| Abstrakt: |
The concept of attitude often subsumes normative, preferential, and belief components; some attitude scales are composed of items exhibiting two or more of these modalities. Beliefs may, in turn, be classified as reports, stereotypes, consequences, and intentions. This article shows that attitude questions in different modes have differing origins and implications, and that it is an error to continue to use an attitude concept and attitude scales that are morally ambiguous. As well, it is an error to use factor analyses and lack of co-scalability as the only criteria for assessing modality differences within attitude scales. In support of this argument we show that adolescents respond differently to attitude questions concerning school integration that are phrased in the normative, preferential, and belief modes, although these same questions are also found to co-scale. A distinction is made between two ways of learning attitudes: through personal experience and through information from others. On the basis of this distinction, parallel results were predicted and found for preferences and intentions. These differed from results that we predicted and found for norms and stereotypes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
Plný text