Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T09:30:03.053Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies in Measurement of the Relations Among Sovereign States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Frank L. Klingberg
Frank L. Klingberg*
Affiliation:
James Millikin University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article describes the application of three psychometric methods to the problem of measurement of the friendly or hostile relations among states of the world today. To secure judgments, schedules were sent to students of international affairs at several times during the last five years. The method of equal-appearing intervals was used to determine the relative probability of war for 88 pairs of states in January, 1937; the method of “triadic combinations” to determine relative friendliness among the Great Powers in November, 1938; and the method of “multidimensional” or group rank order to measure the attitudes of important states toward the Great Powers in March and April, 1939; June, 1940; and June, 1941. A chart of scale values for the pairs of Great Powers shows the changing trends since 1937. The last two methods were used to depict the Great Powers in multidimensional space according to their mutual friendliness, thus permitting the application of a type of factor analysis. The reliability of the methods employed was high, and various types of evidence support the general validity of the results.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 6 , Issue 6 , December 1941 , pp. 335 - 352
Copyright
Copyright © 1941 The Psychometric Society

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

*

The writer is indebted to Professors Quincy Wright, and L. L. Thurstone and Dr. M. W. Richardson, for advice at various stages in these studies.

References

Russell, James T. and Wright, Quincy. National attitudes on the Far Eastern controversy. American Political Science Review, 1933, 27, 555–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. Review, 1927, 34, 273–286.Google Scholar
Gordon, K. Group judgments in the field of lifted weights. J. exper. Psychol., 1924, 7, 398–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinckley, E. D. The influence of individual opinion on construction of an attitude scale. J. soc. Psychol., 1932, 3, 283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. Attitudes can be measured. Amer. J. Sociol., 1928, 33, 529–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, M. W. Multidimensional psychophysics, (paper read at meeting of American Psychological Association at Columbus, Ohio, September 8, 1938); abstract in Psychol. Bull., 1938, 35, p. 659.Google Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. and Chave, E. J. The Measurement of Attitude, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930.Google Scholar
See Guilford, J. P., op. cit., pp. 236–38, 250, for method of average proportions.Google Scholar
Thurstone, L. L.. Rank order as a psychophysical method. Op. cit.; J. P. Guilford, op. cit., pp. 244 ff.Google Scholar
Cantril, Hadley. Prediction of social events. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1937, 1, 83–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallup, George and Robinson, Claude, American Institute of Public Opinion-Surveys, 1935–38. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1938, 2, 373–398.Google Scholar
Young, Gale and Householder, A. S. Discussion of a set of points in terms of their mutual distances. Psychometrika, 1938, 3, 19–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar