This d issertation has been 63—50 m icrofilm ed exactly as received

GIBSON, Jam es W illiam , 1932- DIRECT AND INDIRECT ATTITUDE SCALE MEASUREMENTS OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ARGUMENTATIVE COMMUNICATIONS.

The Ohio State U niversity , P h .D ., 1962 Speech—Theater

University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan

5

probable if an individual initially agrees with the message or is the probability of reinforcement or change greater if the subject initially disagrees with the message? The implications for persuasion are im-

Oportant. Research reported by Brehm suggests that pressures will develop to reduce the state of dissonance. Evidence to support this. statement is based on subject action. This study will involve an examination of attitudinal changes taking place in consonant and dis­sonant subjects. The direct and indirect attitude scales will be utilized to measure the extent of attitude change as a result of the communication stimuli.

I. Experimental QuestionsThe experimental questions to be answered in this study are

these:1. What relationship exists between attitude scores toward

censorship obtained with a Thurstone attitude scale and attitude scores toward censorship obtained with a forced-choice attitude instrument?

2. Do positive type communication stimuli induce greater atti­tude changes than communication stimuli which are negative in

structure?3. Are changes in attitude by homogeneously structured audi­

ences as a result of a communication stimulus different from changes in attitude by heterogeneously structured audiences?

O Jack W. Brehm and others, Attitude Organization and Change.New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960.

109

POSITIVE STIMULUS

Throughout history man has made his greatest accomplishments when his creative mind has been free to roam and develop ideas.In ancient Greece, Plato, Socrates and Aristotle developed philo­sophical theories which remain today as some of man's major con­tributions to ethical conduct. Homer's Iliad and Odyssey written by the blind poet who sang his works in verse bear witness to the achievements possible by man when he is left free to develop his thoughts.

Michaelangelo, Raphael and DaVinci are outstanding examples of the genius of man and the extents to which he can contribute to art forms with native talent and freedom of expression.

The great universities, whose purposes are to provide a climate where scholars can freely exchange ideas and attempt to arrive at truth or answers to problems facing man, are another product of a free society. From the time when the first univer­sity was established at Bologna, free men in their education have constantly re-evaluated society and formulated new theories for social and scientific action. No rigid boundaries are established for the containment of thought and the student is encouraged to challenge existing beliefs with the aim of discovering new truths. This atmosphere of academic freedom has stimulated such men as Hegel, Kant, Spinoza, Dewey and a host of others to develop revolutionary approaches to philosophy and to experiment and apply them to citizens of their age. These same universities have trained scientists whose inventions such as the diesel engine and the telephone and whose theories such as the theory of relativity have been invaluable contributions to man's efforts to solve the secrets of the universe.

A free society does not serve as the contributor of knowledge for men must have in their minds certain capacities and bents for creativity, but a free society provides for talented men an un­paralleled opportunity for experimentation and examination.

A free society affords the author and the playwright a place to formulate impressions of society as he views it and to trans­mit to other human beings, through the medium of the stage or the printed page, those feelings and beliefs. Great authors like Shakespeare, Dante, Hawthorne and Whitman flourished in an environ­ment which permitted them to express freely their impression of society and its institutions.

110

Critics of men and their organizations could gain.prominence only when a society encourages the expression of all points of view as a means of determining desirable courses of action. From the beginning of times, man has been, in some way, dissatisfied with his environment. Plato, Thomas Paine, Jonathan Swift, Eugene O'Neill and Valter Lippman have used the tools of satire and sar­casm as weapons to criticize and assist other citizens in a re- evaluation and redirection of their own and other nations' efforts.

Our nation is a tribute to freedom. Just as ancient Greece, Great Britian and France experienced their greatest social and in­tellectual achievement when freedom prevailed, so too our nation since its liberation from Great Britian and its Declaration of Independence has moved forward to become leader of the world. Our free citizens, aware that their freedom offers them the opportunity to determine their own course and success in life, have been spurred on to accomplishments previously considered impossible. Great in­ventors like Thomas Edison, Henry Ford and Charles Kettering have literally raised themselves by their bootstraps from poverty to wealth. The story of America is a rags to riches adventure in ideas as well as in worldly goods. Here was a nation, small but potentially wealthy, which achieved greatness by granting its citizens freedom of speech and self determination. Many other nations have had the same potential but only in America with its manifold freedoms has such a measure of success been realized.

We pride ourselves in living under a government where the individuals or political party out of power can freely criticize the party in charge of the government. The Republicans and their leader, former President Eisenhower, are now raising their voices in opposition to the policies of President Kennedy. At all levels, the freedom indict individuals, parties or policies is accepted and practiced as an inherent right of our form of government.

The moving force of each generation is its people; their abilities and desires. Freedom so often is the catalytic agent which hastens developments that might be delayed. But freedom, like any catalyst, cannot be a substitute for forces. If these abilities and desires exist, and they have existed in virtually every society since ancient Greece, then freedom will hasten the progress and achievements of mankind.

APPENDIX E

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF EXPERIMENTAL STIMULI

111

112

This communication was (check one)

_____________ Positive_____________ Negative

In evaluating the communications which you have just read, please make a check mark at the appropriate location on each of the following continua.

logical :____ :___:___:___: illogicalspecific____ :___:___:___:___:___ : generalclear_______ :___:___:___:___:___ : vagueinsufficient too muchmaterial____ :___:___:___:___:___ : materialstructurally structurallysound_______ :___:___:___:___:___ : weakinteresting :__:___:___:___:___: boringaccurate :__:___:___:___:___: inaccurate

Do you have any suggestions which might improve this communication?

If you feel there are specific sections which need improvement, please indicate in the margin beside the deficient section.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

114

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allport, Gordon W., and Postman, Leo, The Psychology of Rumor.New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1947.

Anastasl, Anne, Psychological Testing. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1954.

Bartlett, Claude, Quay, Lorene and Wrightsman, Lawrence, "A Comparison of Attitude Measurement: Likert Type and Forced-Choice," Educational and Psychological Measurement.” 1960, pp. 699-704.

Baruch, Dorothy W., "Aggression During Doll Play in a Preschool," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 11, 1941, pp. 252-259.

Bogardus, E. S., "Measuring Social Distance." Journal of Applied Sociology. 9, 1925, pp. 299-308.

Bray, Douglas W., "The Prediction of Behavior from Two Attitude Scales," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 45,1950, pp. 64-84.

Brooks, Keith, "The Construction and Testing of a Forced-Choice Scale for Measuring Speaking Achievement," Ph.D. disserta­tion. The Ohio State University, 1955.

Campbell, Donald, "The Indirect Assessment of Social Attitudes," Psychological Bulletin. 47, 1950, pp. 15-38.

Cronbach, Lee, Essentials of Psychological Testing. New York: Harper and Brothers, I960.

Cromwell, H., "The Relative Effect on Audience Attitude of theFirst Versus the Second Argumentative Speech of a Series," Speech Monographs. 17, 1950, pp. 105-122.

Dubin, Sanford, "Verbal Attitude Scores from Responses Obtained in the Projective Technique," Sociometry. 3, 1940, pp. 24-28.

Edwards, Allen L., Experimental Design in Psychological Research. New York: Rinehart and Company, 1950.

115

________________ . Statistical Analysis. New York: Rinehart andCompany, 1958.

_______________ and Kenney, Kathryn, "A Comparison of the Thurstoneand Likert Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction,"Journal of Applied Psychology. 30, 1946, pp. 72-83.

Ferguson, George A., Statistical Analysis in Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1959.

Festinger, Leon, "A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, 111. Row Peterson, 1957.

Fromme, Allan, "On the Use of Certain Qualitative Methods of Atti­tude Research: A Study of Opinions on the Methods of Preventing War," Journal of Social Psychology. 13, 1941, pp. 429-459.

Garrett, Henry E., Statistics in Psychology and Education. New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1953.

Gordon, Leonard V., "A Comparison of the Validities of the Forced- Choice and Questionnaire Methods in Personality Measurement," Ph.D. dissertation. The Ohio State University, 1950.

Green, Bert, "Attitude Measurement," Volume I, Handbook of Social Psychology. Edited by Gardner Lindzey, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1954.

Guilford, J.P., Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1956.

.________ , Psychometric Methods. 2d Edition, New York: McGraw-HillBook Company, 1954.

Guttman, Louis, "The Basis for Scalogram Analysis," Measurementand Prediction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950.

Hammond, Kenneth R., "Measuring Attitudes by Error Choice: AnIndirect Method," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1948, 43, pp. 38-48.

Hartmann, G. W., "A Field Experiment on the Comparative Effective­ness of Emotional and Rational Political Leaflets in Deter­mining Election Results," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 48, 1953, pp. 78-92.

116

Hinckley, E. D., "The Influence of Individual Opinion on Construc­tion of an Attitude Scale," Journal of Social Psychology.3, 1932, pp. 283-296.

Horst, Paul, The Prediction of Personal Adjustment. Bulletin No.48, Social Science Research Council, 1941.

Hovland, Carl, Janis, Irving and Kelley, Harold, Communication and Persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954.

Knower, Franklin H., "Experimental Studies of Changes in Attitudes: 1. A Study of the Effect of Oral Argument on Changes of Attitude." Journal of Social Psychology. 6, 1935, pp. 315-347.

Krech, David and Crutchfield, Richard, Theory and Problems of Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,1948.

Levitt, Eugene E., "The Development of Prejudice: A Critique of the Horowitz Faces Test," Child Development. 27, No. 2,June, 1956, pp. 155-171.

Likert, Renesis, "A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes," Archives of Psychology. No. 140, 1932.

Lovell, George and Haner, Charles, "Forced-Choice Applied to College Faculty Rating," Educational and Psychological Measurement.15, 1955, pp. 291-304.

Lund, Frederick H., "The Psychology of Belief," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 20, 1925, pp. 63-81.

May, Mark and Hartshorne, Hugh, "First Steps Toward a Scale forMeasuring Attitudes," Journal of Educational Psychology. 17, 1926, pp. 145-162.

McGregor, Douglas, "The Major Determinants of the Prediction of Social Events," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,33, 1938, pp. 179-204.

McNemar, Quinn, "Opinion-Attitude Methodology," Psychological Bulletin, 43, 1946, pp. 289-375.

Morgan, John J. B., and Morton, James T., "The Distortion ofSyllogistic Reasoning Produced by Personal Convictions," Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 1944, pp. 39-59.

117

Mussen, Paul H., "The Reliability and Validity of the Horowitz Faces Test." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 45, 1950, pp. 504-506.

Osgood, Charles, Suci, George and Tannebaum, Percy, The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957.

Parrish, Jack Albert, "The Direct and Indirect Assessment of Atti­tudes as Influenced by Propagandized Radio Transcriptions," M.A. thesis. The Ohio State University, 1948.

Proshansky, Harold M., "A Projective Method for the Study of Atti­tudes ," Journal o^Abnormal and £5ocial Ps^cholog^* 38, 1943, pp. 393-395.

Remmers, H. H., Introduction to Opinion and Attitude Measurement.New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954.

Rosenberg, Milton; Hovland, Carl; McGuire, William; Abelson,Robert and Brehm, Jack, Attitude Organization and Change New Haven, Yale University Press, 1960.

Ross, Paul, "A Comparison of Two Methods of Matching in Forced-Choice Rating," Ph.D. dissertation. The Ohio State University, 1955.

Sanford, Fillmore H., "The Use of a Projective Device in Attitude Surveying," Public Opinion Quarterly. 14, 1950, pp. 697-709.

Senders, Virginia, Measurement and Statistics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1958,

Sherif, Muzafer and Cantril, Hadley, "The Psychology of Attitudes,” The Psychological Review. 52, 1945, pp. 295-319.

Siegel, Sidney, Nonparametric Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1956.

Sisson, E. D., "Forced-Choice, The New Army Rating," Personnel Psychology. 1, 1948, pp. 365-381.

Sponberg, H. A., "A Study of the Relative Effectiveness of Climax and Anti Climax Order in an Argumentative Speech," Speech Monographs. 13, 1946, pp. 35-44.

118

Tendler, A. D., "A Preliminary Report on a Test for EmotionalInsight,1' Journal of Applied Psychology, 14, 1930, pp. 122- 136.

Thurstone, L. L., "Attitudes Can Be Measured," American Journal of Sociology, 33, 1928, pp. 529-554.

____________ and Chave, E. J., The Measurement of Attitude. Chicago;University of Chicago Press, 1929.

Wechsler, Irving R., and Bernberg, Raymond E., "Indirect Methods of Attitude Measurement," International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research, 4, 1950, pp. 209-228.

Woodward, Harold S., "Measurement and Analysis of Audience Opinion," The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 14, 1928, pp. 94-111.

6

4. What relationship exists between changes in attitude by persons already in agreement with the stimulus and person initially

in disagreement with the stimulus?

AUTOBIOGRAPHY

I, James William Gibson, was born in Marysville, Ohio, July•'•v

15, 1932. I received my Secondary education in the public schools of Marysville, Ohio. My undergraduate training was obtained at Otterbein College, Westerville, Ohio, from which I received the degree Bachelor of Arts in June 1954. From July 1954 to June 1956 I served in the U. S. Army. From September 1956 to May 1958 I was a member of the teaching staff at Marysville High School, Marysville, Ohio; and froi* September 1958 to May 1959 I taught speech at Rushville High School, Rushville, Indiana. In September 1959 I received an appointment as Director of the Ohio High School Speech League in the Department of Speech, The Ohio State University.I received the degree Master of Arts from The Ohio State University in March 1960. In September 1960 I was appointed an Assistant Instructor. All requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy except the dissertation and the final oral examination were com­pleted by mid-Spring 1962, and an appointment as Assistant Professor to the faculty of Butler University, Indianapolis, Indiana,was

received, effective September 1962.

119

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

In order to discuss attitude measurement, its philosophy and operation, a description of the underlying assumptions and a defini­tion of an attitude should be developed.

An attitude can be viewed as a latent variable instead of being considered directly observable. In describing an attitude, the re­actions of an individual to a variety of situations involving the same underlying continuum are involved. The description then is ofvariables of the same general classification, involving both overt

8and covert responses. We are measuring what Guttman calls "the universe of attributes," and such measurement involves investigation of all classes of behavior within the universe. Green mentions that there are three types of attitude universes: (1) elicited verbalattitudes derived through the asking of questions regarding the atti­tude, (2) spontaneous verbal attitudes such as the expression of feeling in normal conversation, and, (3) action attitudes or the

actual activity exhibited toward the person or object in the referent oclass. A description of the universe must necessarily precede

®LoUis Guttman, "The Basis for Scalogram Analysis," Measure- . ment and Prediction (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press,1950), p. 80. qBert Green, "Attitude Measurement,11 Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 1, Gardner Lindzey, editor (Reading, Mass.: Addison- Wesley Publishing Co., 1954), p. 340.

7

8

the development of items which attempt to tap various portions of the universe.

The difficulty encountered in defining the term "attitude" is emphasized by Sherif and Cantril^ when they mention that the con­fusion regarding attitudes and their measurement is highlighted by the existence of some 23 different definitions of attitudes. To formulate a single definition constituting an acceptable approach for all 23 wordings may be impossible, but an eclectic attempt will be made. Possibly Quinn McNemar in his comprehensive review of opinion- attitude methodology has succeeded in fusing the best from all the definitions of attitude into a single statement. According to McNemar, "The common element of most definitions of social attitudes is such that an attitude is a readiness or tendency to act or react in a certain manner."**- Inherent within this definition are the implica­tions that attitudes are (1) drive producing, (2) learned, (3) formed in relation to persons, values and objects which originally may not have had motivational appeal, and, (4) enduring states of readiness.

Since attitude measurement often is referred to as opinion re­search, definition of an opinion as, " . . . a verbal expression of

12attitude," would include opinion research within the constellation

*®Muzafer Sherif and Hadley Cantril, "The Psychology of Atti­tudes," The Psychological Review. 52, 1945, pp. 295-319.

■^Quinn McNemar, "Opinion-Attitude Methodology," Psycho1ogica1 Bulletin. 43 (July 1946), p. 289.

*2l . L. Thurstone, "Attitudes Can Be Measured," American Journal of Sociology. 33 (January 1928), p. 531.

9

of attitude measurement. However, because what we frequently hear termed opinion surveys are not conducted with instruments of the types developed by Likert, Thurstone, Remmers, Guttman et al., but rather rely upon a single structured question, this discussion will not include within its purvey this type of opinion measurement be­cause of its questionable value.

I. Criteria for Evaluation of Attitude Scales A necessary prerequisite to the development of any measuring

instrument, be it achievement test, diagnostic test, physical examina tion or attitude measure, is the determination of criteria for its evaluation. The reasons for these criteria are obvious: unless the instrument performs the task it is supposed to perform and can suc­cessfully replicate the performance at a later date provided the variables remain constant, quantification of any usefulness will not be achieved. McNemar points out that the fundamental requirementsfor an adequate attitude measure are (1) Reliability, (2) Validity,

13and, (3) Unidimensionality.Reliability

According to Anastasi, "The reliability of a test refers to the consistency of scores obtained by the same individuals on different

^McNemar, o j j . cit., p. 312.

sets of equivalent items. If an attitude instrument consistentlymeasures the same universe of attitudes, we could expect then, thatif the same attitude instrument were administered to a group of personson two separate occasions there would be a high correlation betweenthe two scores. Application of the statistical measure of correlationfor determination of reliability of scores on a measuring instrumentcan be accomplished by three methods, according to Ferguson.'*'*’

Test-retest method. A test, or in this case an attitude measuringinstrument, is administered twice to the same sample of individualsand the scores are correlated. Under this method of determining thereliability coefficient and through use of the parallel forms methodthere may be something less than /l.00 correlation realized. Greenmakes this observation and reasons:

If the questionnaire is administered to the same group of respondents on two separate occasions there will be some shifts in the scores of individuals. . . . Memory and familiarity with the scale will tend to increase stability; extending the time interval between adminis­trations will tend to decrease stability.^

^Anne Anastasi, Psychological Testing (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1954), p. 94.

15George A. Ferguson, Statistical Analysis In Psychology And Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1959), p. 279.

^Green, o j j . cit., p. 338.

11

Because attitudes are dynamic it is not expected that scores will remain completely stable but neither can attitudinal measuring in­struments be defended on the premise that instability of the score and the resulting low correlation of results are indicative of sensi­tivity to attitudinal sets.

Parallel forms method. Parallel forms or equivalent forms of the test are given to the same subjects and the observations or scores are correlated. With this method of determining reliability co­efficients it is also expected that some instability of scores will result but the reliability of the change in attitude can be better determined through this method To be assured of parallelism it is imperative that the criteria for determination of equivalency be for­mulated. One method is to construct two tests to meet the same specifications but containing different attitude statements or ques­tions to which the subjects will react. The presence of differing amounts of motivation and knowledge of the test even in the parallel forms is an admitted difficulty and will affect the reliability co­efficient, but this method is considered superior to the test-retest method

17Ibid.. p. 339.18Anastasi, oj>. cit.. p. 106.

12

Split-half or odd-even method. Scores on items are halved and

the two halves are correlated. This method is satisfactory if the spiral technique of increasing difficulty or dimensionality is not followed in constructing the test. A more satisfactory method used in psychological testing and particularly in attitude measurement is the odd-even method. Scores or marks on odd numbered items are correlated with scores on even numbered items. Because of the problems inherent in a test-retest or equivalent forms determination of the reliability coefficient, it has generally been the practice in attitude measurement to use the odd even or split half method.

ValidityThe question of validity could be stated, "Does the instrument

measure what it purports to measure?" In the case of the attitude instrument, it should sample the attitude universe. Psychologists, in referring to the validity of measures mention three types.

Face validity. This type of validity which is merely a ques­tion of whether or not a test appears to measure the given material or attitude universe is of little use to the attitudinal researcher. In fact, the disguised appearance of the instrument may often give

it the opportunity to make a more accurate recording of the subjects attitude than if the subject could determine the purpose of.the test

upon first viewing it.

13

Concurrent validity. As discussed by Cronbach, concurrentvalidity pertains to the statistical correlation between two measureswhich attempt to measure the same attitudinal universe and which are

19administered at very nearly the same time. Thus, if a new non- disguised structured attitude test were developed and its results could be quantified so as to be comparable to an already validated Likert type scale, both scales could"be administered to the subjects and a statistically significant validity coefficient between the scores on the two tests would indicate that both tests were sampling the same attitude universe.

Predictive validity. The prediction of action attitudes is the goal of many attitude researchers. If an attitudinal instrument can predict the activity of certain subjects subsequent to the taking of the test, then the attitude instrument has truly measured the subjects tendency to1 act. An example of this type of validity is seen in the Horowitz Faces Test, a well-known projective measuring device.Mussen^® reports that the validity of the test was established be­cause subjects showing a great deal of prejudice on the faces test also demonstrated considerable prejudice in a behavioral situation involving stimuli similar to those on the test. Because of

19 " -Lee Cronbach, Essentials of Psychological Testing (New York:Harper and Brothers, 1960), p. 104.

^®Paul H. Mussen, "The Reliability and Validity of the Horowitz Faces Test," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psych. 45 p . 505.

14

Inconsistencies between elicited verbal attitudes and action atti-21tudes, as mentioned by Green, the use of indirect measures often

is a more valid predictor of action attitudes than direct instruments.The problem of determining the validity of many attitude measur­

ing instruments is pointed up by Bray, "Attitude testers have not paidmuch attention to the validity problem. They have not compared re-

22suits on tests with subsequent behaviors." This problem may be one explanation for the use of the indirect devices which are more capable of accurately measuring the presence of the drive producing state.

Construct validity. This type of validity is concerned with an analysis of scores on a test in terms of psychological concepts Most frequently construct validity is examined when the tester has no available criterion of the value which he is exploring and he finds it necessary to employ indirect measures for validation. Construct validity is established by lengthy interaction between observations, reasoning and imagination. The experimenter may have in mind an in­complete theory and attempt to find evidence for it in certain be­havioral activities. It may be possible only to hypothesize that a certain relationship should exist and the presence of these behav- iorally relevant constructs does not require that they be identified with the criterion measure. A briefer description of construct validity might involve three steps, (1) The mental development of

^Douglas W. Bray, "The Prediction of Behavior From Two Attitude Scales," Jnl. of Abnormal and Social Psvch .. 45, 1950.

^Cronbach, oj). cit.. p. 120.

Copyright by

James William Gibson

1963

15

constructs which might account for given performance on a task,(2) Development of testable hypotheses from this theory which sur­

rounds the construct, (3) Conduct of a study to test the hypotheses.

Construct validity strives, then, to validate the theory which under­lies the test.

Unidimens ionality

Attitude toward a social issue could be viewed as including a constellation of behaviors ranging from a favorable attitude toward

the issue to a highly unfavorable attitude toward the particular issue. A unidimensional scale would tap portions of the constella­

tion ranging from one extreme to the other but not restricting it­

self to an examination of any particular phase of the possible

reactions. The measurement of a single variable is actually the essence of a scale which is unidimensional. The items on the scale

are interdependent and measure different portions of the same latent

variable. Unldlmensionality can also refer to the measurement of a

single attitude rather than being a combination of measurements from

scales measuring attitudes toward different social issues or objects.

Although it is said a scale which samples more than a single dimen­

sion of attitude has such inherent problems in its structure as to

make it invalid and unreliable, this depends upon traditional con­

cepts of dimensionality.

16

II. Types of Attitude Scales

When attempting to measure social attitudes we are confronted

with an interesting dilemma. Basically, the question is whether the experimenter desires to indirectly measure the individuals social attitude toward the object, event or movement and thus derive a picture of the attitude without destroying the attitude in the pro­cess, or if the experimenter wishes to utilize the more direct atti­tude measures and trust that the subject will give an unbiased

picture of his social attitude. The selection of the type of in­strument to be used has become an increasingly important considera­tion with rapid developments having been made in the area of indirect attitude measurement. Many of these instruments are a result of the "projective" personality measures developed by psychologists.

There are numerous advantages and disadvantages inherent in both the direct and indirect methods. In discussing indirect methods of measuring attitudes, Wechsler and Bernberg comment that this type of test conceals the intent of the measure from the subject and thus permits him to make responses without becoming personally involved.Additionally they believe that this method does not produce any effect

24 25on the attitude itself. Krech and Crutchfield assert that atti­

tudes cannot be measured directly but must be measured on the basis

^Irving R. Wechsler and Raymond E. Bernberg, "indirect Methods of Attitude Measurement," International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research 4, 1950, p. 211.

25David Krech and Richard Crutchfield, Theory and Problems of Social Psychology (New York: McGraw Hill, 1948), p. 207.

17

of Inferences drawn from the individuals experience and behavior.The value of the indirect projective type instrument is mentioned by

26Sanford but the time involved and the subjectivity of interpreta- tibn necessary in the evaluation step are stressed as disadvantages of this type of indirect measure. This criticism is applicable to the projective type of indirect measure but has little if any rele­vancy to the recently developed forced-choice and semantic differen­

tial scales .The scales which attempt to measure social attitudes directly

are not open to the criticism of subjectivity of interpretation be­cause of their objective method of scoring. In many instances, also, they can be constructed more rapidly and scored more quickly. How­

ever , Bartlett, Quay and Wrightsman mention that the direct method ismore open to bias in the form of, ". . .deliberate faking, response

27set, or simple inaccurate estimation of one's own opinions."A useful classification of type of attitude scales or tests is

presented by Campbell who uses four categories:

26Fillmore H. Sanford, "The Use of a Projective Device in Atti­tude Surveying," Public Opinion Quarterly 14, 1950, pp. 697-698.

9 7 .Claude Bartlett, Lorene Quay and Lawrence Wrightsman, "A Comparison of Attitude Measurement: Likert Type and Forced-Choice," Educational and Psychological Measurement 20, 1960 , p . 699 .

18

1. Non-disguised-structured: the classic direct attitude tests of Thurstone, Likert, et al.

2. Non-disgulsed-structured: the free-response Interview and questionnaire approaches, the biographical and essay studies.

3. Disguised-non-structured: the typical pro­jective techniques.

4. Disguised-structured: tests which approximate the objective testing of attitudes.***

In reviewing the work that has been done in the development of attitude scales since 1925, it would be useful to refer occasionally to these classifications of attitudinal measures and to evaluate contributions of different experimenters in light of the type of measure developed.

Bogardus social distance scale. This pioneer scale in the29measurement of attitudes was designed by E. S. Bpgardus in 1925 to

determine the social acceptability of given nationality or racial groups. Persons using the scale were instructed to check whether the individuals would be accepted as (1) visitors to the country,(2) citizens of the nation, (3) fellow employees, (4) neighbors,(5) personal friends, or (6) relatives through marriage. If a respondent were to check number five it is evident that he considers the person or group as acceptable in all of the preceding categories.

^Donald Campbell, "The Indirect Assessment of Social Atti­tudes ," Psychological Bulletin 1950, 47, p . 15.

2%!.. S. Bogardus, "Measuring Social Distance," Journal of Applied Sociology 9 , 1925 , pp . 299-308 .

19

This type of analysis makes use of the cumulative technique later modified by Guttman. The Bogardus scale is a type of non-disguised- structured scale, as were most of the attitude measures developed

prior to 1940.30Hartshorne and Mav. These men developed a scale for measur­

ing dishonesty based upon the supposition that previous experiences and/or heredity will create a certain "predisposition" or attitude toward dishonesty or cheating. They utilized seven tests — an in­formation test, disarranged sentences test, reading scale, sentence completion test, original spelling test, word knowledge test, and an arithmetic test — arranged in order from the one on which most children cheated to the one on which the fewest children cheated. Pupils who would cheat on the least tempting test would also cheat on the other tests. This type of test, when categorized according to Campbell's classification, would be considered a disguised- structured test of attitudes toward cheating.

Lund. In an attempt to determine if belief has emotional con­tent and to examine the relation of belief to concepts of power and knowledge, a type of simple graphic rating was developed. Thirty

(ft

propositions from the areas of politics, religion, ethics and science were prepared such as the following:

Hark May and Hugh Hartshorne, "First Steps Toward A Scale for Measuring Attitudes," Journal of Educational Psychology 17, 1926, pp. 145-162.

20

1. Has Lincoln an honest and upright man?2. Did the whale swallow Jonah?’!

Subjects then reacted to these items on three scales: belief, cer­tainty and desire. Persons completing the scales were instructed to place a check mark beside the statement on the scale which was most descriptive of their feelings. The scales ranged from a maximum of /10 which denoted strong belief, certainty or desire to a minimum of -10 expressing disbelief, uncertainty or lack of desire. After com­pleting each of the three preceding scales, subjects were asked to determine to what extent, (1) indisputable evidence, and (2) opinion, conditioned their reactions to the statement. Each subject assigned a percentage figure to each of the categories. Lund found a corre­lation of / .42 between belief and evidence and a correlation of / .64 between belief and knowledge. There was virtually no relationship between desire and evidence.

Thurstone. With the development of their scale for the measure-32ment of attitude toward the Church, Thurstone and Chave gave impetus

and direction to the attitude measuring movement. The method that they used is termed the equal-appearing interval approach to scale construction. In developing the scale, several groups of people were

^Frederick H. Lund, "The Psychology of Belief," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 20, 1925, pp. 63-81.

^2L. L. Thurstone and E. J. Chave, The Measurement of Attitude (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1929), 96 pp.

21

asked to write their opinions about the church. A survey of litera­ture yielded additional material. A list of some 130 statements was then prepared, the statements expressing attitudes ranging from strongly opposed to highly favorable toward the Church. These state­ments were then placed on slips of paper and subjects were asked to sort them into 11 piles. The piles were lettered from A to K with A being most favorable and the subjects placed the statements in intervals ranging from high appreciation of the Church to strong de­preciation. Thus the subjects placed the statements in equal appear­ing intervals. Item values were determined by computing the mean score which was achieved through sorting the statements into piles. Forty-five items were retained for use in the experimental scale and they had mean scale values ranging from near zero to 11. The experi­menters attempted to distribute the items evenly so that they were uniformly graduated. When the test was administered, subjects were instructed to check those items which were applicable to them. In initial application, the test was administered to 200 Freshmen at the Universit/ of Chicago. Reliability of the test, as computed by the split-half method was /.89 and validity, as determined by the relation of scores to information listed by the testee in blanks at the top of the scale, was satisfactory.

Because of the acceptance of this new method of equal appearing intervals and its apparent usefulness, Thurstone constructed addi­tional scales on subh subjects as prohibition, communism, patriotism,

22

God, capital punishment, birth control, Chinese, Germans and censor­ship. Thurstone'8 method has been criticized for involving too much time in developing items which can be used and because judges might affect the mean score of the item. However, the first criticism seems slightly irrelevant because preparation of any valid and reliablescale demands considerable time in item development and validation.

33The second criticism has been refuted by L. W. Ferguson and Hinckley^ when they point out that judges effect upon the construc­tion of attitude scales has appeared negligible.

Since the Thurstone instruments were the first serious attempts at measurement of social attitude, they have served as the criterion for validation of other types of attitude measures. Because they are on the non-disguised-structured type of scale, they are open to the criticism that rater bias and knowledge of the quality being measured

may have an adverse effect upon results.Woodward. An early attempt to measure shift of audience opin-

35ion as a result of communication stimuli utilized a debate ballot.

•^L. W. Ferguson, "The Influence of Individual Attitudes on Construction of an Attitude Scale," Journal of Social Psychology.6, 1935, pp. 115-117.

D. Hinckley, "The Influence of Individual Opinion on Construction of an Attitude Scale," Journal of Social Psychology.3, 1932, pp. 283-296.

"^Harold S. Woodward, "Measurement and Analysis of Audience Opinion." The Quarterly Journal of Speech. 14, 1928, pp. 94-111.

23

Persons listening to a debate completed one-half of a form indicating whether they agreed with, were indifferent to, or disagreed with the proposition to be debated. Following the debate, subjects completed the second half of the form, thus indicating whether they had stronger feelings for the affirmative than before the debate, were indifferent as a result of the debate, or were more in agreement with the nega­tive as a result of the debate. Changes in opinion were determined by comparing the pre-debate response with the post-debate reactions.

Likert. Renesio Likert developed his method of summated ratings in 1932. This approach used five categories of response which des­cribed the respondents reactions: strongly approve, approve, undecided, disapprove, or strongly disapprove. Categories were scored from fivefor strongly approve to one for strongly disapprove. When Likert

36developed his first scale he culled items from books, magazines, and other questionnaires used in attitude measurement. His materials were in the areas of international relations, race relations and economic conflict and items in all of these areas were combined into a single lengthy scale. This scale not only made use of items which were responded to by the summated ratings technique but it also had yes or no and multiple choice type questions.

36Renesis Likert, "A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes," Archives of Psychology. No. 140, 1932.

24

When making use of the method of summated ratings, the. higher the individual score the more favorable the attitude. The discrimi­natory effect of individual items could be determined by statistically measuring the relationship of individual item scores to the individuals total score and the most discriminating items are retained for use in the final scale.

Likert compared the results obtained with his scale with thoseof Thurstone and found reliability coefficients ranging from /.90 onthe internationalism scale to /.79 in the imperialism scale. Thistype of scale is placed in the non-disguised-structured category and,

37as Edwards and Kenney mention, can be prepared in about one-half the time required to construct a Thurstone type scale. Additionally, Edwards and Kenney state that the Likert type scale yields reliability coefficients as high or higher than the Thurstone method, but they observe that Likert items tend to represent extremes of judgment.

Likert presents several criteria for the selection of state­ments for an attitude scale:

1. It is essential that all statements be expressions of desired behavior and not statements of fact.

2. . . .state each proposition in clear, concise, straight-forward statements.

3?Allen L.- Edwards and Kathryn Kenney, "A Comparison of the Thurstone and Likert Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction," Journal of Applied Psychology. 30, 1946, pp. 72-83.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT ATTITUDE SCALE MEASUREMENTS OF POSITIVE

AND NEGATIVE ARGUMENTATIVE COMMUNICATIONS

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the

Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

James William Gibson, B.A., M.A.

The Ohio State University 1962

Approved by

Adviser Department of

25

3. In general It would seem desirable to have each statement so worded that the modal reaction to It is. approximately in the middle of possible responses.

4. If multiple choice statements are used, the different alternatives should involve only a single attitude variable and not several.

Guttman. The type of scaling making use of the cumulativetechnique was introduced by Guttman in 1944. This approach had beenutilized earlier in attitude measurement by Bogardus and Hartshorne

*and May, but it was Guttman who provided a formal structure for the technique. Based upon the concept of a universe of attributes and the postulate that the ordering of individuals based on a sample of items will be approximately the same as that based on the universe, the Guttman technique attempts to separate the universe into basic types. As Guttman points out,^ if the highest rank of categories one to five were five, that rank could be subdivided into categories as could the other ranks, but all categories of rank five would re­main higher than all categories of rank four. It is also Important to note that if the subject marked yes to number three he would, of necessity, have marked yes to numbers one and two. An item which exemplified this approach asks, Are you taller than: (1) 5'0",(2) 5'2", (3) 5'4", (4) 5'9", (5) 6'2"? This technique gives

^®Likert, op. cit., pp. 44-46.Guttman, op. cit., p. 81.

26

particular emphasis to scale analysis and statistically assesses the relationship of variables appearing on the scale to actual intervals. It is stressed by Guttman that content alone defines the attitude universe and that scale analysis does not judge content but presumes the universe of content is already d e f i n e d . T h e Guttman scalogram analysis technique also is a non-disguised approach and makes more use of mathematical techniques than do the other direct attitude measuring techniques. McNemar mentions that the, " . . . chief merit of the Guttman method is that it leads to the elimination of items that are not on the principal continuum.

Renners. Generalized attitude scales were first developed by R e m m e r s ^ using a combination of the techniques of Thurstone and

Likert. The collection of opinion statements is first given to judges for sorting into equal appearing intervals. When the sorting is completed, distributions for each statement are computed with two statistics being given primary attention. The median and the distance between the twenty-fifth and seventy-fifth percentiles or Q are of importance. If the Q is small it indicates the statement was not

40Ibid.. p. 85.^McNemar, op. cit.. p. 311.^H. H. Remmers, Introduction to Opinion and Attitude Measure­

ment (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954).

27

considered ambiguous by the judges. In constructing the scale at least 20 items with low Q values and carying medians are selected.The scale, in its form for administration, would appear as follows: Directions:

Following is a list of statements about institutions.Place a plus sign (/) before each statement with which you agree with reference to the institution art insti­tutions listed at the left of the statements. The person in charge will tell you the institutions or institutions to write in at the head of the columns to the left of the statements. Your score will in no way affect your grade in any course.

Institution

1. The world could not exist with­out this institution.

2. Is an ideal institution.3. Has done more for society than

any other institution.4. Benefits everybody.5. Has more good points than any

other institution.6. Appeals to man's highest

nature.

It can readily be noted that this type of scale could be used

for determination of attitude toward any institution. Additional generalized scales have been developed by Remmers to measure atti­tudes toward any: social institution, racial or national group, practice, vocation, school subject, teacher, proposed social action or home making activity. The aim of the Remmers generalized scales

43Ibid.. p. 91.

28

is ideal but its shortcoming is pointed up by McNemar who mentions that to make the Remmers scale applicable to phenomena in any class, the person is asked to keep a particular object in mind. However, because of the generalized nature of the instrument this procedure can become ridiculous in some cases.^

Indirect attitude measuresThe value and rationale of the indirect methods of attitude

45measurement is discussed by Wechsler and Bernberg when they mention that direct measurement of attitudes often deals merely with verbal content and fails to tap the comprehensive aspects of personality. Those persons who are requested, via interview or through the use of direct attitude measuring devices, to express their feelings mayattempt to conform to the socially accepted view or they may indicateneutrality so as to eliminate psychological conflicts. As a means of permitting accurate measurement of the attitude universe while not disturbing or destroying the implicit, drive producing response, the indirect methods of attitude measurement were developed. These in­struments were of two types: (1) the disguised-non-structured or moreprojective techniques and (2) disguised-structured instruments. The projective techniques will be examined first and then the disguised- structured devices.

^McNemar. op. cit., p. 305.^Wechsler and Bernberg, op. cit., p. 210.

29

Horowitz faces test. This test^ uses pictures of eight Negro and four white boys ranging in age from five to 12 years. The faces

are identified by letters from A to L and the subjects are asked to perform two tasks: (1) Rank all faces for preference and (2) answer

sociometric questions such as, "Show me all those you want to be in your class at school." By summing the ranks from the first portion

of the test and adding the scores from the second section, a pre­judice score can be determined. Since the validity of any attitude instrument can be determined by actions of testees in social situa^

tions similar to those measured by the instrument, such validation was attempted. Mussen^ states that validity of the test was es­

tablished because the boys who showed a great degree of prejudice on the tests also demonstrated more prejudice in a situation in­

volving a choice of cabin mates at a bi-racial camp. Reliability, as computed by the split-half method was /.88.

Proshansky. This projective technique^® used a series of pic­tures which were ambiguous with respect to outcome as far as labor

46Eugene E. Levitt, "The Development of Prejudice: A Critique of the Horowitz Faces Test," Child Development. 27 No. 2, (June1956), pp. 155-171.

^Mussen, loc. cit.HaroId M. Proshansky, "A Projective Method for the Study of

Attitudes," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 38, 1943, pp. 393-395.

30

and the laboring class was concerned. The pictures were then pre­pared as slides and each slide was then exposed for five seconds.The subjects were instructed to write for two and one-half minutes on what they thought the pictures represented. The responses to the pictures were evaluated by three judges and these results correlated from /.67 to /.87 with another attitude scale completed by the same subjects.

Fromme. A sample of subjects from the New York City area, representing different socioeconomic and educational levels was used. They first completed a questionnaire on methods of preventing war andthen they participated in an informal discussion of the items on thequestionnaire. The subjects were then shown a series of cartoons, such as the following:

1. A picture of Europe represented by a woman danglingfrom a rope, with the following captions beneath it:

(a) Feat: Escape from oneself.(b) I'll be all right as soon as Uncle Sam sees

my distress.(c) That rope tangles easily into a noose.(d) Acrobatics promoted by whom?^

The subjects were to select the caption they thought most appropriate. Following this the subjects were shown five pictures for thematic apperception and were asked to make up a story as an illustration. These procedures offered a projective method for study of the in­dividuals attitude toward the prevention of war.

^Allan Fromme, "On the Use of Certain Qualitative Methods of Attitude Research: A Study of Opinions on the Methods of Preventing War," Journal of Social Psychology. 13, 1941, pp. 437-438.

31

Baruch. A technique for measurement of a child's aggression toward other members of his family and, hence, his attitude toward the family group used dolls which represented the parents and brothers or s i s t e r s . T h e child was given the dolls and was first asked to name them. If he could not do so the experimenter would name them for him. Some items of4toy furniture were presented to create a more

homelike atmosphere. In their play children exhibited various forms of aggression, such as beating the doll representing the father, and this aggression was usually confined to a single member of the family. The majority of children exhibited aggression but admission of aggressive feelings in post-play was greatly varied.

Dubin. Eighty toys representing war, public service, labor, and entertainment were presented to ten subjects. They were in­structed to arrange the toys to represent the world as they perceived it and, in a second situation, as they would like to see it. The sub­jects were interviewed after they had arranged the toys and their arrangement was discussed. Graduate psychology students were then informed of the subjects "picture of the world" and were asked to predict, on a five point scale, the responses of the subjects to a Likert type scale on perception of the world. The coefficient of

^Dorothy W. Baruch, "Aggression During Doll Play in a Pre­school," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 11, 1941, pp. 252-259.

32

correlation of /.49 between scores predicted for the subjects andscores actually made indicates this projective technique has con-

51siderable utility.Allport and Postman. In an experimental approach to the study

52of rumor, these men selected six or seven subjects from an audience and asked them to leave the room. The only instructions they received were to listen carefully to what they would hear when they returned to the room. After these subjects left the room, a slide showing a detailed situation was flashed on the screen and a member of the audience was selected to describe it to the first subject. The first

subject was recalled to the room and was placed in a position where he could not see the screen. He listened to the account of the audi­ence member and was then instructed to repeat what he heard as accurately as possible to the second subject who would be seated be­side him. This procedure was continued until all subjects reported the scene. .Allport and Postman found that distortions in transmission

51S. Sanford Dubin, "Verbal Attitude Scores from Responses Obtained in the Projective Technique," Sociometry. 3, 1940, pp.24-48.

^Gordon W. .Allport and Leo Postman, The Psychology of Rumor (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1947),

33

were influenced by the attitudes operating in the situation and that these attitudes can be examined by means of the subjects expressed and repressed verbal behavior.

Tendler. An instrument utilizing the sentence completion technique was developed by A. D. T e n d l e r ^ in the belief that stimuli

will arouse a particular emotional set while still permitting free response. Subjects were first asked to write character sketches of themselves and then their responses to the stimulus stems were com­pared with attitudes and traits described in the autobiographical sketch. Tendler noted that the same stimuli, such as, "My heroi s 11 and "I get angry when ", evoked different responsesfrom different subjects and he stated that these responses may be the key to the individuals fears, interests and attitudes.

Hammond. A slightly different indirect technique which could be classified as a disguised-structured attitude measuring instrument was developed by Kenneth R. Hammond.^ The technique operates on the belief that error-choice will

. . . measure the effect of attitude, herein considered to be a (non-primary) source of energy, or affective state, capable of distorting perception and recall with

^A. D. Tendler, "A Preliminary Report on a Test for Emotional Insight." Journal of Applied Psychology. 14, 1930, pp. 122-136.

^Kenneth R. Hammond, "Measuring Attitudes by Error Choice:An Indirect Method," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology.43, 1948, pp. 38-48.

34

reference to an unstructured, ambiguous world of social events, by measuring the constancy of the direction of the error into which the respondent will be forced.$5Hammond presented several series of items to the subjects and

termed these tests information exams. In one series of eight ques­tions, determinable answers which were equidistant from the truth were offered. In a second series, where the truth could not be deter­mined, alternative answers were presented. A third series consisted of straight information questions. By making the respondent choose errors, especially in cases where the truth could not be determined, the direction of the bias and attitude of the subject could be sampled. Hammond found that responses differed when the test was presented as an attitude test instead of an information test and hence this instrument eliminates the factor of "attitude test set".

McGregor. .Another disguised-structured approach to attitude measurement asserts that an individuals wishes, attitudes and knowl­edge relative to a given social situation directly influence his

56predictions of situations based upon these attitudes. Douglas McGregor used questions in which subjects were asked to predict actions, group

55Ibid.. p. 39.“*̂ Douglas McGregor, "The Major Determinants of the Prediction

of Social Events," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 33,1938, pp. 179-204.

CONTENTS

Chapter Page

I. THE PROBLEM............... ‘....................... 1II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE......................... 7

III. PROCEDURE IN SCALE CONSTRUCTION.................. 41IV. PROCEDURE AND DATA ANALYSIS .................... 64V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.......................... 86

AppendixA THURSTONE ATTITUDE SCALE ........................ 91B FORCED-CHOICE ATTITUDE SCALE .................... 96C SCORE CARD FOR FORCED-CHOICE S C A L E .............. 100D EXPERIMENTAL COMMUNICATION STIMULI .............. 105E CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF EXPERIMENTAL STIMULI . . Ill

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................. 113

ii

35

memberships, etc., with the variables of: (1) the degree of ambiguityin the stimulus situation, and (2) the importance attributed to the event by the respondent being determinants of the influence of the stimulus situation. For example, questions such as, "Hill the King of England announce plans for his marriage before May 1937?" and "Will Roosevelt be re-elected in November 1936?"^ were the stimuli. The amount of information possessed by the respondent appeared in­significant but the quality of the information appeared decisive. McGregor found that the attitude of subjects toward, for example, Roosevelt and the King of England, had an effect upon the types of predictions made.

Morgan and Morton. An attitude test using the syllogism and syllogistic reasoning as determinants of respondent attitude was developed at Northwestern University.5® A set of 15 syllogisms on current topics of national interest were used. The test permitted the subject to select one of five alternative conclusions since the major and minor premises were stated. The experimenters found that when issues relative to personal opinions, fears or convictions of the individual appeared in the syllogism, the distortion of the

57Ibid., pp. 183, 191.58John J. B. Morgan and James T. Morton, "The Distortion of

Syllogistic Reasoning Produced by Personal Convictions," The Journal of Social Psychology. 20, 1944, pp. 39-59.

36

conclusion or selection of answer was affected by the atmosphere effect of the syllogism. In essence, the subject felt that he was reasoning logically in selecting the conclusion but his choice was affected by his attitudes and fears.

Parrish. Two indirect attitude tests were developed byParrish, one being presented as an information test and the second

59ostensibly being an estimate of public opinion polls. Because both tests were of such difficulty and remoteness that subjects were unlikely to know the answers, they served as indicators of the res­pondents attitude. A third scale was used and this instrument was a Likert type scale. After dividing subjects into two groups and presenting one group with a "pro" type communication and the other group with an "anti" communication, the subjects again completed the scales. Results indicated that the communication did affect the respondents scores, i.e., they were higher or lower depending upon the type of communication heard, and hence the scores as determined by both the indirect and direct scales were measurements of the sub­jects attitudes.

Osgood. A very recent approach to the disguised-structured analysis of attitude measurement has been made aththe University of

CQJack Albert Parrish, "The Direct and Indirect Assessment of Attitudes as Influenced by Propagandized Radio Transcriptions," (Columbus, Ohio, M. A. thesis, The Ohio State University, 1948).

37(- " u

Illinois by Charles Osgood and others^ with the semantic differen­tial . Basing the approach upon the definition of attitude as a learned, implicit process, potentially bi-polar, varying in intensity and mediating evaluative behavior, Osgood used bi-polar adjectives heavily loaded on the evaluative factor such as "good-bad; optimistic- pessimistic." Using six concepts (labor leaders, The Chicago Tribune, Senator Robert Taft, legalized gambling, abstract art and accelerated college programs) and six evaluative scales (good-bad, fair-unfair, valuable-worthless , tasty-distasteful, clean-dirty and pleasant-unpleasant) 135 subjects were tested. Scores were deter­mined by summing scores on the six scales and these results were then compared with attitude scores of the same subjects on Thurstone and Guttman scales. The results of the semantic differential as compared to both scales were significant at .01 level. Osgood mentions that this type of instrument is capable of use as a generalized attitude scale which is not guilty of the same shortcomings as the Remmers scales.

Forced-choice. Recently a new form of the disguised-structured attitude measurement approach has been developed. The forced-choice technique was originated by Wherry®* and forces the respondent to

^Charles Osgood, George Suci and Percy Tannebaum, The Measure­ment of Meaning (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press ,1957), p. 189.

^Leonard V. Gordon, "A Comparison of the Validities of the Forced-Choice and Questionnaire Methods in Personality Measurements," (Columbus, PhD dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1951), p . 27.

38

describe rather than rate himself. By pairing items which appear equally desirable or undesirable but which actually differentiate in­dividuals effectively, the placement of the individual or his attitudecan be somewhat objectively determined. The forced-choice technique

62has been used primarily as a rating instrument by educators andgo

management. Its popularity Atas increased because it reduces the effect of such rating problems as halo effect, personal bias and cen­tral tendency.

Bartlett. Quay and Wrightsman. These experimenters comparedthe forced-choice and Likert type scales as techniques for attitude

64measurement. They prepared statements which they believed reflected attitudes toward mentally retarded persons and statements having sat­isfactory factor loadings were used in both the Likert and forced- choice type scales. The scales were administered to 97 attendants at an institution for the mentally retarded. The pre-treatment scores on the Likert and forced-choice scales correlated / .22 which was significant at the .05 level. When the tests were administered following communications designed to develop more positive attitudes

62George Lovell and Charles Haner, "Forced-Choice Applied to College Faculty Rating." Educational and Psychological Measurement.15, p. 303.

63Paul Ross, ,"A Comparison of Two Methods of Matching in Forced-Choice Rating," (Columbus, PhD dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1955).

64Bartlett, Quay and Wrightsman, o p . cit.

39

toward the mentally retarded, scores on the Likert scale Indicated asignificantly positive change (p. .05) In attitude scores while theforced-choice scale showed no significant change. The authors feel,however, that the Likert scale had an Inadequate control for bias and

»that the change noted was merely a change In bias. They suggest that,11. . .one might speculate that the validity of attitude measurement might also be increased through the use of the forced-choice techni­que,"^ which appears to indicate that the forced-choice technique actually was a more valid indicator of the attitude of the respondents than was the Likert type scale.

Ill. Current Trends In Attitude Measurement

Among the current writers and experimenters in the field of attitude measurement, there seems to be somewhat general agreement that the indirect methods provide a more realistic means of examining social attitudes. The tremendous growth and development of interest in the construction and experimental use of indirect measures of attitude since World War II is indicative of the popularity and high regard in which this approach is held. Some feel, as does Dubin, that projective techniques examine layers of personality that could not be revealed by paper and pencil techniques. Wechsler and

~̂*Ibid., p . 704.66Dubin, ojj.. cit.., p. 27.

40

Bernberg, Rrech and Crutchfield and Donald Campbell agree that indir­ect measurement of attitudes is necessary in order to preserve the

natural form of the attitude.It would appear reasonable to assume, then, that such indirect

or disguised-structured techniques as the semantic differential, pro­jective techniques and the forced-choice approach hold considerable promise as methods for the more objective measurement of attitudes.

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURE IN SCALE CONSTRUCTION

To develop the forced-choice scale for measurement of atti­

tudes toward censorship, a search for descriptive words and criteria was undertaken. Books and periodicals containing articles discussing the theory or problems of censorship were examined and daily news­papers and published public addresses by authorities in the field were perused and pertinent terms extracted. Next, 122 students enrolled in a basic course were asked to write brief essays on cen­sorship. One-half of this number wrote essays on why they thought censorship was undesirable and the other 61 wrote essays on why they felt censorship was desirable. From these papers words and phrases pertinent to the censorship question were extracted and considered for use in construction of the scale. The 226 phrases derived by the above procedure appear in Table 1.

These phrases were then examined for ambiguity and duplication and the list was reduced to 224 items. These phrases were then sub­mitted to another group of 200 undergraduate students. Because the theory of forced-choice calls for description rather than rating, the subjects were first asked to react to the phrases while recalling a person who felt that censorship was desirable. Then the same subjects

42

reacted to the same phrases while recalling a person who considered Censorship undesirable. In describing the probable reactions of these persons to each descriptive phrase, the subjects were instructed to check boxes headed (1) dislike very much, (2) moderately dislike, (3) neutral, neither like or dislike, (4) like, (5) like very much.In preparing the directions for this preliminary operation, the sug­gestion of Hovland*^ was followed and the crucial portion of the in­structions was underlined. The following directions appeared on the cover page of each form:

DIRECTIONS:1. Write your name in the blank provided in the left

comer of the answer sheet.2. Recall a person whom you have known or think of

a person you might have known who felt that censorship was (desirable or undesirable).

3. Keeping this person in mind, indicate his probablereactions to the phrases which appear on the attached sheets. You are to mark these probable reactions on the sheets.

4. If you mark space 1 you are indicating that hewould dislike this description very much. A mark in space 2 would mean that he would mod­erately dislike this item. Marking space 3 would mean this item was neutral and that he would neither like or dislike it. If you mark space 4 you are indicating he would like this description. A mark in space 5 indicates that the individual considered would like this des­cription very much.

5. Remember that an individual might be favorable toone item and unfavorable toward another. There­fore, consider each item individually as it applies to the person you have in mind.

^Carl Hovland, "A New Method of Increasing the Reliability of the True-False Examination," Journal of Educational Psychology. XXVI (1935).

43

6. Be as accurate as possible and answer each item.7. Now react to the items on the following sheets.

44

TABLE 1

Preliminary Pbrasea Describing Censorship

Pro-Censorship Phrases Anti-Censorship Phrases

1« Assists parents2. Assists world peace3. Aids moral standing4. Arouses opinion5. Accepted procedure6. Builds good morals7. Checks ssait8. Classifies auterlals9. Challenges individuals10. Combats unhealth sex propaganda11. Control for the comun good12. Constructive criticism13. Clean entertainment14. Combats Juvenile delinquency15. Conservative16. Common security17. Christian18. Decisive19. De-emphaslces crime20. Discourages undesirable material21. Distinguishes right from wrong22. Democratic23. Educated24. Eliminates unwanted obscenity25. Eliminates false impressions26. Eliminates 1 moral pictures27. Establishes minimum standards28. Eliminates profanity29. Eliminates objectionable material30. Encourages morality31. Erudite32. Fairly liberal33. Fights communism34. Guardian of morality35. Good sense and moderation36. Good movies37. Good intentions38. Hides obscenity39. Helpful40. Helps society function acre smoothly41. Helps morality42. Helps eliminate impurity43. Historically proved44. Protects future generations45. Helpful to the uninformed46. High morals47. Improvement in the moral tone48. Inevitable49. Just50. Justified51. Keeps mind from being corrupted

1. Un-American2. Authoritarian3. Ill-defined action4. Ambiguous5. A1len to freedom6. Assumes infallible personal judgment7. Assumes lack of intelligence8. Absurd9. Antiquated10. Boycott11. Blacklisting12. Bigoted13. Biased14. Brain washing15. Creates false standards16. Coercive power17. Misguided criticism18. Untrained censora19. Campaign of Intimidation20. Converts adults to children21. Crooked politics22. Concentration of power23. Hinders comsunicatlon24. Stifles curiouslty25. Causes conformity26. Curbs learning27. Creates stereotypes28. Cnninistlc29. Controversial30. Confused31. Dangerous32. Violates democratic traditions33. Dictatorial34. Develops inhibitions35. Deceptive36. Dogmatic37. Distorts the truth38. Destroys freedom39. Discourages individualism40. Evil41. Encourages pornography42. Economic pressure43. Fascist activity44. Fanatical45. Fundamentally wrong46. Foreclosed judgment47. False standards48. Forsakes individual reason49. Fosters Ignorance50. Creates gullibility

.tables

Table Page

1. Preliminary Phrases Describing Censorship ........... 442. Item Indices, Means and Standard Deviations ......... 483. Item Preference and Discrimination I n d i c e s ......... 604. Pre- and Post-Stimulus Mean Scores and Standard

Deviations for Subjects on the Forced-Choice Scale. ...............,.......... 69

5. Pre- and Post-Stimulus Mean Scores and StandardDeviations for Subjects on the ThurstoneScale......................................... 71

6. Attitude Changes of the Control Group Comparedwith Attitude Changes of the ExperimentalG r o u p s ....................................... 74

7. Summary Table for Two-way ClassificationAnalysis of Variance of Forced-ChoiceAttitude Changes ............................. 76

8. Comparison of Attitude Scores as a Result ofExperimental Stimuli ........................ 77

9. Comparison of Attitude Changes of Heterogeneousand Homogeneous Audiences ................ . 78

10. Comparison of Attitude Changes of Heterogeneouswith Homogeneous Audiences.................. 80

iii

TABU 1

Pro-Censorship Phrases

51. Keeps alnd from being corrupted52. Logical53. Legally permissible54. Legal right55. Maintains surality56. Morally desirable57. Maintains nature standards56. Misunderstood59. Objective cossson good60. Opposes pornography and obscenity61. Prudent62. Practical63. Prevents teaptatlon64. Prevents Juvenile delinquency65. Prevents crlnes66. Protects the general public67. Protects children66. Profeselonel competence69. Purging of Communist literature70. Public protection71. Public Interest72. Protects the uneducated nlnd73. Promotes national security74. Prevents security leaks75. Public education76. Pure literature77. Prevents errors78. Public conscience79. Protects against false doctrine80. Protects against trickery81. Protects sural virtues82. Qualified censors83. Rational84. Rejects undesirable material85. Reorganises our sural status86. Right to protest and object87. Reduces antl-soclal development88. Removes false statesants89. Stifles pronography90. Stops sural decline91. Slows, spread of Cossaunlsm92. Self protection93. Social responsibility94. sound in principle95. Safeguards morals ^96. Sober97. Sound decisions98. Temperate99. Trustworthy -100. Vital to national security

45

(Continued)

Antl-Censorshlp Phrases

51. Hateful52. Historically unsound53. Hinders the discovery of new truth54. Hypocritical55. Hsphssard56. Has no criteria57. Intellectual Imprisonment58. Impractical59. Irritating60. Ineffective61. Illogical62. Inconsistent63. Illegal64. Inaccurate65. Intolerant66. Lack of trust67. Limits freedom of thought68. Lowers morale69. Lacks objectivity70. Monotonous71. Modern witchcraft72. Minority rule73. Halve74. Narrow minded75. Mot.essential76. Negative approach77. Not in good taste78. Outmoded79. Obscure80. Picketing81. Penalizes certain groups82. Prevents publication83. Political pressure84. Police authority85. PreJudgment86. Personal ldlosyncraciea87. Puritanical88. Prudish89. Prejudiced90. Prevents comparison91. Prohibits information92. Prevents freadom of choice93. Persecution94. Restrictive95. Rigid96. Radical97. Restricts voicing of opinion98. Social pressure99. Stereotypes material100. Suppression

46

Pro-Censorship Phrases101. Virtuous102. Wholesome entertainment103. Well grounded

TABLE 1 (Continued)

Antl-Censorshlp Phrases

101. Subjective102. Stops discussion103. Senseless104. Social Injustice105. Shelters people106. Sinful107. Thought control108. Tyrannical109. Totalitarian110. Unrepresentative opinion111. Undesirable112. Undemocratic113. Unwarranted114. Unrealistic115. Unsound116. Un-American117. Unproved118. Useloss119. Unjust120. Violates constitutional rights121. Vague standards122. Victorian concept of morality123. Witch hunt.

47

Their reactions to the items were then coded on IBM Data Processing Cards and the cards were sorted and counted by an IBM Card Sorter

and Counting Machine. In this way the responses to the items were determined. Reactions to the phrases were tabulated and prefer­ence and discrimination indices were computed. A sample of the statistical procedure followed in determining preference and dis­crimination indices appears below.Item 48 Subjective MoAlternatives 1 2 3 4 5 ResponseWeight (w) 0 1 2 3 4Frequency (f)

Favorable 14 45 60 56 13 12Unfavorable 20 41 57 50 21 11

I f 34 86 117 106 34 23if.w 0 86 234 318 126d ’F-U 6 4 3 6 8

Preference Index: f.w x 100 - 764.100 « 202~ 377.

Discrimination Index: 27

Mean: 3.053S tandard Deviat ion: 1.107 As an additional measure of variability, the standard devia­

tion for each item was computed in addition to the mean. These data were computed for each of the 224 items. Table 2 contains item preference and discrimination indices, means and standard

deviations, arranged in descending order of preference indices.

