Rankings, ratings, and the measurement of values: Evidence for the superior validity of ratings

Gregory R. Maio*, Neal J. Roese, Clive Seligman, Albert Katz

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

56 Scopus citations

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)171-181
Number of pages11
JournalBasic and Applied Social Psychology
Volume18
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1996

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Psychology
  • Applied Psychology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Rankings, ratings, and the measurement of values: Evidence for the superior validity of ratings'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this