Expectancy‐value models of attitudes: A note on the relationship between theory and methodology

Abstract

Abstract Concern has been expressed in the literature regarding the method of scoring ‘beliefs’ within expectancy‐value models of attitudes. This paper reviews the major issues and focuses upon some hitherto largely neglected problems with scoring methods. Empirical findings from a series of studies concerned with ‘the theory of reasoned action’ are examined: with a multiplicative Combination of beliefs and evaluations, it is found that bipolar scoring of belief items leads to higher correlations of the summed products of beliefs and evaluations with attitudes than are achieved with unipolar scoring. These findings contrast markedly with recently reported research and indicate the important role played by contextual factors (such as belief content and the response scales presented to subjects). It is concluded that more attention needs to be paid to the relationship between conceptual and methodological issues.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 38 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.