48

TABLE 2

Item Indices, Means and Standard Deviations

Statements Favorable to CensorshipL

ItemPreferenceIndex

DiscriminationIndex Mean

StandardDeviation

118. Opposes pornography and obscenity 243 239 3.435 1.341

62. Clean entertainaient 239 270 3.394 ' 1.290

105. Good intentions 236 253 3.368 1.175130. Right to protest and object 233 50 3.338 1.223

136. Christian 231 274 3.339 1.344201. Protects children 231 333 3.310 1.39726. Good movies 228 182 3.287 1.330

128. Uholesome4K>tertainaent 227 257 3.272 1.30551. Eliminates unwanted

obscenity 224 - 327 3.240 1.46570. Objective cannon good 223 , 271 3.230 1.315

56. Qualified censors 222 286 3.225 1.280772. Stifles pornography 222 198 3.227 1.281202. Helps morality . 222 339 3.225 1.424

71. Morally desirable 222 319 3.220 1.48623. Combats Juvenile delinquency 220 322 3.207 1.40035. Social responsibility 220 242 3.204 1.134

174. High snrals 220 236 3.205 1.457210. Classifies materials 219 195 3.198 1.023187. Rejects undesirable material 219 279 3.198 1.20295. Encourages swrallty 218 320 3.180 1.39897. Good sense and moderation 218 287 3.181 1.266

«

49

TABLE 2 (Continued)

Statements Favorable to Censorship

ItemPreferenceIndex

DiscriminationIndex Mean

170. CcMibats unhealthy sex 218propaganda

6. Safeguards morals 217

16. Eliminates lassoral pictures 217IS. Aids moral standing 216

197. Assists psrents 216

171. Builds good morals 216

115. Promotes national security 216

91. Discourages undesirablematerial 215

87. Foreclosed Judgment 214

32. Improvement in the moral tone 213

39. Eliminates objectionablematerial 213

88. Prevents security leaks 213

114. Professional competence 213

217. Arouses opinion 213116. Sound lii principle ' 212

168. Protects the general'public 212160. Helpful 211

195. Constructive criticism 211

215. Common security 211

119. Stops sural decline 210

131, Public protection 210209. Maintains morality 210

317

331

307322

313

320

250

312

246

328

276

230

21091

312

326

317

257290

301

311

325

3.187

3.1723.1783.168

3.1673.168

3.164

3.154

3.146

3.138

3.138

3.133 3.135

3.131

3.125

3.125

3.117

3.117 3.116

3.105

3.103

3.105

StandardDeviation

1.475

1.494 1.336

1.399

1.240

1.494

1.321

1.386

1.228

1.334

1.4091.333

1.128

1.0201.422

1.394

1.248

1.2761.1111.421

1.3571.399

soTABLE 2 (Continued)

Statement! Favorable to Cenaorshlp

Item -PreferenceIndex

DiscriminationIndex Mean

StandardDeviation

141. Trustworthy 209 2B0 3.098 1.283

127. Educated 209 265 3.093 1.232122. Prevents juvenile delinquency 209 273 3.098 1.334

176. Protects moral virtues 208 337 3.087 1.312109. Assists world peace 207 237 3.075 1.298

181. Public education 207 192 3.071 1.138

24. Combats juvenile delinquency 206 268 3.061 1.31642. Control for the comaon good 206 329 3.068 1.444113. Protects future generations 206 222 3.067 1.406132. Virtuous 206 271 3.063 1.306

137. Guardian of siorallty 206 315 3.068 1.431182. De-emphasIres crime 206 214 3,063 1.275139. Sound decisions 205 295 3.057 1.29429. Helps eliminate Impurity 205 322 3.052 1.33379. Maintains mature standards 205 303 3.050 1.366164. Self protection ' 205 242 3.055 1.184135. Sober 204 131 3.043 .988178. Slows spread of Cousnunism 203 231 3.035 1.35750. Fights Communism 202 211 3.020 1.36585. Purging of Communist

1lterature 202 127 3.028 1.2039. Protects the uneducated mind 201 257 3.012 1.37640. Legally permissible 201 243 3.012 1.28547. Helps society function more

smoothly 201 300 3.017 1.3671. Prevents low morals 200 302 3.000 1,452

51

TABLE 2 (Continued

Statements Favorable to Censorship

ItemPreferenceIndex

DiscriminationIndex Mean

StandardDeviation

54. Well grounded 200

157. Logical 200189. Public conscience 200

206. Removes false statements 200

76. Protects against falsedoctrine 198

101. Justified 198

82. Practical 197

153. Just 197

219. Keeps mind from beingcorrupted 197

175. Establishes minimum standards 196

161. Pure literature 19757. Reorganizes our moral status 196

138. Rational 196

67. Reduces anti-socialdevelopment 195

125. Eliminates false impressions 193

93. Helpful to the uninformed 192

4. Distinguishes right fromwrong 191

74. Legal right 191

144. Restrictive 191

10B. Penalizes certain groups 191

155. Hides Obscenity 191

289

298150

274

273

317314

311

287

190

190

240

189

102

270

211

253

209

228

249

214

3.000

3.002

3.002

3.000

2.9B7

2.9892.979

2.977

2.979

2.9672.979

2.964

2.964

2.954

2.934

2.924

2.9162.193

2.914

2.914

2.919

1.347

1.3861.096

1.296

1.365

1.440

1.304

1.230

1.453

1.1491.221

1.294

1.246

1.200

1.292

1.200

1.3601.233

1.397

1.300

1.342

i

52

TABLE 2 (Continued)

Statements Favorable to Censorship

Preference Discrimination "StandardItem Index Index Mean Deviation

13. Vital to national security 190 231 2.907 1.347148. Democratic 189 271 2.891 1.425

65. Challenges individuals 189 88 2.893 1.196

30. Fairly liberal 189 189 2.899 1.08418. Decisive 189 136 2.896 .949222. Temperate 187 80 2.870 .995

37. Protects against trickery 186 240 2.864 1.156192. Prudent 184 121 2.847 1.24584. Social pressure 183 88 2.836 1.08794. Eliminates profanity 182 265 2.826 1.281

59. Historically proved 181 243 2.972 1.07944. Accepted procedure 174 227 2.750 1.16425. Erudite 174 53 2.808 .782147. Prevents errors 165 232 2.659 1.20112. Prevents crimes 109 41 2.096 .978180. .Rigid '206 105 3.060 1.13048. Subjective 202 27 3.053 1.107102. Puritanical 200 131 3.000 1.19341. Stifles curlouslty 199 148 2.797 1.20821. Prevents comparisons 198 237 2.982 1.214179. Lacks objectivity 195 283 2.952 1.2715. Historically unsound 194 215 2.948 1.230

111. Prejudgment 193 255 2.930 1.276

53

TABLE 2 (Continued)

Statements Unfavorable to Censorship

Preference Discrimination StandardItem Index Index Mean Deviation

123. Misunderstood 193 71 2.938 1.109

80. Antiquated 192 221 - 2.928 1.242

3. Bigoted 191 125 2.912 1.206

11. Unproved 191 226 2.919 1.239

61. Forsakes individual reason 189 252 2.893 1.267

124. Negative approach 189 232 2.890 1.200

107. Inconsistent 189 299 2.894 1.282

208. Irritating 188 287 2.883 1.25998. Dogmatic 188 144 2.884 1.129

183. Deceptive 188 251 2,544 1.342

86. Foreclosed Judgment 187 178 2.879 1.22345. Personal idlosyncracies 187 127 2.873 1.0008. Minority rule 187 217 2.872 1.372

190. Impractical 187 287 2.870 1.37728. Confuted 187 236 2.873 1.14838. Violates democratic traditions.. W 279 2.877 1.527

27. Unrealistic 186 279 2.862 1.29152. Not essential 186 309 2.868 1.4612. Discourages individualism 185 214 2.857 1.39614. Ineffective 185 284 2.850 1.35864. Biased 185 242 2.850 1.39873. Authoritarian 185 141 2.831 1.23231.. Createa false standards 185 254 2.850 1.40520. Shelters people 184 99 2.849 1.149

I

5ATABLE 2 (Continued)

Statements Unfavorable to Censorship

ItemPreferenceIndex

DiscriminationIndex Mean

StandardDeviation

221. Creates stereotypes ISA

120. Assumes lack of intelligence ISA

165. Prudish ISA

126. Coercive power 18A

66. Hypocritical ISA

207. Restricts voicing of opinion 183

172. Illogical 182

193. Violates constitutionalrights 182

191. Haphazard ** 182

110. Unwarranted 182

75. Concentration of power 182

100. Unrepresentative opinion 182

18A. Hinders communication 182

81. Ambiguous 182

58. Victorian concept of skorallty 181

216, Vague standards 181

69. Prevents publication 181

106. Social injustice 181

99. Stereotyped material 181

159. Ill-defined action 181

10. Outmoded 180

83. Creates gullibility 180

89. Assumes infallible personalJudgment 180

1A9. Naive 180

256

2A5

19A

79

227

283

265

276

297

277

139

266

261

2A0

89

250

121

290

206

258

2A2

2A6

113

209

2.8A9

2.8A3

2.8AI

2.8A6

2.8A9

2.830

2.823

2.826

2.826

2.821

2.670

2.823

2.852

2.829

2.810

2.812

2.817

2.811

2.818

2.813

2.800

2.800

2,80 A

2.800

1.281

1.673

1.2A2

1.1A0

1.320

1.A38

1.37A

1.52A

1.229

1.318

1.228

1.3A2

1.3A0

1.269

1.223

1.111

1.285

1.A19

1.2121.287

1.29A

1.32A

1.3AA

1.257

55TABLE 2 (Continued)

Statements Unfavorable to Censorship

ItemPreferenceIndex

DiscriminationIndex Hean

StandardDeviation

214. Unsound 179

133. Inaccurate 179

173. Undemocratic 179

17. Marrow minded 179

146. Has no criteria 178

33. Undesirable 177

204. Limits freedom of thought 177

213. Prevents freedom of choice 177

186. Totalitarian 177

77. Fundamentally wrong 176

140. False standards 176

198. Fosters Ignorance 176

188. Prohibits Information 176

205. Suppression 176

167. Obscure 176

220. Hinders the discovery ofnew truth 175

158. Campaign of Intimidation 17522, Intellectual imprisonment 174

136. Distorts the truth 174

53. Political pressure 173

68. Absurd 173

104. Monotonous 173

117. Blacklisting 173

301

290236

271

277 288

287

290

250

275

292

261

237

254

193

280

175

262

294

143

290

258

151

2.791

2.8932.790

2.790

2.786

2.778

2.776

2.778

2.771

2.767

2.767 2.764

2.768

2.767

2.760

2.7572.750

2.746

2.743

2.7042.736

2.731

2.737

1.261

1.325

1.543

1.4241.338

1.654

1.5171.552

1.516

1.520

1.434

1.445

1.197

1.433

1.138

1.469

1.219

1.455

1.503

1.063

1.532

1.215

1.244

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

The measurement of attitudes toward social issues, individuals, and institutions has occupied the attention of many psychologists, sociologists, and other researchers in recent years. Their efforts have been directed toward the development of instruments which will reduce to quantifiable terms that latent variable called an attitude. Instruments of several types have appeared and each has professed to sample the universe under examination in either a direct or indirect manner. The classic, direct attitude-measuring instruments require the subject to check on linear continua the extent to which he either endorses or disagrees with the statement made, or subjects are in­structed to indicate approval or disapproval of scaled statements. Indirect instruments utilize toys, pictures, and dolls in creative or manipulative situations, and predispositions are inferred from the actions of the subjects.

When the forced-choice approach was developed during World War II,1 it was hailed as the answer to existing rating limitations such

as halo effect, personal bias, and central tendency. This indirect

^Paul Horst, The Prediction of Personal Adjustment. Bulletin No. 48, Social Science Research Council, 1941.

1

56

TABLE 2 (Continued)

Statements Unfavorable to Censorship

Preference Discrimination StandardItem Index Index Mean Deviation

119. Boycott 173 150 2.732 1.105

145. Lack of trust 173 244 2.739 1.304

150. Senseless 172 291 2.722 1.359

7. Tyrannical 172 236 2.725 1.486

162. Fanatical 172 246 2.720 1.315

36. Intolerant 172 202 2.723 1.300

46. Radleal 171 233 . 2.718 1.344

60. Forsakes individual reason 171 218 2.713 1.240

103. Not in good taste 171 272 2.716 1.332

151. Useless 170 324 2.706 1.494

200. Dangerous 170 287 2.701 1.466

196. Un-American 169 277 2.691 1.526

212. Stops discussion 168 240 2.684 1.309

143. Dictatorial 167 278 2.679 1.558

92. Curbs learning 167 266 2.676 1.477

55. Unjust 166 268 2.665 1.479

165. Illegal 165 269 2.657 1.374

49. Prejudiced 164 204 2.649 1.436

121. Destroys freedom 164 274 2.645 1.615

134. Hitch hunt 164 210 2.643 1.297

169. Picketing 163 69 2.639 .975

19. Persecution 160 222 2.609 1.246

211. Modern witchcraft 158 240 2.587 1.330

142. Brainwashing 158 254 2.580 1.463

57

TABLE 2 (Continued)

Stateaenta Unfavorable to Cenaorahlp

Preference Dlacrlalnatlon StandardI ten Index Index Mean Deviation

218. Crooked politlce 154 224 2.543 1.316

112. Hateful 150 277 2.506 1.279

224. Paaclat activity 150 207 2.506 1.371

63. Converta adulta to children 149 204 2.494 1.467

90. Untrained cenaora 146 211 2.460 1.370

203. Evil 145 275 2.458 1.422

96. Comunlatlc 134 248 2.341 1.410

166. Sinful 133 213 2.334 1.273

34. Lovera ax>rale 133 165 2.330 1.234

223. Encouragea pornography 130 175 2.306 1.219

58

TABLE 2 (Continued)

Ambiguous Items

Preference Discrimination StandardItem Index Index Hean Deviation

154. Controversial 219 96 3.199 .925

152. Conservative 203 87 3.030 1.038

177. Police authority 191 58 2.919 1.251

194. Inevitable 167 238 2.677 1.224

163. Causes conformity 190 205 2.904 1.305

43. Develops inhibitions 183 122 2.834 1.093

78. Prevents temptation 182 293 2.827 1.314

129. Economic pressure 179 131 2.791 1.009

59

In constructing the tetrads for the forced-choice instrument,

items with similar preference indices and different discrimination68indices were paired. The recommendation of Brooks to avoid the

pairing of items with extreme differences in discrimination indices was followed in the preparation of the tetrads. Efforts were also taken to prevent inclusion of items with high standard deviations since usage of items of that type might result in the selection of items with unstable preference and discrimination indices. Most of the items used had standard deviations of less than 1.300. The es­tablishment of this level for acceptance of.items resulted in the re­jection of all but 70 items. The acceptable positive statements were then arranged in descending order of preference index and each item was tentatively paired with another item of approximately the same preference index and different discrimination index. The identical procedure was followed for the negative statements. This method yielded 24 pairs of favorable statements and 24 pairs of negative statements. The tetrads were then constructed utilizing favorable and unfavorable pairs of similar preference indexes. The 24 tetrads thus constructed constituted the forced-choice instrument. These tetrads and their preference and discrimination indices are shown in

Table 3.

Keith Brooks, "The Construction and Testing of a Forced-Choice Scale for Measuring Speaking Achievement," Unpub. Doctoral Disserta­tion, The Ohio State University, 1955.

