TY - JOUR
T1 - Rankings, ratings, and the measurement of values
T2 - Evidence for the superior validity of ratings
AU - Maio, Gregory R.
AU - Roese, Neal J.
AU - Seligman, Clive
AU - Katz, Albert
PY - 1996/6
Y1 - 1996/6
N2 - Many value researchers have assumed that rankings of values are more valid than ratings of values because rankings force participants to differentiate more incisively between similarly regarded values (e.g., Rokeach & Ball-Rokeach, 1989). This hypothesis was examined by comparing the predictive validity of value rankings with value ratings on a within-subject basis. To assess predictive validity, participants (a) ranked and rated the importance of 42 values, (b) indicated their attitudes toward 30 controversial issues, and (c) judged the ethical acceptability of 74 behaviors. Eighteen pairs of conceptually related values and attitudes were identified a priori, and the correlations between the conceptually related values and attitudes were determined using rankings and ratings of values. In addition, correlations between the value of honesty and judgments of 18 dishonest behaviors were determined using rankings and ratings of honesty. Thus, a total of 36 value associations were examined. Using a tertile split, participants were divided into groups based on the number of values rated differently, and the 36 correlations were determined for each group. Results indicated that ratings tended to evidence greater validity than rankings within moderate-and low-differentiating participants. In addition, the validity of ratings was greater than rankings overall.
AB - Many value researchers have assumed that rankings of values are more valid than ratings of values because rankings force participants to differentiate more incisively between similarly regarded values (e.g., Rokeach & Ball-Rokeach, 1989). This hypothesis was examined by comparing the predictive validity of value rankings with value ratings on a within-subject basis. To assess predictive validity, participants (a) ranked and rated the importance of 42 values, (b) indicated their attitudes toward 30 controversial issues, and (c) judged the ethical acceptability of 74 behaviors. Eighteen pairs of conceptually related values and attitudes were identified a priori, and the correlations between the conceptually related values and attitudes were determined using rankings and ratings of values. In addition, correlations between the value of honesty and judgments of 18 dishonest behaviors were determined using rankings and ratings of honesty. Thus, a total of 36 value associations were examined. Using a tertile split, participants were divided into groups based on the number of values rated differently, and the 36 correlations were determined for each group. Results indicated that ratings tended to evidence greater validity than rankings within moderate-and low-differentiating participants. In addition, the validity of ratings was greater than rankings overall.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030537141&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030537141&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1207/s15324834basp1802_4
DO - 10.1207/s15324834basp1802_4
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:0030537141
SN - 0197-3533
VL - 18
SP - 171
EP - 181
JO - Basic and Applied Social Psychology
JF - Basic and Applied Social Psychology
IS - 2
ER -