JSS  Vol.5 No.1 , January 2017
Experimental Analysis of Attitudes: The Factorial-Survey Approach
Abstract: A reading of the studies having been published by important sociological and criminological journals reveals a clear picture: for a variable to be considered dependent in a randomized experimental study (at least for those accepted and published by these journals), it has to be behavioral. The question asked in this article is, may only behavioral measures constitute dependent variables in highly qualified experimental studies? The answer is a distinct “no”, and attitudinal measures are also proposed as possible and legitimate dependent variables in randomized experimental studies. Here the factorial-survey approach, a relatively new survey technique, which combines the benefits of controlled, randomized experimental designs and conventional surveys, is suggested as a characteristic experimental technique in such studies. This article concludes that the factorial-survey approach may be considered an appropriate experimental technique in social science research—it produces findings that less developed methods are not able to examine.
Cite this paper: Herzog, S. (2017) Experimental Analysis of Attitudes: The Factorial-Survey Approach. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 5, 126-156. doi: 10.4236/jss.2017.51011.

[1]   Hough, (2010) Gold Standard or Fool’s Gold? The Pursuit of Certainty in Experimental Criminology. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 10, 11-22.

[2]   Sampson, R. (2010) Gold Standard Myths: Observations on the Experimental Turn in Quantitative Criminology. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26, 489-500.

[3]   Sherman, L. (2009) Evidence and Liberty: The Promise of Experimental Criminology. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 9, 5-28.

[4]   Davis, R.C., Maxwell, C.D. and Taylor, B. (2006) Preventing Repeat Incidents of Family Violence: Analysis of Data from Three Field Experiments. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 183-210.

[5]   Goldkamp, J.S. and White, M.D. (2006) Restoring Accountability in Pretrial Release: The Philadelphia Pretrial Release Supervision Experiments. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 143-181.

[6]   Koehler, J.J. and Thompson, W.C. (2006) Mock Jurors’ Reactions to Selective Presentation of Evidence from Multiple-Opportunity Searches. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 455-468.

[7]   Matthieu, M. and Ivanoff, A. (2006) Treatment of Human-Caused Trauma: Attrition in the Adult Outcomes Research. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1654-1664.

[8]   Topalli, V. (2005) Criminal Expertise and Offender Decision-Making: An Experimental Analysis of How Offenders and Non-Offenders Differentially Perceive Social Stimuli. British Journal of Criminology, 45, 269-295.

[9]   Lum, C. and Yang, S. (2005) Why Do Evaluation Researchers in Crime and Justice Choose Non-Experimental Methods? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 191-213.

[10]   Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

[11]   Allport, G.W. (1968) The Person in Psychology. Beacon Press, Boston, MA.

[12]   Calder, B.J. and Ross, M. (1973) Attitudes and Behavior. General Learning Press, Morristown, NJ.

[13]   Wicker, A. W. (1969) Attitudes versus Actions: The Relationship of Verbal and Overt Behavioral Response to Attitude Objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 41-78.

[14]   Heingartner, A. and Hall, J.V. (1974) Affective Consequences in Adults and Children of Repeated Exposure to Auditory Stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 719-723.

[15]   Crandall, J.E. (1970) Preference and Expectancy Arousal: Further Evidence. Journal of General Psychology, 83, 268-297.

[16]   Sawyer, A.G. (1981) Repetition, Cognitive Response, and Persuasion. In: Petty, R.E., Ostrom, T.M. and Brock, T.C., Eds., Cognitive Responses in Persuasion, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 237-261.

[17]   Pilner, P. (1982) The Effects of Mere Exposure on Liking for Edible Substances. Appetite, 3, 283-290.

[18]   Zajonc, R.B. (1968) Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1-27.

[19]   Olson, J.M. and Zanna, M.P. (1993) Attitudes and Attitude Change. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 117-154.

[20]   Zanna, M.P. and Rempel, J.K. (1988) Attitudes: A New Look at an Old Concept. In: Bar-Tal, D. and Kruglanski, A.W., Eds., The Social Psychology of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 315-334.