60

TABLE 3

Item Preference and Discrimination Indices

Preference - DiscriminationIndex Index

Prudish 184 194Sober 204 131Confused 187 236Sound Decisions 205 295Inconsistent 189 299Negative Approach 189 232Assists World Peace 207 237Educated 209 265Classifies Materials 219 195Lacks Objectivity 195 283Prevents Comparisons 198 237Good Sense and Moderation 218 287Reduces Anti-Social Development 195 102Author itarian 185 141Pure Literature 197 190Biased 185 242

Vague Standards 181 250Decisive 189 136Stereotyped Material 181 206Distinguishes Right From Wrong 192 211

Practical 197 314Well Grounded 200 289Hypocritical 184 227Restricts Voicing of Opinion 183 283

Prohibits Information 176 237Rational 196 189Unsound 179 301Justified 198 317

De-emphasizes Crime 206 214Deceptive 188 251Public Education 207 192Unrealistic 186 279

61TABLE 3 (Continued)

Item Preference and Discrimination Indices

Preference DiscriminationIndex Index

9. Sinful 133 213Professional Competence 213 210Lowers Morale 133 165Constructive Criticism 211 257

10. Reorganizes our Moral Status 196 240Naive 180 209Establishes Minimum Standards 196 190Outmoded 180 242

11. Rigid 206 105Qualified Censors 222 286Social Responsibility ' 220 242Puritanical 200 131

12. Sound in Principle 212- 312Dangerous 170 287Intolerant 172 202Prevents Security Leaks 213 230

13. Concentration of Power 182- 139Shelters People 184 99Eliminates False Impressions 193 270Helpful to the Uninformed 192 211

14. Creates False Standards 185 254Discourages Individualism 185 214Protects Against False Doctrines 198 273Prevents Low Morals 200 302

15. Senseless 172 291Blacklisting 173 151Common Security 211 290Helpful 211 317

16. Aids Moral Standing 216 322Narrow Minded 179 271Promotes National Security 216 250Creates Gullibility 180 246

62TABLE 3 (Continued)

Item Preference and Discrimination Indices

Preference DiscriminationIndex Index

17. Legally Permissible 201 243Unrealistic 186 279Creates Stereotypes 184 256Removes False Statements 200 274

18. Irritating 188 287Self Protection 205 242Antiquated 192 221Helps Eliminate Impurity 205 322

19. Trustworthy 209 280Monotonous 173 258Forsakes Individual Reason 171 218Maintains Morality 210 325

20. Hides Obscenity 191 214Unjust 166 268Democratic 189 271Prejudiced 164 204

21. Purges Communist Literature 202 127Public Conscience 200 150Dogmatic 188 144Minority Rule 187 217

22. Fairly Liberal 189 189Legal Right 191 209Haphazard 182 297Ambiguous 182 240

23. Not essential 186 309Fights Communism 202 211Ineffective 185 284Maintains Mature Standards 205 303

24. Assists Parents 216 313Rejects Undesirable Material 219 279Prejudgment 193 255Historically Unsound 194 215

63

The final step in preparation of the forced-choice instrument was the preliminary administration of the scale to a small group of subjects to determine the reliability of the scale. The forced-choice instrument was completed by 13 subjects and an odd-even correlation undertaken. The correlation was /.91, corrected for split half.

When construction of the scale was completed an instrument to be used for comparison purposes was selected. Because of its estab­lished position in the field of attitude measurement, the Thurstone Attitude Scale for Measurement of Attitudes Toward Censorship was selected. When originally constructed by L. L. Thurstone in 1931 this scale had two forms. Although available material on the two forms of the test asserted that they were equivalent, it was decided to administer both forms to a sample group to ascertain if they were, in fact, equivalent. Fifty undergraduate students completed the two forms and a Pearson Product-Moment Coefficient of Correlation was computed between the scores. The _r corrected by the Spearman-Brown

formula for split half was /.90 for 20 items. This correction was made because it was felt that administration of both forms of the Thurstone scale as a single test, thus providing a scale of 40 items, would be a more valid and reliable measure of the subjects attitude

toward censorship.

CHAPTER IV

PROCEDURE AND DATA ANALYSIS

After the forced-choice Instrument was constructed and adminis­

tered to a pilot group to determine Its Internal reliability, It was

used with the Thurstone Instrument for the purpose of measuring atti­

tudes toward censorship before and after the presentation of a

communication stimulus. Since the Thurstone instrument is an open­

faced-structured type of measuring device, it was expected that the

relationship between scores on the two tests would be positive but

not perfect. The correlation between pre-test scores of subjects on

the two tests was /.67, thus indicating the two instruments seem to

sample the same property.

The Thurstone scale (Appendix A) combined Forms A and B of the

original instrument for Scale of Attitude Toward Censorship and con­

sisted of three pages. The cover page presented the instructions

for scale completion:

This is a study of attitudes toward censorship. On the following pages you will find 40 statements ex­pressing different attitudes toward censorship.Put a check mark (V**) if you agree with the statement.Put a cross (X) if you disagree with the statement.If you cannot decide about a statement, you may mark it with a question mark.This is not an examination. People differ in their opinions about censorship.Please indicate your own attitude by a check mark' when you agree and by a cross when you disagree.

64

65

The responses to the statements were scored according to instructions

published by L. L. Thurstone in which he stated that a person's score

is the median scale value of all the statements he endorses. These

scale values had been previously determined by use of the equal-

appearing intervals method.

The forced-choice items were arranged on three sheets with two

columns of boxes after the items&r subject response. The forced-

choice scale is shown in Appendix B. The directions for completion

of the forced-choice scale appear below:

Directions: Check two items in each of the 24groups below as follows:

1. In the group headed MOST, check the one item in each group which is most descriptive of censorship.

2. In the column headed LEAST, check the one item in each group which is least descriptive of censorship.

Item responses were scored /l, 0 and -1, according to the discrimina­

tion index of the item in the tetrad. If a statement favorable to

censorship were checked as most descriptive and the item, according

to the discrimination index, discriminated more than the other state­

ment favorable to censorship it was scored /l. If the more discrim­

inatory favorable item was checked as being least descriptive it was

scored -1. When a less discriminatory favorable item was checked

as most or least descriptive it was scored 0. If a more discrimina­

tory unfavorable item was checked as least descriptive it was scored

/l, and if checked as most descriptive it received a value of -1.

66

Less discriminatory unfavorable items were assigned a value of 0 when

selected as most or least descriptive. Therefore, a positive score

on the total forced-choice test indicated a favorable attitude toward

censorship while a negative score meant that the subject felt censor­

ship was undesirable. The score card used for marking the forced-

choice instrument appears in Appendix C.

The stimuli used in this study consisted of two communications

on the subject of censorship. One stimulus presented arguments for

freedom and is called the "positive" communication. The other stimu­

lus which presented arguments against censorship is termed the

"negative" stimulus. These two communications were submitted in

written form to a group of eight graduate students in speech at The

Ohio State University for content validation. The first page con­

tained instructions:

On the following pages you will read two communi­cations designed to be used in an experimental study on censorship. One of these communications is of the "positive" type. That is, it speaks only of the favorable aspects of freedom, emphasizing the accom­plishments of free people and the advantage of living in a society which permits its citizens to think and act freely. The other communication is "negative" in that it discusses the disadvantages of censorship and the problems inherent in restricting individual rights in a pluralistic society.

After each communication you will find a sheet with adjectives on bi-polar continue. Considering the communication which you have read, first check in space number one the type of communication.Then check on the continua your reactions to the communications. If you have any specific sugges­tions to make regarding revisions in the communica­tions, please write in the margins beside the section you feel needs improvement.

67

The stimuli which the graduate students read and the bi-polar adjectives they reacted to appear in Appendix D. Revisions were suggested for eight passages. After these changes had been made, the stimuli were tape recorded for validation of the delivery. Each of the eight evaluators heard both stimuli and indicated their evalua­tion on the check list appearing in Appendix E. Suggested changes in delivery were made when the speaker re-recorded the validated stimuli for presentation to the experimental groups.

Two hundred and sixty-nine subjects from three Central Ohio *

colleges participated in the experimental procedure. During a regu­lar classroom period, each subject completed the forced-choice in­strument and the Thurstone scale. None of the subjects were informed

of the purpose of the study.After the completed tests had been scored, the subjects were

grouped according to their forced-choice scores. Twenty-nine sub­jects, representative of the pre-test distribution, were selected for

the control group.Three weeks after completing the pre-test, the subjects listened

in pre-determined groups to the stimuli. Each tape recorded communi­cation was heard by three groups of subjects. One group was termed "favorable" because their pre-test scores indicated they would agree with the content of the stimulus. A second group which heard each communication was labelled "opposed" because their pre-test scores

suggested that they would be in disagreement with the point of view

expressed by the stimulus. A third group was termed heterogeneous

or mixed because it contained subjects, some of whose scores indi­

cated agreement with the message and others whose pre-test scores

indicated they would disagree with the communication to be heard.

After hearing the stimulus, each subject again completed both the

Thurstone and forced-choice instrument. Approximately one-half of

the subjects listened to the "positive" stimulus and one-half heard

the "negative" communication. The control group did not listen to

either communication but completed the Thurstone and forced-choice

post-tests during the same class period.

Relationship between forced-choice attitude scores and Thurstone attitude scores

To answer the experimental question: What relationship exists

between attitude scores toward censorship obtained with a Thurstone

attitude scale and attitude scores toward censorship obtained with a

forced-choice attitude instrument, the following procedures were

undertaken.

Mean scores were determined for all groups for the pre- and

post-stimulus tests and the group standard deviations were computed.

Table 4 shows the pre- and post-stimulus mean scores and standard

deviations for all groups including the control group on the forced-

choice scale.

69

TABLE 6

Pre- and Post-Stimulus Moan Scores and Standard Deviations for Subjects on the

Forced-Choice Scale

Group

Numberof

Subjects

MeanPre-Test

Post-Test

StandardDeviation

Pre-Teat

Post-Test

All Groups 240 - 6.33 -12.43 17.34 17.17Control Group 29 - 4,28 - 5.90 16.47 19.10

Negative CoanunlcatlonAll Groups 115 - 7.08 -12.91 15.96 14.88

Hoaogeneoualy "Favor" Stimulus 49 -17.84 -21.7B 8,08 8.45Hoaogeneoualy "Oppose" Stimulus 25 tD.es 7 1.68 14.89 18.29Heterogeneous to Stimulus 41 - 6.37 •12.10 13.06 12.10

Positive Coaaunlcatlon

All Groups 125 - 4.95 - 7.40 18.20 18.61Homogeneously "Favor"Stimulus 54 -17.08 -19.78 8.77 10.03Homogeneously "Oppose"Stimulus 30 /13.50 713.53 13.95 10.28Heterogeneous to Stimulus 41 -12.47 -16.40 14.42 14.52

70

Forced-choice scores indicate that all groups exposed to the

stimuli changed in the direction of the stimulus excepting persons

in the "opposed" group who heard the "positive" stimulus. Those

individuals who heard the "negative" stimulus exhibited greater mean

attitudinal changes than persons listening to the "positive" message.

The greatest individual group change was shown by the "opposed" group

hearing the "negative" communication and the smallest change took

place in the "positive opposed" group.

Standard deviations of subjects hearing the "negative" stimulus

decreased, while standard deviations for persons listening to the

"positive" stimulus Increased.

The data for all experimental groups combined on the forced-

choice scale suggests that a much greater change in attitude occurred

as a result of the stimulus than took place in the control group. As

an apparent result of the message, the standard deviation of the sub­

jects who heard the stimuli decreased while the control group standard

deviation increased over two and one-half points.

Table 5 shows the pre- and post-stimulus mean scores and stand-%

ard deviations for all groups, including the control group, on the

Thurstone scale.

The Thurstone instrument indicates, as did the forced-choice

scale, that all groups moved in the direction suggested by the

stimulus with the greatest changes occurring in groups hearing the

"negative" communication. The largest attitude changes took place in

71

TABLE S

Pre- and Post-Stimulus Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for Subjects

on the Thurstone Scale

GroupHwaberof

SubjectsMean

Pre-Test

Post-Test

StandardDeviation

Pre-Test

Post-Test

All Groups 240 4.90 4.46 1.42 1.44Control Group 29 4.82 4.66 1.44 1.49

Negative Communication All Groups 115 4.91 4.30 .94 1.26

Homogeneously "Favor" Stimulus 49 4.15 3.65 1.20 1.00Homogeneously "Oppose" Stimulus 25 5.80 5.52 1 .00 1.14Heterogeneous to Stimulus 41 5.03 4.33 1 .09 1.12

Positive Coimsunlcatlon All Groups 125 4.98 4.59 1 .57 1.60

Homogeneously "Favor" Stimulus 54 4.12 3.70 1 .19 1 .19Homogeneously "Oppose" Stlsnilus 30 6.39 6.14 1 .07 1 .03Heterogeneous to Stlsnilus 41 5.18 4.77 1 .04 1.09

72

the heterogeneous group hearing the "negative" communication while

the smallest change appeared in the "opposed" group which heard the

"positive" communication. The standard deviation for the subjects

listening to the "negative" stimulus decreased, indicating greater

group agreement. Greater dispersion of scores occurred in the groups

as an apparent result of the "positive" stimulus.

The control group showed a negative shift in score, but the

change in all experimental groups combined on the Thurstone scale

was greater than the control change. The standard deviation of all

groups and the control group increased slightly.

The data in Tables 4 and 5 on mean changes of subjects from

pre- to post-test on both the Thurstone and forced-choice scales

suggests that the two instruments reflect approximately the same

mean changes in attitude scores. Both scales showed the greatest

change taking place as a result of the "negative" stimulus and stand­

ard deviations of scores on both instruments indicated slightly

greater dispersion as a result of the "positive" stimulus and

slightly less dispersion in groups hearing the "negative" stimulus.

To determine if the changes in attitude by the experimental

subjects could be attributed to the communications and not to the

operation of extraneous forces in the three week period between the

pre-test and the introduction of the stimulus, the attitude changes

of the control group were examined. Changes taking place within cer­

tain experimental sub-groups as compared to the total control group

73

were also tested. The significance of changes was tested through the

The results of these comparisons appear in Table 6.

The data from the Thurstone and forced-choice instruments on

changes in the control group compared to the experimental groups

shows that the Thurstone instrument indicates a statistically signifi­

cant change in the control group from pre- to post-test when no experi­

mental stimulation was introduced. This finding of the Thurstone

scale may reflect individual respondent willingness and ability to

report changes in attitude that were induced by the extensive nation­

wide discussion of military and civilian censorship during the conduct

of the study. The forced-choice scale indicating a significant differ­

ence between the control group and those subjects receiving the

"negative" stimulation is consistent with earlier findings indicating

All £ tests for unrelated measures used the formulae of Allen Edwards..Statistical Analysis . New York: Rinehart and Company, 1958, pp. 131 and 142 which follow:

use of the t for related measures^ and the t.for unrelated measures

69The formula used for the t test for related measures was

70

6 -(fm, -

2

approach attempted to reduce the subjective aspect of earlier ratings and was utilized widely by management for personnel evaluation. Pro­ponents of the forced-choice approach assert that its primary strength lies in its ability to be descriptive. An examination of the philoso­phy and operation of this approach reveals that it is based on the assumption that description leads to more effective evaluation than evaluation based upon rating alone. If applied to attitude measure­ment, a forced-choice scale seems to offer opportunities for examina­tion of the latent variable without seriously disturbing or destroying its structure in the measurement process.

