Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Attitude Organization and the Attitude-Behavior Relation: A Reply to Dillon and Kumar

Attitude Organization and the Attitude-Behavior Relation: A Reply to Dillon and Kumar This article analyzes Dillon and Kumar's reanalysis of data previously reported by Fishbein and Ajzen (1974) and subsequently reanalyzed by Bagozzi and Burnkrant (1979). It also performs new analyses of the same data addressing the construct validity of the unidimensional and the two-component attitudinal models. We show that the unidimensional attitude model fails to achieve convergent validity and the two-component model achieves convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity. Further, we point out that Dillon and Kumar misinterpreted and did not pursue their analyses far enough, and they failed to present anomalous results tending to disconfirm their hypotheses. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Personality and Social Psychology American Psychological Association

Attitude Organization and the Attitude-Behavior Relation: A Reply to Dillon and Kumar

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-psychological-association/attitude-organization-and-the-attitude-behavior-relation-a-reply-to-ujl8L92r0P

References (22)

Publisher
American Psychological Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 American Psychological Association
ISSN
0022-3514
eISSN
1939-1315
DOI
10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.47
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This article analyzes Dillon and Kumar's reanalysis of data previously reported by Fishbein and Ajzen (1974) and subsequently reanalyzed by Bagozzi and Burnkrant (1979). It also performs new analyses of the same data addressing the construct validity of the unidimensional and the two-component attitudinal models. We show that the unidimensional attitude model fails to achieve convergent validity and the two-component model achieves convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity. Further, we point out that Dillon and Kumar misinterpreted and did not pursue their analyses far enough, and they failed to present anomalous results tending to disconfirm their hypotheses.

Journal

Journal of Personality and Social PsychologyAmerican Psychological Association

Published: Jul 1, 1985

There are no references for this article.