Comparative study of methods measuring values or “If we've got questions, then they've got answers”
October 13th held a regular scientific seminar of the series "Culture Matters". A presentation “Comparative study of methods measuring values or “If we've got questions, then they've got answers” was made by Dmitry Podolsky, Ph.D., senior researcher at Moscow State University.
Dmitry Podolsky argued that the various methods for measuring the same psychological constructs, including values, may give different results. For example, more detailed questions will get more detailed and valid answers than short questions. Many respondents will choose one of the alternatives offered for an opinion question even though they do not know about the issue involved. Better educated respondents are more likely to disagreewith all kinds of opinion statements if no alternative answer is provided. The order of words in a question also plays a role.
The personal expression of values depends upon the method or the procedure used to elicit them. Expressing of the personal value system is affected by the importance of the particular value and context in which the ranking takes place (relative rankings of other values). The study of Gibbins and Walker (2001) showed that there could different interpretations of a certain value by different respondents. The scale structure is also important. A format that ranges from negative to positive numbers conveys that the researcher has a bipolar dimension in mind, where the two poles refer to the presence of opposite attributes. In contrast, a format that uses only positive numbers conveys that the researcher has a unipolar dimension in mind, referring to different degrees of the same attribute (Schwarz & Hippler, 1995).
There is a continuum corresponding to how well articulated a respondent's attitude is. At the more articulated end, the respondent has a preformed opinion just waiting to be offered to the interviewer. At the less articulated end, the respondent has no opinion whatever. Between these extremes, he or she may have a set of ideas to use in constructing an opinion. Respondents probably do not have perfectly well-articulated opinions on all attitude questions that survey researchers pose (Fischhoff, 1991).
Dmitry Podolsky told about the difference between ranking and rating methods of measurement values. Research using ranking scale (distribution of a limited number of points among the important values) presupposes that values are hierarchically organized in person’s mind. That hierarchy is mostly unconscious and ranking proved to be effective with people whose values are well differentiated. Limitations of this method are: high differentiation between values; a limited list of items can be used; subjective intervals between values could vary from one respondent to the other; ranking test is more complicated for respondents than ratings; ranking task could ignore the possibility that respondent values several items approximately on the same level. Rating scale, on the contrary, is relatively easy to administer in group or individual format but there are limitations also: tend to positive end of the scale; low differentiation between values; low resistance to social desirability; the importance of each value is assessed separately (the lack of choice). Rating method refers to the direct study of values, which is appropriate if people know about their values and are ready to honestly share this information with the researcher. The ranking method applies to indirect study of values: shifting subjects’ focus of attention from values to making real choices.
Ranking method was used in the Podolsky’s study of adolescent values: between 20 values taken from the SVS questionnaire by S. Schwartz, it was necessary to distribute 30 points. There were 4 profile types based on two dimensions (the number of selected values and the magnitude of the gap between the scores assigned values): narrow-equal, narrow-extreme, wide-equal, wide-extreme. Teenagers from the group “narrow-extreme” are less moral in their teachers’ opinion than those of the group “wide-equal”. There are virtually no differences in the “moral conduct” between the other two profile types. This study was conducted on teenagers from an ordinary school; deviant teenagers from special schools give less socially-desirable responses when filling out a questionnaire ranking values.
Olga Pavlenko
Trainee researcher