[21]   Ajzen, I. (1982) On Behaving in Accordance with One’s Attitudes. In: Zanna, M., Higgins, E. and Herman, C., Eds., Consistency in Social Behavior: The Ontario Symposium, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 3-15.

[22]   Allport, G.W. (1935) Attitudes. In: Murchison, C., Ed., Handbook of Social Psychology, Clark University Press, Worcester, MA, 798-844.

[23]   Thomas, W.I. and Znaniecki, F. (1918) The Polish Peasant in Europe and America. Vol. 1. Badger, Boston.

[24]   Zanna, M.P. and Fazio, R.H. (1982) The Attitude-Behavior Relation: Moving toward a Third Generation of Research. In: Zanna, M.P., Higgins, E.T. and Herman, C.P., Eds., Consistency in Social Behavior: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 2), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 283-301.

[25]   Fazio, R.H. (1986) How Do Attitudes Guide Behavior? In: Sorrentino, R.M. and Higgins, E.T., Eds., The Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundation of Social Behavior, Guilford Press, New York, 204-243.

[26]   Ajzen I. (1988) Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior. Dorsey, Chicago.

[27]   Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1993) The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Fort Worth, TX.

[28]   Mita, T.H., Dermer, M. and Knight, J. (1977) Reversed Facial Images and the Mere Exposure Hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 597-601.

[29]   Bornstein, R.F. (1989) Exposure and Affect: Overview and Meta-Analysis of Research, 1968-1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265-289.

[30]   Bargh, J.A. (1997) The Automaticity of Everyday Life. In: Wyer Jr., R.S., Ed., Advances in Social Cognition, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1-61.

[31]   Green, D.A. (2006) Public Opinion versus Public Judgment about Crime: Correcting the “Comedy of Errors”. British Journal of Criminology, 46, 131-154.

[32]   Lynch, M.J., McGurrin, D. and Fenwick, M. (2004) Disappearing Act: The Representation of Corporate Crime Research in Criminological Literature. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 389-398.

[33]   Tyler, T.R. and Wakslak, C. (2004) Profiling and Police Legitimacy: Procedural Justice, Attributions of Motive, and Acceptance of Police Authority. Criminology, 42, 253-281.

[34]   Vollum, S., Longmire, D.R. and Buffington-Vollum, J. (2004) Confidence in the Death Penalty and Support for Its Use: Exploring the Value-Expressive Dimension of Death Penalty Attitudes. Justice Quarterly, 21, 521-546.

[35]   Applegate, B., Wright, J.P. and Dunaway, R.G. (1994) Victim-Offender Race and Support for Capital Punishment: A Factorial Design Approach. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 18, 95-115.

[36]   Durham, A., Elrod, H.P. and Kinkade, P.T. (1996) Public Support for the Death Penalty: Beyond Gallup. Justice Quarterly, 13, 705-736.

[37]   Finkel, N.J. (1995) Commonsense Justice: Jurors’ Notions of the Law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

[38]   Jacoby, J. and Cullen, F. (1999) The Structure of Punishment Norms: Applying the Rossi-Berk Model. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 89, 245-307.

[39]   Roberts, J. (1992) Public Opinion, Crime and Criminal Justice. Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, 16. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

[40]   Sitren, A.H. and Applegate, B.K. (2006) Intentions to Offend: Examining the Effects of Personal and Vicarious Experiences with Punishment and Punishment Avoidance. Journal of Crime & Justice, 29, 25-50.

[41]   Viki, G.T., Chiroro, P. and Abrams, D. (2006) Hostile Sexism, Type of Rape, and Self-Reported Rape Proclivity within a Sample of Zimbabwean Males. Violence against Women, 12, 789-800.

[42]   Witting, M.D., Furuno, J.P. and Hirshon, J.M. (2006) Support for Emergency Department Screening for Intimate Partner Violence Depends on Perceived Risk. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 585-596.

[43]   Fazio, R., Powell, M.C. and Herr, P.M. (1983) Toward a Process Model of the Attitude-Behavior Relation: Accessing One’s Attitude upon Mere Observation of the Attitude Object. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 723-735.

[44]   Kraus, S.J. (1995) Attitudes and the Prediction of Behavior: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 58-75.

