Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-04T23:53:24.029Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparisons between Category and Magnitude Scaling of Political Opinion Employing SRC/CPS Items*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Milton Lodge  and
Bernard Tursky
Milton Lodge
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Stony Brook
Bernard Tursky
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Stony Brook
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The measurement technique most commonly used by political scientists for determining the direction and intensity of opinion is category scaling–a procedure with serious weaknesses. Recent developments in psychophysics for the magnitude scaling and validation of sensory eontinua offer a powerful alternative to category scaling. Paralleling explicitly the logic and procedures used to scale psychophysically such variables as the loudness of sound and brightness of light, research methods now make it possible and feasible via a simple paper and pencil technique to obtain accurate, precise, cross-modally valid, magnitude measures of the direction and strength of political opinion from respondents in a survey setting.

A field survey, pitting category against magnitude measures for a sampling of the most important items employed in the SRC/CPS national election studies, demonstrates that the category scaling of political variables results in (1) the loss of significant portions of information and on occasion (2) the misclassification of respondents. The results of this scale-confrontation study demonstrate the superior utility of magnitude over category scaling for the description and quantitative analysis of political judgments and preferences.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 73 , Issue 1 , March 1979 , pp. 50 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This research project was supported by the National Science Foundation (SOC 7725539). With special thanks to our colleagues of the Laboratory for Behavioral Research: Hugh Foley, Joseph Tanenhaus, Mary Ann Foley, Richard Reeder, and David Cross.

References

Almond, Gabriel A. and Verba, Sidney (1963). The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baird, John C., Kreindler, Michael and Jones, Kenneth (1971). “Generation of Multiple Ratio Scales with a Fixed Stimulus Attribute.” Perception and Psychophysics 9:399–403.Google Scholar
Citrin, Jack (1974). “Comment: The Relevance of Trust in Government.” American Political Science Review 68:973–88.Google Scholar
Cliff, Norman (1973). “Scaling.” In Mussen, Paul H. and Rosenweig, Mark R. (eds.), Annual Review of Psychology. Palo Alto: Annual Review, pp. 473–506.Google Scholar
Corson, W. H. (1970). Conflict and Cooperation in East-West Crises: Dynamics of Crisis Intervention. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Political Science, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Cross, David V. (1974). “Some Technical Notes on Psychophysical Scaling.” In Moskowitz, H., Scharf, B. and Stevens, J. C. (eds.), Sensation and Measurement: Papers in Honor of S. S. Stevens. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Reidel, pp. 23–26.Google Scholar
Curtis, Dwight W. (1970). “Magnitude Estimations and Category Judgments of Brightness and Brightness Intervals: A Two-State Interpretation.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 83:201–08.Google Scholar
Dawson, William E. and Brinker, Richard P. (1971). “Validation of Ratio Scales of Opinion by Multimodality Matching.” Perception & Psychophysics 9:413–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisler, Hannes (1962a). “On the Problem of Category Scales in Psychophysics.” Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 3:81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisler, Hannes (1962b). “Empirical Test of a Model Relating Magnitude and Category Scales.” Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 3:88–96.Google Scholar
Finnie, B. and Luce, R. Duncan (1960). “Magnitude Estimation, Pair Comparison, and Successive Interval Scales of Attitude Items.” Mimeographed, Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Galanter, Eugene and Messick, Samuel (1961). “The Relation between Category and Magnitude Scales of Loudness.” Psychology Review 68:363–72.Google Scholar
Hamblin, Robert L. (1971a). “Mathematical Experimentation and Sociological Theory: A Critical Analysis.” Sociometry 34:423–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamblin, Robert L. (1971b). “Ratio Measurement for the Social Sciences.” Social Forces 50:191–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamblin, Robert L., Bridger, David A., Day, Robert C. and Yancey, William L. (1963). “The Interference-Aggression Law?” Sociometry 26:190–216.Google Scholar
Heise, David R. (1975). Causal Analysis. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Jones, Lyle V. and Thurstone, Louis L. (1955). “The Psychophysics of Semantics: An Experimental Investigation.” Journal of Applied Psychology 39:31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Künnapas, Teodor and Wikström, Inger (1963). “Measurement of Occupational Preferences: A Comparison of Scaling Methods.” Perceptual and Motor Skills 17:611–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, Milton, Cross, David, Tursky, Bernard and Tanenhaus, Joseph (1975). “The Psychophysical Scaling and Validation of a Political Support Scale.” American Journal of Political Science 19:611–49.Google Scholar
Lodge, Milton, Cross, David, Tursky, Bernard and Tanenhaus, Joseph and Reeder, Richard (1976a). “The Psychophysical Scaling of Political Support in the ‘Real World.’” Political Methodology 2:159–82.Google Scholar
Lodge, Milton, Cross, David, Tursky, Bernard, Foley, Mary Ann and Foley, Hugh (1976b). “The Calibration and Cross-Modal Validation of Ratio Scales of Political Opinion in Survey Research.” Social Science Research 5:325–47.Google Scholar
Marks, Lawrence E. (1968). “Stimulus-Range, Number of Categories, and the Form of the Category Scale.” American Journal of Psychology 81:467–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marks, Lawrence E. (1974). Sensory Processes: The New Psychophysics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Arthur H. (1974). “Political Issues and Trust in Government: 1964–1970.” American Political Science Review 68:951–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Namboodiri, N. Krishnan, Carter, Lewis F. and Blalock, Hubert M. Jr. (1975). Applied Multivariate Analysis and Experimental Designs. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Lee, Rainwater (1971). The Measurement of Social Status. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Sellin, J. Thorsten and Wolfgang, Marvin E. (1964). The Measurement of Delinquency. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Shinn, Allen Jr. (1969). “An Application of Psychophysical Scaling Techniques to the Measurement of National Power.” Journal of Politics 31:932–51.Google Scholar
Shinn, Allen Jr.. (1974). “Relations between Scales.” In Blalock, Hubert M. Jr. (ed.), Measurement in the Social Sciences: Theories and Strategies. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S. (1957). “On the Psychophysical Law.” Psychological Review 64:153–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevens, S. S. (1961). “To Honor Fechner and Repeal His Law.” Science 133:80–86.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S. (1966). “A Metric for the Social Consensus.” Science 151:530–41.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S. (1975). Psychophysics: Introduction to its Perceptual, Neural, and Social Prospects. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S. and Galanter, Eugene (1957). “Ratio Scales and Category Scales for a Dozen Perceptual Continua.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 54:377–411.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S. and Greenbaum, Hilda B. (1966). “Regression Effect in Psychophysical Judgment.” Perception and Psychophysics 1:439–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, S. S. and Guirao, Miguelina (1963). “Subjective Scaling of Length and Area and the Matching of Length to Hardness and Brightness.” Journal of Experimen tal Psychology 66:177–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, Joseph C., Mack, Joel D. and Stevens, S. S. (1960). “Growth of Sensation on Seven Continua as Measured by Force of Hand Grip.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 59:60–67.Google Scholar
Teghtsoonian, Martha and Teghtsoonian, Robert (1965). “Seen and Felt Length.” Psychonomic Science 3:465–66.Google Scholar
Thurstone, Louis L. and Chave, Ernest J. (1929). The Measurement of Attitude. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tufte, Edward R. (1969). “Improving Data Analysis in Political Science.” World Politics 21:641–54.Google Scholar
Verba, Sidney and Nie, Norman (1972). Participation in America. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Ward, Lawrence M. (1972). “Category Judgments of Loudness in the Absence of an Experimenter-Induced Identification Function: Sequential Effects and Power-Function Fit.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 94:179–84.Google Scholar
Ward, Lawrence M. (1973). “Repeated Magnitude Estimations with a Variable Standard: Sequential Effects and Other Properties.” Perception and Psychophysics 13:193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.