPSS Reliability Output
LOT = Life Orientation Test
Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994
Alpha = .90 Excellent
= .80 Good
= .70 Fair

18. Measures of Reliability
Reliability Type
Method
“Mood” = sad + angry + (not) happy + afraid
alpha = .81
Internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)
Rater A and Rater B agree 92%
Inter-rater
Ethics measure taken at start of term agree with same measure taken end of term (correlation r = .76)
Test-retest

19. Rettig & Pasamanick, 1959 RELIABLE MEASURES VS. VALID MEASURES
Moral Values Inventory
Rettig & Pasamanick, 1959
TO WHAT DEGREE WOULD YOU CONDONE:
Item 6: Girls smoking cigarettes
Item 31: Buying bootleg liquor under prohibition law
Item 39: Seeking amusement on Sunday instead of going to church.
Test / Retest > .70
Reliable measure?
YES
Probably not
Valid measure?

20. Validity Validity: DV measures what it is supposed to measure
Face Validity
The measure has a “common sense”
resemblance to the construct
Criterion-Related Validity
The measure is confirmed by a more rigorous standard
Concordant validity
Predictive validity
Construct Validity
Proves merit of underlying construct
Best obtained through multiple measures

21. Face Validity Face Valid? (High, Med., Low) Construct Hostility
Prejudice
Need for affiliation
Attraction
Empirical Realization
No. of shocks to harasser
RT: see Black or White target, ID pos/neg words
Choosing to be alone or with another person
Pupil dilation
High
Med/low
High
Low

22. Criterion Validity
Match or fit between specific, empirical DV (i.e., the one used in study) and an independent (and presumably stable, encompassing) measure of conceptual DV (i.e., the criterion).
Concordant validity: Criterion exists in the present.
Predictive validity: Criterion represented by future
behavior.
Validity Type
Conceptual DV
Expt’l DV Criterion
Treadmill minutes HR Recovery Time
Trustworthy Keeps Promises Survey (week 1) (end of term)
Concordant
Fitness
Trustworthy
Predictive

23. Construct Validity Neuroticism
Face validity and criterion validity refer largely to the validity of the measure.
Construct validity refers to the validity of the underlying conceptual DV.
Typically requires multiple measures
Neuroticism
Convergent Validity
Different measures that have only the underlying construct in common.
Neuroticism: moderately related to stress, negative affect, self-preoccupation, fear of judgment
Divergent Validity
Measure is not tightly related to similar constructs
Neuroticism  introversion,  conscientiousness

24. Validity Method Sexism scale items include: Validity Type
Women demand too many rights Wives should vote as their husbands do
Face Validity
“Acrophobia Survey” verified with heart rate, sweating, hyperventilation
Criterion
Aggressiveness Measure completed at prescreening predicts shocks delivered in experiment, 3 weeks later
Predictive

25. Validity (continued) Method Validity Type
“Nurturance” = 1. Attn. to other’s emotions Listening to problems Willing to help
Construct Validity
Self Esteem is moderately related to:
Self-confidence; Self-Clarity; Self- acceptance
Convergent Validity
Self Esteem is not highly correlated with self-efficacy; positive mood
Divergent Validity

26. Boosting Validity
Avoid “response set”: Alternate (or mix) the positive and negative valence of questions, in survey DV.
Systematic Replication: Several experiments, each one accounts for alternative explanation
Disguise measure: “Chicken game” in Culture of Honor studies—non obvious measure of aggression.
DV outside of conscious control, e.g., physio reactions

27. Weighing the Alternatives
I had to shed 20 pounds or else I’d lose my job and my wife would leave me and I’d die an early death.
I was desperate for a solution.
Then I found Chubby Checkers ® Within 2 months I lost 15 pounds!
You can, too!
Implied causal story?
Alternative explanations?

28. Saturday Academy Research Design
Pre-test
SAT= 940 
Class sessions
Post-test
SAT = 991
SAT gain pre to post test = 51 points
p < .01
Implied causal story?
Alternative explanations?
What does design need to address alternative explanations?

29. Control Groups
Purpose: To establish causality; that it is IV, and only IV, that
accounts for DV.
Attributes of Control Group:
1. Random selection:
* Each participant is equally likely to be
assigned to expt'l or control condition.
* Provides a check on systematic error
But, does not control for random error
2. Control condition should mimic experimental
condition in all respects other than the IV.
3. Assign Ss to control or experimental conds. just before introducing IV

30. Confederate Temperament
Counterbalancing
Confederate Race
Black
White
Confederate Temperament
Friendly
Unfriendly
Sub. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Essay Topic TV
Environ

31. (From Interracial Feedback Research)
Single Factor Design
(1 X 2) 
(From Interracial Feedback Research)
Black
White
Writer Race I II
1 Factor: Race of Writer
2 Levels: Black writer or White writer
Shows main effect only (whether phenomenon exists).
Does not show interaction.

32. Components of Factorial Design
Black White
Friendly I II
Unfriendly III IV
Factors: The independent variables
Factor 1: Writer race
Factor 2: Writer friendliness ‘
Levels: The dimensions within factors
Level 1, Friendliness: Friendly
Level 2, Friendliness: Unfriendly
Conditions: The intersection of factors and levels
Condition I: Friendly, Black writer
Condition IV: Unfriendly, White writer

33. Race-Irrelevant Essay
2 X 2 Friendly Unfrnd
Black Ia b
White 2a b
2 X 3 Friendly Unfrnd Neutral
Black 1a b c
White 2a b c
3 X 3 Friendly Unfrnd Neutral
Black 1a b c
White 2a b c
Asian 3a b c
Race-relevant Essay
2 X 2 X 2
Race-Irrelevant Essay
Friendly Unfrnd
Black Ia b
White a b
Friendly Unfrnd
Black Ia b
White a b

34. Factorial Designs as Coherent Sentences
Number of Factors
Factorial “Sentence”
Ethical decisions (blind/don/t blind) are affected by discussion opportunity (discuss vs. don’t discuss).
Ethical decisions are affected by group discussion and social contexts (Ghakistan vs. NY)
Ethical decisions are affected by group discussion and by social context as a function of gender.
Ethical decisions are affected by group discussion and by social context, as a function of gender—but only among college educated.
5 Ethical decisions are affected by group discussion and by social context, as a function of gender—but only among the college educated, who specialized in humanities rather than engineering.

35. Determining Number of Levels w/n Factors
How does arousal affect test performance?

36. Yerkes-Dotson Law
Performance Level
Low Moderate High
Arousal Level