Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Interpretative and Methodological Problems of Replicated Research

Interpretative and Methodological Problems of Replicated Research Footnotes 1 Schachter , S. , Nuttin , J. , De Monchaux , C. , Maucorps , P. , Osmer , D. , Duijker , H. , Rommetveit , R. and Israel , J. , “ Cross‐Cultural Experiments on Threat and Rejection ,” Human Relations , 1954 , 7 (No. 4 ). 2 Cf. Schachter, S., Nuttin, J., et al., op. cit. 3 It is possible legitimately to compare countries only on the direction of between‐condition differences. The absolute magnitude of rejection scores is determined not only by probability but by, at least, two other variables as well—goal valence and group cohesiveness. The strength of cohesiveness was measured by questions such as “How frequently would you like this club to meet?” Answers to these questions were, in good part, determined by local conditions such as the number of hours the boys attended school, local labor laws, etc. Cohesiveness data, then, are not comparable from country to country and the absolute level of rejection may not be compared between countries. 4 In order to construct instruments which would be more nearly equivalent, a preferable procedure would probably be to employ bilingual respondents to answer the original and translated form http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Social Issues Wiley

Interpretative and Methodological Problems of Replicated Research

Schachter, Stanley
Journal of Social Issues , Volume 10 (4) – Oct 1, 1954
Download PDF
9 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/interpretative-and-methodological-problems-of-replicated-research-07hpllO48y

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
1954 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues
ISSN
0022-4537
eISSN
1540-4560
DOI
10.1111/j.1540-4560.1954.tb01654.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Footnotes 1 Schachter , S. , Nuttin , J. , De Monchaux , C. , Maucorps , P. , Osmer , D. , Duijker , H. , Rommetveit , R. and Israel , J. , “ Cross‐Cultural Experiments on Threat and Rejection ,” Human Relations , 1954 , 7 (No. 4 ). 2 Cf. Schachter, S., Nuttin, J., et al., op. cit. 3 It is possible legitimately to compare countries only on the direction of between‐condition differences. The absolute magnitude of rejection scores is determined not only by probability but by, at least, two other variables as well—goal valence and group cohesiveness. The strength of cohesiveness was measured by questions such as “How frequently would you like this club to meet?” Answers to these questions were, in good part, determined by local conditions such as the number of hours the boys attended school, local labor laws, etc. Cohesiveness data, then, are not comparable from country to country and the absolute level of rejection may not be compared between countries. 4 In order to construct instruments which would be more nearly equivalent, a preferable procedure would probably be to employ bilingual respondents to answer the original and translated form

Journal

Journal of Social Issues – Wiley

Published: Oct 1, 1954

There are no references for this article.