Psychological Bulletin

Kurtines, William; Greif, Esther B.

doi: 10.1037/h0036879pmid: 4607828

Evaluates the evidence supporting L. Kohlberg's theory on the development of moral thought. A systematic review of the literature suggests that there are several conceptual and methodological problems with the approach. The problems include the derivation, administration, and scoring of the model's primary measurement device (Moral Judgment Scale); the lack of evidence for both the reliability and validity of that device; and the absence of direct evidence for the basic assumptions of the theory. It is concluded that the empirical utility of the model has yet to be demonstrated. (40 ref)

Hagen, Margaret A.

doi: 10.1037/h0036801pmid: 4609319

Describes J. J. Gibson's new theory of picture perception and a program of research within his framework. An analysis of pictorial information is proposed in which a systematic investigation of the structural components of pictures and their varying effects on perception is seen as preliminary to the postulation of hypothetical pick-up mechanisms. The basic components of pictures are described, and literature is reviewed in the problem areas of distorted and impoverished information, observation from the wrong station point, coexisting flatness and depth information, and the ambiguity of the source of a single projection. The feasibility of the Gibsonian enterprise is demonstrated, and further avenues for research into a structural analysis of pictorial information are noted. (48 ref)

Guilford, J. P.

doi: 10.1037/h0036783pmid: N/A

Replies to criticisms by J. L. Horn and J. R. Knapp regarding the methods of factor-analytic rotations that were used in deriving the empirical basis for development of the structure-of-intellect model and for testing its validity. Their arguments were not convincing because (a) they selected 3 biased cases out of more than 30 for their illustration, (b) the gaps between hits and errors in rotating to random hypotheses vs structure-of-intellect hypotheses were quite large, and (c) they failed to extend their test to include aims at invariance in terms of fit to a general theory. (15 ref)

Horn, John L.; Knapp, John R.

doi: 10.1037/h0036784pmid: N/A

Considers that J. P. Guilford's (see PA, Vol 53:Issue 1) reply to the authors' criticisms of his factor analysis of his structure-of-intellect model has failed to come to grips with evidence indicating that if the number of targeted variables for each factor is 3 or fewer, Procrustes factoring provides no better evidence for structure-of-intellect theory than for any of an infinity of other arbitrarily determined theories. Under these conditions factors can be rotated in such a way as to suggest support for almost any desired solution, and one such solution can be that labeled a replication. Hence the factorial invariance claimed under such conditions can indicate only consistency in the researcher and his methods, not in the phenomena studied. (16 ref)

MacCallum, Robert C.

doi: 10.1037/h0036785pmid: N/A

Describes the fundamental relations between multidimensional scaling and factor analysis. Metric and nonmetric versions of both models are described in terms of type of data analyzed, assumptions made, objectives, computational procedures, geometric representations of data and solutions, and psychological meaning of results. What is commonly taken to be a fundamental identity between the metric versions of the 2 models is shown to be merely the employment of the same theorems. The strongest relations between the techniques lie in the realm of individual differences models for multidimensional scaling. Several such models are presented and are shown to represent the application of the logic of factor analysis to the substance of multidimensional scaling. (17 ref)