Search

Considerable attention has been given recently to the perplexing problem of the relationship between attitudes and behavior (Ehrlich, 1969; Deutscher, 1969; Warner and DeFleur, 1969; Ajzen et al., 1970; Lastrucci, 1970; Tarter, 1970). Methodological issues have been debated, the lack of congruence between attitudes and behavior has been examined, and a variety of solutions have been offered. We are told, for example, that the continuing poor correlation between measured attitudes and overt behavior requires us to search for the intervening variable or variables which apparently obtain (Ehrlich, 1969); or to employ the "direct observation" of the phenomenon under investigation rather than try to extrapolate from paper-and-pencil tests to behavior (Deutscher, 1969); or to develop theories that, in turn, enable us to find indicators that are more valid than the paper-and-pencil type (Lastrueci, 1970); or to simply admit that attitudes as "presently conceptualized play no real role in behavior" (Tarter, 1970). A number of important aspects of attitude research, however, have been obscured or omitted in these discussions. For the surprising aspect of the situation is not, as has often been implied, the lack of congruence between attitudes and behavior, but the persistent use of research designs that are inappropriate for the complexity of the subject under investigation. Further, it is surprising that researchers have failed to draw out other important implications of their research. That is, the fact that an attitude does not lead directly to a behavior does not justify the assertion that attitudes play no role in behavior, or that attitude research lacks significant implications for social life. The basis for this latter statement will be shown below in a discussion of the values of attitude research. It may be that inadequate research designs, valued for their simplicity rather than their appropriateness, are a manifestation of the "publish or perish" syndrome. In any ease, this paper attempts to outline the problems and the values of attitude research, and to demonstrate thereby that such research is of great significance for the understanding of social phenomena. If that significance seems minimized by those studies that have found poor correlation between attitudes and behavior, the fault lies both in the failure to create research designs that reflect the complexity of the problem and in the tendency to exalt the importance of the proximate causes of overt behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is the thesis of this paper that the theoretical trend within the sociology of science during the past three decades has increasingly embraced an implicit organic model of science and this is an incorrect model of science. It is further hypothesized that a mechanical model is more appropriate, and many of the empirical "facts" which have supported the organic approach are equally valid for the mechanical. This paper presents an argument to support these hypotheses composed of the following parts. First, the organic and mechanical models are described and discussed as a composite of the famous typologies of Durkheim and Toennies. In addition, those aspects of these models which have undergone conceptual transformation since their early formulation will be discussed insofar as they have a bearing upon the application of the models to the scientific community. Second, the theoretical history of the sociology of science will be presented and critically examined to illustrate exactly how components of the organic model entered this history at various times and in various guises. Third, the social characteristics of science will be compared to the organic and mechanical models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author clarifies the points made by critic Leonard Beeghley about his sociological research on four function paradigm. The critic is correct in his contention that the paper missed the point on the dual application in the four function paradigm. The reasons why the paper never went too far with the argument is the lack of necessity to do so. However, the author examined the propositions upon which the four function paradigm is based and finding them contradictory, felt there was no need to deal with the applications of the paradigm that depended upon the validity of the propositions. Furthermore, the difficulties in the paradigm are so abundant that quite independent additional arguments can be advanced against it. Thus, while the argument presented in the research that the paradigm's foundational propositions are contradictory, the arguments presented in the research is quite sufficient.

One of the major gaps in research in TST measured self-conception is data relevant to the assumption that self-conception is a stable structure of meanings attached to self. This paper indicates the inconsistency between current theoretical and empirical orientations in the area of self-conception and outlines three basic models of the processual characteristics of self-conception found in the literature. Using a ten wave panel design in which self-conception is measured repeatedly throughout the subjects' daily interactional routines, specific hypotheses derived from the models are tested. Results suggest which model is most appropriate for the description of the processual characteristics of various aspects of self-conception and the possible errors involved in the continued use of current self-conception research designs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers have long been aware that when they become part of the system they are investigating, their own behavior may a.fleet the behavior they wish to study. Little data has been collected on the effect of respondents on the researcher and the consequences of this on tho research process. The problem is described and analyzed in this paper. We contend that respondents who have special qualities may intrude upon the researcher's role and make it difficult for him to collect necessary data. An illustration is presented from the authors' study of stripteasers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

No research results are any better than the quality of the data. As scientists, survey researchers must share the problems of measuring, understanding, and controlling bias in their data. The potential sources of bias in survey research are many and varied. They may appear at any one or all of the several stages of the data gathering process. For example, they may occur in the selection of the sample, in the development of measuring instruments, in securing the responses of the persons in the sample, in the respondents replies, in the recording of the responses, and in processing the recorded responses. Even beyond the data collection process, bias may occur, as in the misapplication of statistics and in the interpretation of data. Progress has been made toward identifying and controlling sources of bias in some of these stages of the research process. Perhaps most progress has been made in the sampling stage and in the statistical application stage. Much advance has been made also in the reduction of error at the instrumentation stage. However, considerable work remains to be done on the problems of error control, especially biasing error, at all stages of the research between instrumentation and statistical analysis. This includes getting full response from the sample, accurate answers to the questions asked, and accurate recording and processing of responses. The accumulation of bias from these and other possible sources may be referred to as total or aggregate bias. The total bias may then be divided for analytical purposes into the following types: (1) sampling bias, (2) instrumentation bias, (3) non-response bias, (4) respondent bias, (5) interviewer bias, and (6) processing bias. This paper is an effort to deal with the problem of respondent bias in survey research. That respondent bias is a potent force in diminishing the validity and reliability of results from survey research is well recognized. The recognition of this condition has led to an enormous amount of activity aimed at isolating factors which determine this weakness of research results. These studies, by and large, have dealt with the problem of determining the direction of respondent bias, its magnitude, the speearle variables which produce respondent bias, and the effect of such bias on research results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A number of questions have been recently raised or re-raised with respect to the status and intended function in sociology of the methodological device known as the "type." Martindale's summary of the historical and contemporary uses to which the typology has been put as well as his formulation of the issues connected with such use permits the economy of moving directly into a specification of the problems considered in this paper, and the proposed solutions. The present effort is directed primarily at providing one solution to the often raised problem of "the relation between the idealization involved in the type and the empirical reality," although less pressing issues are also treated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]