[45]   Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

[46]   Fishbein, M. and Coombs, F.S. (1974) Basis for Decision: An Attitudinal Analysis of Voting Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 95-124.

[47]   O’Connell, M. and Whelan, A. (1996) Taking Wrongs Seriously: Public Perceptions of Crime Seriousness. British Journal of Criminology, 36, 299-318.

[48]   Rossi, P., Waite, E., Bose, C.E. and Berk, R.E. (1974) The Seriousness of Crimes: Normative Structure and Individual Differences. American Sociological Review, 39, 224-237.

[49]   Sellin, T. and Wolfgang, M. (1964) The Measurement of Delinquency. Wiley, New York.

[50]   Wolfgang, M., et al. (1985) The National Survey of Crime Severity. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC.

[51]   Rossi, P. and Berk, R. (1997) Just Punishments: Federal Guidelines and Public Views Compared. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.

[52]   Denk, C.E., Benson, J.M., Fletcher, J.C. and Reigel, T.M. (1997) How Do Americans Want to Die? A Factorial Vignette Survey of Public Attitudes about End-of-Life Medical Decision-Making. Social Science Research, 26, 95-120.

[53]   Rossi, P. and Anderson, A. (1982) The Factorial Survey Approach: An Introduction. In: Rossi, P. and Nock, S., Eds., Measuring Social Judgments: The Factorial Survey Approach, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, 1-25.

[54]   Rossi, P., Simpson, J. and Miller, J. (1985) Beyond Crime Seriousness: Fitting the Punishment to the Crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1, 59-89.

[55]   Finkel, N., Burke, J.E. and Chavez, L.J. (2000) Commonsense Judgments of Infanticide: Murder, Manslaughter, Madness, or Miscellaneous? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 1113-1137.

[56]   Chaiken, S., Pomerantz, E.M. and Giner-Sorolla, R. (1995) Structural Consistency and Attitude Strength. In: Petty, R.E. and Krosnick, J.A., Eds., Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 387-412.

[57]   Herzog, S. (2007) Public Perceptions of Sexual Harassment: An Empirical Analysis in Israel from Consensus and Feminist Theoretical Perspectives. Sex Roles, October issue, 579-592.

[58]   Herzog, S. (2007) An Empirical Test of Feminist Theory and Research: The Effect of Heterogeneous Gender-Role Attitudes on Perceptions of Intimate Partner Violence. Feminist Criminology, 2, 223-244.

[59]   Herzog, S. (2008) An Attitudinal Explanation of Biases by Criminal Justice Agents: An Empirical Testing of Defensive Attribution Theory. Crime and Delinquency, 54, 457-481.

[60]   Herzog, S. and Oreg, S. (2008) Individual Differences in Crime Seriousness Judgments: Chivalry and the Moderating Effect of Ambivalent Sexism. Law & Society Review, 42, 45-74.

[61]   Levi, M. and Jones, J. (1985) Public and Police Perceptions of Crime Seriousness in England and Wales. British Journal of Criminology, 25, 234-250.

[62]   Evans, S. and Scott, J. (1984) The Seriousness of Crime Cross-Culturally: The Impact of Religiosity. Criminology, 22, 39-59.

[63]   van Dijk, J. and van Kesteren, J. (1996) The Prevalence and Perceived Seriousness of Victimization by Crime: Some Results of the International Crime Victims Survey. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 4, 48-70.

[64]   Walker, M. (1978) Measuring the Seriousness of Crimes. British Journal of Criminology, 18, 348-364.

[65]   Newman, G. (1976) Comparative Deviance: Perception and Law in Six Cultures. Elsevier, New York.

[66]   Rossi, P. and Henry, P. (1980) Seriousness: A Measure for All Purposes? In: Klein, M. and Teilmann, K., Eds., Handbook of Criminal Justice Evaluation, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

[67]   Thomas, C., Cage, R. and Foster, S. (1976) Public Opinion on Criminal Law and Legal Sanctions: An Examination of Two Conceptual Models. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 67, 110-116.

[68]   Warr, M., Gibbs, J. and Erickson, M. (1982) Contending Theories of Criminal Law: Statutory Penalties versus Public Preferences. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 19, 25-46.

