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]

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]

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.

Replication is one of several methodological techniques that contributes to the verification of survey research data. A critique of the literature on replication reveals that limited systematic attention has been given to its various functions in the process of verification. A replication paradigm is formulated to clarify terminology and functions. The paradigm consists of four major replication types: retest, internal, independent, and theoretical. These are analyzed and illustrated by published replication studies. An argument is offered in favor of the increased use of replication in survey research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The state of current theory is one of variety. Not only are there a few competing large schools or systems, these attracting most of the attention, but there also exists a far larger number of small theories, more likely to be used in research. Complicating the picture are two other trends. One is the intensification of the long standing "humanist-positivist" polarity in the 1960's at the expense of the Theory-Method ideal. The other is the fact that much of the field remains empiricist, following neither large theory nor small but confining its "theorizing" to the conceptual level. Ail these exist in modem sociology and present a picture of diversity. Moreover, one ought not to be too sanguine about an integrated future. First, as the field continues to grow, it not only expands into new areas of human concern but gains strength cross-culturally—these creating at least a temporary heterogeneity of standpoint. Second, and a more basic barrier to integration, is the likely prospect that the heterogeneity of subject matter of a given field—such as sociology—requires several different theories that must be used alternatively and selectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sociology is believed to be the most methodology-conscious of the social sciences. Difficulties in defining who are the good and bad in sociological arguments have been the focus of much debate among social scientists and the debate has greatly influenced the need for methodology in the discipline. The article examines some fundamental issues in methodology as applied to sociology. While the placement of method as the essence of science can generate a sort of methodolatry, it is only fair to examine in some detail the sort of propositions dealt with in any inquiry. The goal is for all to be equally and very rigorous, contingent specially on the degree to which the problem is rigorously stated.

Since the impetus and design of research inevitably derive from a set of assumptions, whether explicit or not, the nature of fact—the categories in which something is captured out of the Deal world"—is dependent upon these assumptions. It is reason enough to suggest that in efforts to advance sociological knowledge at least as much care should be given to explicating the linkages of ideas as to empirical operations. The positivist traditions of sociology have, however, often meant that high-level, "general" or even "middle range" theorizing has been more of an avocation than a vocation for most sociologists, and that much more rigor, energy, and professional skill have in recent decades gone into the empirical aspect of research than into the theoretical. Though the bearings of theory and research upon each other have been usefully discussed and have, in fact, become a kind of credo, almost any published discussion lacking in figures and tables and involving some commentary beyond sheer description has been capable of definition as "theory." Where so little has been expected, relatively little by way of intellectual and other resources has been invested. Consequently, the returns have been small. Even when serious theoretical work has been attempted, it has often received something less than systematic consideration. Such work—some examples undoubtedly more scholarly and sophisticated than others—has been given more or less favorable receptions largely in accord with semantic preferences, generally unspecific "orientations," and degrees of sympathy for speculation as, hopefully and somehow, relevant to real research. Other than to note particular historical events and to cite research findings considered pertinent to some statement or other contained in a discussion, the supporters, sympathizers, and opponents of theorizing have rarely spelled out the criteria by which judgment was delivered. In short, the problems of theory construction have been neglected in favor of the more obviously empirical problems of research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author criticizes the article by David J. Gray published in the periodical "Sociological Quarterly." In the article, Gray claims that the chief characteristic of our whole historical development is to have swept cleanly away all the older social forms of organization. One of Gray's failures, according to the author, is his shifting of meaning for value and value free. The highest use to which Gray's article might be put would be as material for a class exercise in conceptual analysis. Gray has also overlooked the fact that sociologists, like medical researchers, may legitimately adopt value positions.