Statement of the problem

It is the purpose of this study to construct a forced-choice scale for the measurement of attitudes toward censorship and to deter­mine changes in attitude toward censorship induced by positive and negative communication stimuli. Measurement of the direction and magnitude of the attitude shifts will be made through use of a Thurstone attitude scale and a forced-choice attitude instrument. To achieve this purpose, attention will be given to selection of descrip­tions of censorship; construction of scale items; validation of the stimuli; selection of criteria for validation of the forced-choice instrument; determination of the relationship between the indirect and direct attitude scales; the effect of audience composition on

attitude change; and differences between positive and negative communi­

cation stimuli in inducing attitude change.

74

T A I 1 I . E 6

A t t i t u d e C h a n g e s o f t h e C o n t r o l C r o u p

C o m p a r e d w i t h A t t i t u d e C h a n g e s

o f t h e E x p e r i m e n t a l C r o u p s

Group Scores Compared Instrument Level of Slg.

Control pre-stimulus and Control post-stimulus Forced-choice 1.07 not slg.

Control pre-stimulus and Control post-stimulus Thurstone 2.68 .05

Control changes and "Positive" communication changes

Forced-choice .69 not sig.

Control changes and "Negative" communication changes

Forced-choice 2.08 .05

All Experimental changes and Control changes Forced-choice 1.61 not slg,

Control changes and "Positive" communication changes

Thurstone 1.08 not sig.

Control changes and "Negative" communication changes

Thurstone 1.83 not slg.

All Experimental changes and Control changes Thurstone 1.80 not slg.

I

75

the "negative" stimulus exerted a greater influence upon attitudes. When all experimental changes were combined and compared with the con­trol group changes, the data indicated non-significant changes on both the Thurstone and forced-choice scales. A final conclusion as to the relationship between the Thurstone and forced-choice scale scores id dependent, however, upon data analysis relating to other experimental questions.

Effect of positive and neeative stimuli. To answer the experi­mental question: Do "positive" type communication stimuli inducegreater attitude changes than coiununication stimuli which are "nega­tive" in structure, the following procedures were undertaken. Because two stimuli were presented, the data were treated with a Two-way, Classification Analysis of Variance to determine if changes as a re­sult of the "positive" and "negative" stimuli were greater than those changes to be expected as a result of chance. The bases for classifi­cation of the variables were, (1) the "positive" and "negative" stimuliand, (2) the groups which were initially favorable to or opposed to

71the messages. The formulae of Guilford were used to compute the analysis of variance whose results are summarized in Table 7.

^J. P. Guilford, Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1956, p. 277.

76

TABLE 7

Summary Table for Two-way Classification Analysis of Variance of Forced-Choice Attitude Changes

SourceSum of Squares df Variance

F.ratio

Attitude Scores (Rows) 5331 1 5331 22.95*Communication (columns) 18092 1 18092 77.89*Interaction (rxc) 4269 1 4269 18.38*Within Sets (error term) 35304 152 232 .26Total 155Significant at .01 level of confidence

Since the above findings suggested that the attitude score changeswere greater than those to be expected as a result of chance, the sepa­rate group changes were treated with £ tests to determine which communi­cations exerted greater changes upon attitude. Table 8 presents the results of this procedure.

77

TABLE 8Comparison of Attitude Scores as a Result

of Experimental Stimuli

CommunicationsCompared Instrument t Level of Sig.

"Negative" pre-test and

"Negative" post-testForced-choice 5.20 .001

"Positive" pre-test and

"Positive" post-testForced-choice 3.24 .01

"Negative" pre-test and

"Negative" post-testThurstone 5.33 .001

"Positive" pre-test and

"Positive" post-testThurstone 7.H .001

Both instruments indicate statistically significant changes in

the sub-groups as a result of the "positive" and "negative" communi­

cation stimuli.The attitude score changes of the persons hearing the "positive"

stimulus were then compared to changes of the groups listening to the negative stimulus. The results of this comparison appear in Table 9.

78

TABLE 9

Comparison of Attitude Changes as a Result of Experimental Stimuli

CommunicationsCompared Instrument t Level of Sig.

"Negative" Communica­tion Changes

and"Positive" Communica­

tion Changes

Forced-choice 2.20 .05

"Negative" Communica­tion Changes

and"Positive" Communica­

tion Changes

Thurstone 1.66 not sig.

The forced-choice changes as a result of the stimulus show that

the negative communication caused significantly greater attitudinal

changes than did the positive stimulus. However, the Thurstone scale

results do not indicate a significant difference between attitudinal

changes as a result of the "positive" or "negative" communication.

The findings for the forced-choice instrument appear consistent with

earlier results of both scales which indicated that greater attitu­

dinal change was induced by the "negative" stimulus. Data from this

study indicates, therefore, that "negative" type communication stimuli

induce greater attitude changes than communication stimuli which are

"positive" in structure.

79

Homogeneous audiences compared with heterogeneous audiences.

An answer to the experimental question: Are changes in attitude by

homogeneously structured audiences as a result of a communication

stimulus different from changes in attitude by heterogeneously struc

tured audiences, was explored through the following procedures.

Since certain experimental groups were homogeneous in attitude and

other groups were mixed or heterogeneous in their attitudes toward

censorship, the j: test for unrelated measures was utilized to deter­

mine if attitude change in heterogeneous groups was significantly

greater than changes by persons in homogeneous groups. Table 10r •• ,

presents the result of this examination.

80TABLE 10

Comparison of Attitude Changes of Heterogeneous with Homogeneous Audiences

CommunicationHeard

AudiencesCompared Instrument _t Level of Sig.

"Negative11 Homogeneou sly Favorable and Heterogeneous

Forced-choice 3.95 .001

"Negative" Homogeneously Opposed and Heterogeneous

Forced-choice

2.31 .05

"Positive" Homogeneously Favorable and Heterogeneous

Forced-choice •57 not sig.

"Positive" Homogeneously Opposed and Heterogeneous

Forced-choice

.70 not sig.

"Negative" Homogeneously Favorable and Heterogeneous

Thurstone .37 not sig.

"Negative" Homogeneously Opposed and Heterogeneous

Thurstone .79 not sig.

"Positive" Homogeneously Favorable and Heterogeneous

Thurstone .01 not sig.

"Positive" Homogeneou sly Opposed and Heterogeneous

Thurstone .67 not sig.

The forced-choice data indicate that homogeneously opposed subjects hearing the "negative" stimulus made significantly greater changes in the direction of the stimulus than heterogeneous groups hearing the same message. Heterogeneous groups listening to the "negative" stimulus made significantly greater changes in the direc­tion of the communication than homogeneously favorable subjects.Both changes are in expected directions since persons having greater distance to move in terms of the scale and the message made the greater change. The homogeneity or heterogeneity of the groups had no significant effect on attitude changes for groups hearing the "positive" communication. When all homogeneous group changes were compared with total heterogeneous group changes, the t of .25 indi­cated there was no statistically significant difference between changes in the groups. Both the "positive" and "negative" stimuli caused attitude shifts in the direction of the communication.

Changes in attitude by homogeneous groups were not significantly different from changes by heterogeneous groups on the basis of Thurstone scores. The t of .37 resulting from a comparison of total heterogeneous and homogeneous changes was also non-significant.

The above results indicate that, although there was a slightly greater change for heterogeneous groups on the forced-choice scale, there is no statistically significant difference between attitude

changes by homogeneous and heterogeneous groups.

82

Absolute changes in attitude. The absolute changes in atti­

tude, regardless of direction, for the control group and the ex­perimental groups were compared. The only experimental group showing a change which was significantly greater than the change of the control group was the group which was favorable to censorship but exposed to the "negative" stimulus. The lack of significance for changes between groups may be a result of the fact the control group made small mean changes from pre- to post-test, but many of the individual changes which occurred were large. These changes corresponded in magnitude to attitude changes in the experimental groups. However, the experimental group changes were also rather large but generally in one direction. This evidence lends further weight to findings of the forced-choice instrument that the "negative" stimulus induced significant changes in experimental subjects.

Cognitive consonance and dissonance. To answer the experi­mental question: What relationship exists between changes in

attitude by persons already in agreement with the stimulus and per­sons initially in disagreement with the stimulus, the following procedure was utilized. Cognitive consonance involved the presen­tation of a communication stimulus to experimental subjects who

were initially in agreement with the message. Dissonance existed when the experimental stimulus presented to subjects was in dis­agreement with their initial attitude toward censorship. The

83

number of attitude changes of consonant and dissonant subjects were72placed in a 2x2 contingency table for a chi sqaure test. The re­

sultant value of 1.97, significant at the .20 level, indicates that persons in states of cognitive dissonance approached significantly greater changes in attitude in the direction of the communication than did subjects in states of cognitive consonance. This finding is consistent with earlier data regarding changes of homogeneous and heterogeneous audiences which suggested that those subjects who were initially opposed to the stimulus changed more in the direction of the message than those persons in agreement with the communication. Such results suggest that subjects who are initially opposed to the message in spite of their dissonant state have more distance to move, and therefore change more than do persons who are initially in agreement with the message and can only slightly reinforce their

belief.Further analyses of the data on dissonance and consonance was

made to determine if homogeneously consonant or dissonant groups

72Chi Square was computed according to the formula of Sidney Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1956. The formula used was:

jrt Nfa D-gc/-g)* _____= 0W-8 )(C+D)(rh-C)(8*D)

84

changed attitude more than consonant or dissonant subjects in heterogeneous groups. Analysis by use of standard error of pro­portion and critical ratio indicated that homogeneously consonant subjects made proportionately greater changes in the direction of the message than consonant listeners in a heterogeneous group. Dissonant subjects in a heterogeneous audience made slightly greater changes in the desired direction than dissonant subjects in a homo­geneous group. None of these changes were statistically significant. The indication here is that group reinforcement along with conso­nant and dissonant states apparently operate to influence individual change or inhibition of change.

Individual attitude changes. An analysis of individual as well as group changes in attitude was made. Significant changes by the experimental group were determined on the basis of control group shifts, as described earlier. Of those subjects who favored censor­ship prior to the stimulus, 26 or 30 per cent made changes in the direction of the stimulus. No subjects in this group moved in a direction opposite to the stimulus. Seventy subjects initially opposed to censorship m$de significant changes as a result of the stimulus. Sixty-four per cent or 45 of these changes were in the direction of the message and 25 or 36 per cent of the subjects made changes which were in opposition to the stimulus (boomerang

effect).

3

2Importance of the study. Attitude, as described by Green, has three levels: (1) elicited verbal attitudes, (2) spontaneous verbalattitudes, and, (3) action attitudes,, This study attempts to tap the elicited verbal attitudes by direct and indirect methods and thus determine whether the experimental stimuli have altered the subject's attitude toward the problem area. Both the forced-choice approach and the Thurstone instrument deal with the affective component of attitude and attempt to evaluate the respondents' feelings about the subject or issue. By considering attitudes as "predispositions to action," the importance of the consideration of these components is clear.

Communication types. The organization of communications has been examined by many experimenters, including Cromwell^ and Sponberg,

2Bert Green, "Attitude Measurement," Handbook of Social Psy­chology, ed. Gardner Lindzey, Vol. I, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1954, pp. 335-369.

^H. Cromwell, "The Relative Effect On Audience Attitude of the First Versus the Second Argumentative Speech of a Series,"Speech Monographs. 1950, 17, pp. 105-122.

^H. Sponberg, "A Study of the Relative Effectiveness of Climax and Anti-Climac Order in an Argumentative Speech," Speech Monographs. 1946, 13, pp. 35-44.

85

Readability of stimuli. As a follow-up to the earlier ana­

lysis of data, the readability of the two experimental stimuli was73analyzed through use of the Flesch formula for testing readability.

According to the Flesch formula, higher scores indicate greater

readability. The reading ease of the "negative" stimulus was 29.46,

or, according to the reading ease norms provided by Flesch, very

difficult. The reading ease of the "positive" stimulus was 65.56

or standard, according to the norms.

Final considerations. The foregoing analyses of data by the

Thurstone and forced-choice scales leads to these conclusions re-■ • ° • <. y ■■garding the comparative effectiveness of the two instruments.

(1) Both instruments reflect approximately the same mean group

changes. (2) The Thurstone scale is sensitive to individual will­

ingness to report changes that may be only a conscious desire to

make responses the subject feels are desired. (3) The forced-

choice results, particularly in regard to the effectiveness of

"positive" and negative" stimuli, are consistent with all pre­

liminary data of both instruments. The forced-choice instrument

appears to be consistent in its description of the attitude state

and is more sensitive to actual attitudinal shifts.

^Rudolph Flesch, How to Test Readability New York: Harper and Company, 1951.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

As a result of the procedures followed in the construction

and use of a forced-choice scale and Thurstone scale for measuring

attitudes toward censorship and the comparison of the effects of

"positive" and negative" argumentative stimuli upon experimental

subjects, the following conclusions appear justified:

1. The use of student essays on censorship as a supplement to

descriptive phrases from literature on censorship provided a list

of evaluative statements for the forced-choice scale which repre­

sented favorable, neutral and opposed attitudes.

2. The procedure followed for computation of the preference

and discrimination indices was satisfactory. Two hundred students

recalled persons whom they knew or might have known who felt that

censorship was (1) desirable and (2) undesirable. They reacted to

each of the 224 items while considering each person separately.

3. The criteria followed for pairing of items in the tetrads

appeared satisfactory. Items with similar preference indices and

dissimilar discrimination indices were paired. Twenty-four tetrads

were constructed in this manner.

86

87

4. The selection procedure o£ items for the forced-choice instrument and the construction of the scale appears sound. The reliability coefficient of /.91 during preliminary administration indicates high internal consistency in item response.

5. Forms A and B of the Thurstone Scale for Measuring Atti­tude Toward Censorship are not truly equivalent. Administration of the two forms of the Thurstone scale to a group of 50 subjects re­sulted in a correlation between scale scores of* /.90. The two forms were'combined to form a test of 40 items and to increase the test

reliability. When using the Thurstone scale or any measuring in­strument, preliminary tests should be made to determine if two so-

called equivalent forms of a test are truly equivalent.6. Procedures followed for preparation and validation of the

"positive" and "negative" stimuli resulted in communications which exercised significant influences on the attitudes of the experimen­tal subjects.

7. The control group attitude toward censorship changed from pre- to post-test. On the basis of a t test, the forced-choice instrument did not reflect a statistically significant change in the

attitude of the control group, but the Thurstone scale changes were significant at the .05 level. During conduct of the study, national discussion of censorship dealing with speeches by military officers

88

and consideration of local movie censorship may have caused the attitude shift by the control group and thus render some findings questionable.

8. Both the "positive" and "negative" stimuli caused changes in attitude toward censorship which were statistically significant on the Thurstone and forced-choice instruments. Data from both scales suggested that the "negative" stimulus caused greater changes in attitude than the "positive" communication. Forced-choice data indicated significance at the .05 level. These findings suggest that subjects exposed to a communication will make greater attitude changes in the direction of the message if the stimulus attacks or points out the problems in a proposed course of action. A message which stresses the beneficial aspects of an alternative choice will be less effective. This "negative" approach may result in a con­siderable number of subjects "boomeranging" or moving in a direction

opposite to the message because they are rebelling at an attack upon their point of view. The "positive" approach may not induce such a magnitude of attitude change, but fewer "boomerangs" may

result.9. The data on comparison of changes of homogeneous groups

and .heterogeneous audiences is inconclusive. Of the ten compari­sons of scores made, eight showed greater changes on the part of subjects in heterogeneous groups. Only two of these changes were statistically significant. One of the significant changes indicated

89

greater changes for the heterogeneous group and the other change

indicated a significant change for the homogeneous group. Generally the findings suggest that groups having greater distances to move made the greater changes regardless of homogeneity or heterogeneity. This would indicate that persuasive stimuli exercise greater effects on persons opposed to them because changes in the direction of the message are more easily made than the strengthening of already favorable views.

