Validity of a factorial survey approach to the analysis of criminal behavior

Methodology

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 139-146

  Eifler, Stefanie ^a  

^a MARTIN LUTHER UNIVERSITY HALLE WITTENBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Criminal behavior; Deviant behavior; Factorial survey; Field experiment; Lost letter technique; Nonparticipant observation; Self report; Validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954771267     PISSN: 16141881     EISSN: 16142241     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1027/1614-2241/a000015     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Abelson, R. P. (1976). Script processing in attitude formation and decision making. In J. S. Carroll & J. W. Payne (Eds.), Cognition and social behavior (pp. 33-67). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
2. Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1968). Experimentation in social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology. Vol.2: Research methods (pp. 1-79). Reading: Addison-Wesley.
3. Beck, M., & Opp, K.-D. (2001). Der faktorielle Survey und die Messung von Normen [The factorial survey and the measure of standards]. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 53, 283-306.
4. Borsboom, D. (2005). Measuring the mind: Conceptual issues in contemporary psychometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061-1071.
6. Bridges, F. S., Thompson, P. C., & Willers, M. H. (2000). Lost letter returns on five topics from urban, waterfront, and smaller rural communities. Psychological Reports, 86, 1097-1100.
7. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
8. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-608.
9. Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (1986). The reasoning criminal. Rational choice perspectives on offending. New York: Springer.
10. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
11. Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York, NY: Wiley.
12. Einer, S. (2007). Evaluating the validity of self-reported deviant behavior using vignette analyses. Quality and Quantity, 41, 303-318.
13. Eifler, S., Pollich, D., & Reinecke, J. (2006). Construct validity of a rational choice approach to violent behaviour using vignette analyses. Paper presented at the ISA World Congress of Sociology, July 2006, Durban, South Africa.
14. Farrington, D. P., & Kidd, R. F. (1977). Is financial dishonesty a rational decision? British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 16, 139-146.
15. Farrington, D. P., & Knight, B. J. (1979). Two non-reactive field experiments on stealing from a "lost" letter. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 277-284.
16. Farrington, D. P., & Knight, B. J. (1980a). Stealing from a "lost" letter. Effects of victim characteristics. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 7, 423-436.
17. Farrington, D. P., & Knight, B. J. (1980b). Four studies of stealing and risky decision. In P. D. Lipsitt (Ed.), New directions in psycholegal research (pp. 26-50). New York: VNR.
18. Finch, J. (1987). The vignette technique in survey research. Sociology, 21, 105-114.
19. Goldstone, R. L., & Chin, C. (1993). Dishonesty in self-report of copies made: Moral relativity and the copy machine. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 19-32.
20. Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education International.
21. Hammerl, M. (2000). Der Operationalisierungseffekt. Über den Einfluβ der Forschungsstrategie auf die Befunde der experimentellen Psychologie [The effect of operationalization. The influence of the research strategy on the findings of experimental psychology]. Lengerich: Pabst Science.
22. Jasso, G. (2006). Factorial survey methods for studying beliefs and judgements. Sociological Methods & Research, 34, 334-423.
23. Koller, O., & Möller, J. (1996). Auslösende Bedingungen spontaner Attributionen: Die Rolle des experimentellen Settings [Determinants of spontaneous attributions: The role of experimental settings]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 27, 283-289.
24. Lee, R. M. (2000). Unobtrusive methods in social research. Buckingham: Open University Press.
25. Long, J. S. (2002). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26. Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using stata (2nd ed.). College Stata, TX: Stata Press.
27. Milgram, S., Mann, L., & Harter, S. (1965). The lost-letter technique: A tool of social research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 29, 437-438.
28. Opp, K. D., & Jasso, G. (1997). Probing the character of norms: A factorial survey analysis of the norms of political action. American Sociological Review, 62, 947-964.
29. Rossi, P. H., & Anderson, A. B. (1982). The factorial survey approach. An introduction. In P. H. Rossi & S. L. Nock (Eds.), Measuring social judgements. The factorial survey approach (pp. 15-67). Beverly Hills: Sage.
30. Schank, R., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
31. Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
32. Simon, W. E., & Gillen, M. (1971). Return rates of "lost" letters as a function of whether the letter is stamped and amount of money apparently in the letter. Psychological Reports, 29, 141-142.
33. Waugh, I. M., Plake, E. V., & Rienzi, B. M. (2000). Assessing attitudes toward gay marriage among selected Christian groups using the lost-letter technique. Psychological Reports, 86, 215-218.
34. Webb, E., Campbell, D., Schwartz, R., Sechrest, L., & Grove, J. (1981). Nonreactive measures in the social sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally.
35. Wentland, E. J., & Smith, K. W. (1993). Survey responses. An evaluation of their validity. San Diego: Academic Press.