[69]   Heller, N. and McEwen, T. (1975) Applications of Crime Seriousness Information in a Police Department. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 12, 44-50.

[70]   Herzog, S. (2003) Does the Ethnicity of Offenders in Crime Scenarios Affect Public Perceptions of Crime Seriousness? A Randomized Survey Experiment in Israel. Social Forces, 82, 757-781.

[71]   Herzog, S. (2006) Public Perceptions of Crime Seriousness: A Comparison of Social Divisions in Israel. Israel Law Review, 39, 57-80.

[72]   Warr, M. (1989) What Is the Perceived Seriousness of Crimes? Criminology, 27, 795-821.

[73]   Blumstein, A. and Cohen, J. (1980) Sentencing of Convicted Offenders: An Analysis of the Public’s View. Law and Society Review, 14, 233-261.

[74]   Cullen, F., Link, B., Travis, L. and Wozniak, J. (1985) Consensus in Crime Seriousness: Empirical Reality or Methodological Artifact? Criminology, 23, 99-118.

[75]   Miethe, T. (1982) Public Consensus on Crime Seriousness: Normative Structure or Methodological Artifact? Criminology, 20, 515-526.

[76]   Blum-West, S. (1985) The Seriousness of Crime: A Study of Popular Morality. Deviant Behavior, 6, 83-98.

[77]   Hox, J.J., Kreft, I. and Hermkins, P. (1991) The Analysis of Factorial Surveys. Sociological Methods and Research, 19, 493-510.

[78]   Applegate, B., et al. (1996) Determinants of Public Punitiveness toward Drunk Driving: A Factorial Survey Approach. Justice Quarterly, 13, 57-79.

[79]   Doob, A. and Roberts, J. (1983) An Analysis of the Public’s Views of Sentencing. Department of Justice, Ottawa.

[80]   Cullen, F., Fisher, B. and Applegate, B. (2000) Public Opinion about Punishment and Corrections. In: Tonry, M., Ed., Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Vol. 27.

[81]   Murray, G.R. (2003) Raising Considerations: Public Opinion and the Fair Application of the Death Penalty. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 753-770.

[82]   McCorkle, R. (1993) Research Note: Punish and Rehabilitate? Public Attitudes toward Six Common Crimes. Crime & Delinquency, 39, 240-252.

[83]   Daly, K. and Tonry, M. (1997) Gender, Race and Sentencing. In: Tonry, M., Ed., Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Vol. 22, 201-242.

[84]   Spohn, C. (1999) Gender and Sentencing of Drug Offenders: Is Chivalry Dead? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 9, 365-399.

[85]   Steffensmeier, D., Kramer, J. and Streifel, C. (1993) Gender and Imprisonment Decisions. Criminology, 31, 411-446.

[86]   Farnworth, M. and Teske Jr., R. (1995) Gender Differences in Felony Court Processing: Three Hypotheses of Disparity. Women and Criminal Justice, 6, 23-44.

[87]   Johnson, D.R. and Scheuble, L.K. (1991) Gender Bias in the Disposition of Juvenile Court Referrals: The Effects of Time and Location. Criminology, 29, 677-699.

[88]   Scheider, M.C. (2000) Moving Past Biological Determinism in Discussions of Women and Crime during the 1870s-1920s: A Note Regarding the Literature. Deviant Behavior, 21, 407-427.

[89]   Lynch, J. and Danner, M. (1993) Offense Seriousness Scaling: An Alternative to Scenario Methods. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9, 309-322.

[90]   Hurwitz, J. and Peffley, M. (1997) Public Perceptions of Race and Crime: The Role of Racial Stereotypes. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 375-401.

[91]   Poole, E. and Regoli, R. (1980) Race, Institutional Rule-Breaking, and Disciplinary Response: A Study of Discretionary Decision Making in Prison. Law and Society Review, 14, 931-946.

[92]   Stephan, W. and Rosenfield, D. (1982) Racial and Ethnic Stereotypes. In: Miller, A., Ed., The Eye of the Beholder: Contemporary Issues in Stereotyping, Praeger, 92-136.