10. Persons who were initially in disagreement with the commu­

nication stimulus made greater changes in the direction of the message than persons initially in agreement with the stimulus.

11. The time required for administration of the forced-choice scale is approximately twice that required to administer the Thurstone scale.

12. The forced-choice scale can be scored much more rapidly and accurately than the Thurstone instrument.

13. The "positive" stimulus was considerably more difficult to read, on the basis of the Flesch formula, than the "negative"

communication.14. The Thurstone and forced-choice scales differ in sensi­

tivity in the measurement of attitude. The significance of changes in the control group indicate that the Thurstone scale is more sensitive to the social desirability of reflecting a particular

90

attitude. The forced-choice approach seems to offer a better method for the examination of attitude and attitude changes on social issues where the effect of social desirability on recorded attitude scale measurement can be controlled. In these situations, the tester wishes to avoid receiving responses which are a reflection of a conscious willingness of the testee to reflect a given point of view. The forced-choice appears to be more effective when attempts are made to tap a true picture of the latent variable. It is better able to do this because it attempts evaluation through description while the open-faced-structured instruments are capable of manipulation by the testees because the value of statements is readily determined and persons can rate rather than describe themselves.

0

APPENDIX A

THURSTONE ATTITUDE SCALE

91

92

ATTITUDE TOWARD CENSORSHIP

Write your name here ______________________________________________

This is a study of attitudes toward censorship. On the following pages you will find forty statements expressing different attitudes toward censorship.

Put a check mark ( ) if you agree with thestatement.

Put a cross ( X ) if you disagree with the statement.

If you cannot decide about a statement, you may mark it with a question mark.

This is not an examination. People differ in their opinions about censorship.

Please indicate your own attitude by a check mark when you agree and by a cross when you disagree.

93

PUT A CHECK MARK ( / ) IF YOU AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT.

PUT A CROSS ( X ) IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THE STATEMENT.

1. Censorship is a good thing if there isn't too much of it.

2. The judgment of intelligent people is the only effec­tive censorship.

3. Nobody has the right to distate to me what I shall read.

4. Censorship is needed because most people are unable to judge for themselves.

5. There is much to be said on both sides of the censor­ship question.

6. Morality varies so much with different places and times that censorship is arbitrary.

7. Censorship is absurd because no two people agree about morality.

8. Our national morality is safeguarded by censorship.

9. The censors are needed, but they go too far.

10. It is a shame that so many fine books and plays have been suppressed by the censors.

11. Censorship is a disgrace to our country.

12. Censorship when reasonably exercised is desirable for morality.

13. Whether censorship is good or not depends entirely upon the censor.

14. People should be allowed to make their own distinctions between good and bad.

15. What we need is more and better censorship.

94*

PUT A CHECK7MARK ( f ) IF YOU AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT.(PUT A GROSS ( X ) IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THE STATEMENT.

) 16. Our system of censorship Isn't perfect but it is better than none.

) 17. The education of public opinion would be a great im­provement over censorship.

) 18. Censorship can never be justified in a free country.

) 19. Some authorized power is certainly needed to keep obscene literature in check.

) 20. Censorship can never make people moral.

; 21. I doubt if censorship is wise.

) 22. A truly free people must be allowed to choose their own reading and entertainment.

) 23. We must have censorship to protect the morals of young people.

) 24. The theory of censorship is sound, but censors make a mess of it.

) 25. Only narrow-minded Puritans want censorship.

) 26. The whole theory of censorship is utterly unreasonable.

) 27. Until public taste has been educated, we must continue to have censorship.

) 28. Many of our great literary classics would be suppressed if the censors thought they could get away with it.

) 29. Everything that is printed for publication should,first be examined by government censors.

) 30. Plays and movies should be censored, but the press should be free.

) 31. Censorship has practically no effect on people's morale.

95

PUT A CHECK MARK ( ^ ) IF YOU AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT.

PUT A CROSS ( X ) IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THE STATEMENT.

) 32. Censorship is a gross violation of our constitutional rights.

) 33. Censorship protects those who lack judgment or experi­ence to choose for themselves.

) 34. Censorship is a very difficult problem, and I am not sure how far I think it should go.

) 35. Censorship is a good thing on the whole although it is often absurd.

) 36. Education of the public taste is preferable to censorship.

) 37. Human progress demands free speech and a free press.

) 38. Censorship is effective in raising moral and aesthetic standards.

) 39. Censorship might be warranted if we could get reason­able censors.

) 40. Morality is produced by self-control, not by censorship.

APPENDIX B

FORCED-CHOICE ATTITUDE SCALE

96

97DESCRIPTION OF CENSORSHIP

NAME ___________________________

Directions: Check two items in each of the twenty four groups belowas follows:

(1) In the column headed MOST, check the one item in each group which is most descriptive of censorship.

(2) In the column headed LEAST, check the one item in each group which is least descriptive of censorship.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

MOST LEAST1. Prudish............................f ~ Z Z _______________

Sober...................................... ...............Confused .................. .. . ________ _______________Sound Decisions . . . . . ........

2. Inconsistent . . . Negative Approach . Assists World Peace Educated ........

3. Classifies Materials.......... .Lacks Objectivity . . . . . . . . .Prevents Comparisons ............Good Sense and Moderation ........

4. Reduces Aziti-Social Development . .Authoritarian ........ ..........Pure Literature . . ..............Biased ...........................

5. Vague Standards ..................Decisive .........................Stereotyped Material ..........Distinguishes Right from Wrong , .

6. Practical . . . . . . . . . . . . .Well Grounded . * ............* . .Hypocritical . . .......... . .Restricts Voicing of Opinion . . .

and studies by such researchers as Knower and Hartmann have clari­fied the use of appeals and their effects. The literature in the field makes no mention of the effect of positive and negative types of argumentative communications upon audience predispositions. The positive type of communication involves a message which stresses only the favorable aspects of the issue under consideration while the negative communication presents the disadvantages and weaknesses of the problem area. Although communications organized in these manners are often heard, experimental work has, thus far, not examined the comparative effectiveness of the two approaches.

Cognitive consonance and dissonance. Since 1957 when Festinger^ proposed the theory of cognitive dissonance, researchers have ques­tioned whether discrepant material induces greater change than con­sonant material. The significance of this approach seems clear when action states are explored. Is attitude change or reinforcement more

5Franklin H. Knower, "Experimental Studies of Changes in Atti­tudes: I. A Study of the Effect of Oral Argument on Changes of Attitude," Journal of Social Psychology. 1935, 6, pp. 315-347.

^G. W. Hartmann, "A Field Experiment on the Comparative Effec­tiveness of Emotional and Rational Political Leaflets in Determining Election Results," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1953,48, pp. 78-92.

7Leon Festinger, A. Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston: Row-Peterson, 1957, 291 pp.

MOST98

LEAST

7. Prohibits Information . . . . .Rational.................... ..Unsound ......................Justified .................. .

8. De-emphasizes Crime ........Deceptive . .. . . . . . . . . .Public Education . . . . ; . .Unrealistic ..................

9. Sinful . . . . . . . . . . . .Professional Competence . . . .Lowers Morale....... ... . . .Constructive Criticism . . . .

10. Reorganizes our Moral StatusNaive .......... ..Establishes Minimum Standards . Outmoded . ..................

11. Rigid . . . . . . . . . . . . .Qualified Censors . . ........Social Responsibility . . . . . Puritanical ..................

12. Sound in P r i n c i p l e ..........Dangerous.......... ..Intolerant . . . . ..........Prevents Security Leaks . . . .

13. Concentration of Power . . . .Shelters People . . . . . . . .Eliminates False Impressions Helpful to the Uninformed . . .

14. Creates False Standards . . . .Discourages Individualism . . .Protects Against False Doctrine Prevents Low Morale ..........

13 * Senseless . . . . . . . . . . .Blacklisting . . . . . . . . .Common Security ..............iHelpful.................... .

99

MOST

16. Alda Moral Standing . . ........Narrow Minded . . . . . . . . . . ______Promotes National Security . ,. . .Creates Gullibility ............ _____

17. Legally Permissible .......... ........Unrealistic . ______Creates Stereotypes . . . . . . . _____Removes False Statements . . . . (_____

18. Irritating . . . . ............ ........Self Protection................ ........Antiquated ............ ........Helps Eliminate Impurity . . . . [_____

19. Trustworthy . . . . . . . . . . . ________Monotonous......................... _____Forsakes Individual Reason . . .________Maintains M o r a l i t y .............. L _ _ _ _

20. Hides Obscenity................ ........Unjust.................... _____Democratic........ ....................Prejudiced................ (______

21. Purges Communist Literature . . . ______Public Conscience . ............ ......Dogmatic ............ . . . . . ________Minority Rule ................ [_____

22. Fairly L i b e r a l ................ ........Legal R i g h t .............................Haphazard ..................... .Ambiguous . ................ .

23. Not Essential ................ ........Fights C o m m u n i s m .............. ........Ineffective ................ .. ......Maintains Mature Standards . . .

24. Assists Parents ................ ......Rejects Undesirable Material . .________Prejudgment . . . . . . _____Historically Unsound .......... £_____

LEAST

APPENDIX C

SCORE CARD FOR FORCED-CHOICE SCALE

100

101

SCORE CARD FOR FORCED-CHOICE SCALE

DIRECTIONS:(1) Place scoring sheet on top of scale so that the two boxes

coincide with the words MOST and LEAST.(2) Count the checked squares which give the plus values and

record total number in the first box, lower right.(3) Count the checked squares which give minus values and

record total number in second box, - lower right corner.(4) Determine difference between boxes and record final score

in third box, lower right corner.

\102

UPSii

i

jmost) LEAST

- / L+ i X

+i-i

+!

-I

j H

+/-I

-/

W I

E -/ *=

t£

-/*/

3 +1

□ - I

r/- c

/ + i t

K t

'-r/+ r

/+ c

/-f r_

a

(C

r:r

x i+

y i~

1 1 +

S ' -

I Kyi-

S'+l h

I- E r~ — 1 f +

/- L

£Z 3l i +

f + m

/-c/- t+

c :i i -

( _ Z 3 / +

f =ii-■ / -N ,

EOT/

JLVJfcf

HE3 E3 -/y-/

- i r — >H C _ ' ]

y/

- 1 C

t l C

- ' Fy-/L

1

I

r~=n>/t m - /n=3+'

1 t

:_j

3 - /

U +t

+ I C Z

- / m

-+;e-/ ,i—

♦ ' t =

y / p

' / t Z

ifJ:-

J - /

J . + I

E3;/n — j ♦<

i— :~- i -/

I= - ! - /C

n □ □

APPENDIX D

EXPERIMENTAL COMMUNICATION STIMULI

105

106

NEGATIVE STIMULUS

Since the. beginning of the United States, various persons and organizations have attempted to censor ideas and forms of expression of citizens to which they object. These advocates of censorship made one of their early appearances in America when Theodore Dreiser's novel. An American Tragedy was banned by the New England Hatch and Ward Society. Earlier censors considered such books as The Scarlet Letter unfit reading for women. They felt that these written materials were obscene. But, in recent times, legal ex­perts and scholars have expressed widely different impressions of the term obscene. For example, an international conference at Geneva on Suppression of the Circulation and Traffic in Obscene Publications accomplished little because the delegates could not agree upon the meaning of obscenity.

The American judiciary has frequently changed its. interpre­tation of the term obscene. During the early portion of this century, the courts held that any material which created obscene thoughts in the minds of those who read it was obscene. If we were to apply this criterion to literature, such books as The Sun Also Rises and Candide would be banned today. To carry this interpre­tation to an extreme which was characteristic of many of the advo­cates of censorship, the plays of William Shakespeare and the Bible should be suppressed because of their language. In fact, such a move did take place in the Eighteenth Century in Great Britian when Twelfth Night was ruled unfit for public viewing. The American courts of this century have not upheld this extreme view of the in­terpretation of obscene.

Even more disturbing is the ease with which censors sometimes can prevent the sale of a book at a public store. If a child brings home a copy of, for instance, The Grapes of Wrath, you, as a parent, could underline or note the immoral passages and take the book to the nearest policeman. This policeman can then force the dealer to cease sale of the book and remove all the remaining copies from display. Finally, the bookseller can be sued by the parent for offering for sale material containing impure or indecent language. The prosecution must not prove that the entire book is impure or indecent but only that selected passages taken from context are objectionable.

The theory of censorship is that it can prevent the lowering of moral standards. No educated and sensible person would quarrel with this objective if it were possible to prove that it accom­plishes this effect without imposing other ill effects. Men such

107

as Aristotle and Oliver Wendell Holmes have maintained that man is free only so long as he may make choices - choices such as whether he desires to read Lady Chatterly’s Lover or Toynbee’s History; to see "Gone With The Wind,11 or "La Dolce Vita." But censorship would deny these choices by not permitting man to be exposed to some of these materials because they could be considered objectionable.

What the censors would do, then, is to deprive us of the right to freely choose that which we wish to examine. What is even more frightening is that this moral censorship might spread to financial and political matters. The effect in these areas is obvious.

In the moral area, various religious and civic groups such as the Legion of Decency, The National Organization for Decent Litera­ture, Citizens Group For Clean Literature and thousands of others are dedicated to the removal of all publications which violate what they consider the established bounds of moral acceptability. If all they did was to suggest to their members the films they should view and the books they should read, no American would question this as one of their rights. But, when they come into bookstores and tell the bookseller that if he retains materials they consider objectionable on his bookshelves they will urge their friends to discontinue buying his products, they have violated individual rights. And, if they impose a boycott on movie houses showing films which present what they deem questionable themes, then they have overstepped the boundaries of legitimate rights of any social or religious group.

In some instances the censorship campaigns have been extended to almost ridiculous extents as in Cleveland in 1953. There the police forced booksellers to withdraw Sigmund Freud's General Introduction to Psychoanalysis because it had a chapter on sex. Then, to show their moral concern with classics, they banned The Golden Abb because they said the title might be offensive. The current controversy over the showing of the film, "The Lovers," offers further evidence that the forces for elimination of free expression are still at work.

Down through the ages, man's progress has been directly re­lated to his opportunity for freedom of expression. Nations such as ancient Greece, France, England and the United States led or are leading the world and, in large measure, this leadership re­sults from their freedom to speak, write and experiment. Authori­tarian states like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia have made

108

military advances but only at the expense of their citizenry whose right to self expression is denied. When nations like Russia find it necessary to so restrict the voice of public opinion that only the state may publish newspapers and operate radio and television stations, then it is apparent that thought control ranks, in their heirarchy, at the top of the list.

It is ironic indeed, that American citizens who have experi­enced freedom of expression are willing to deprive others of this right. These persons, of the pro-censorship faction, would act as the conscience of the community. Fortunately these people are a small minority of our population but their lack of numbers should not be regarded as an indication that they will exert little in­fluence. Small minorities have, in the past, wielded influence far beyond their size. As examples we can point to the Nazi Party in Germany and the Communist Parties in many of the captive nations.

If we look at the problem in broad and long range terms, it should be obvious to clear thinking people that censorship springs from fear. And those who have not learned by now that fear is our worst enemy had better learn it before it is too late.