Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T17:46:49.781Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Correcting for Unreliability in Nonlinear Models of Attitude Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

John E. Hunter  and
Stanley H. Cohen
John E. Hunter
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Stanley H. Cohen
Affiliation:
West Virginia University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper opens with a brief discussion of the problems in testing nonlinear models of attitude change. The regression artifacts produced by unreliability are shown in both the linear and nonlinear case. Classical solutions for the linear case are quickly reviewed. A “new” solution to the linear case is presented and applied to the nonlinear case. It is shown to work well under a broad set of conditions. Regression artifacts in bivariate regression are then discussed. If the predictors are independent, then the univariate correction procedure can be applied to each predictor separately. But if the predictors are correlated, a joint correction procedure must be used. One such procedure is defined and shown to work perfectly in the case of linear regression and reasonably well in a broad set of conditions in which the regression is nonlinear.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , December 1974 , pp. 445 - 468
Copyright
Copyright © 1974 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, N. H. Test of a model for opinion change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 59, 371–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, N. H. and Hovland, C. I. The representation of order effects in communications research. In Hovland, C. I. (Eds.), The order of presentation in persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1957, 158–169Google Scholar
Bereiter, C. Some persisting dilemmas in the measurement of change. In Harris, C. W. (Eds.), Problems in measuring change. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press. 1963, 3–20.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. E. & Cohen, S. H. Mathematical models of attitude change in the passive communication context. Unpublished manuscript, 1972, pp. 250.Google Scholar
Lord, F. M. The measurement of growth. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1956, 16, 421–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, F. M. An empirical study of the normality and independence of errors of measurement in test scores. Psychometrika, 1960, 25, 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, F. M. and Novick, M. R. Statistical theories of mental test scores, 1968, Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J. and Tannenbaum, P. E. The measurement of meaning, 1957, Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Osgood, C. E. and Tannenbaum, P. E. The principle of congruity in the prediction of attitude change. Psychological Review, 1955, 62, 42–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tannenbaum, P. E. Attitudes toward source and concept as factors in attitude change through communications. Unpublished dissertation, University of Illinois, 1953.Google Scholar