Six Ways to Measure Status and Expectations

Tuesday, 17 July 2018: 08:30
Oral Presentation
Joseph DIPPONG, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA
Six Ways to Measure Status and Expectations

Murray Webster, Joseph Dippong

August 28, 2017

We review six alternate research designs for status and expectation states questions, identifying what is known about each, what remains to be determined, and how each design might be developed for greater usefulness in research conducted in this theoretical perspective.

(1) Joseph Berger’s design using disagreement resolution. Two computerized versions are available.

Properties: (1) Precise measurement. (2) Known properties (3) Adaptable.

Limitations: (1) Only dyads. (2) Requires laboratory. (3) Somewhat stressful. (4) Requires deception. (5) Requires training.

(2) Questionnaires. A 7-item scale; factor analysis has shown that it is unidimensional.

Properties: (1) Good correlation with behavior. (2) Large group administration. (3) No deception.

Limitations: (1) Respondents’ access. (2) Respondents’ scaling. (3) Simple situations.

(3) Vocal accommodation. This measure is suitable for recorded speaking, and uses measures of a sub-audible frequency of speech that differs across individuals, but that they tend to adjust towards each other during interaction.

Properties: (1) Non-reactive. (2) Usable in natural settings.

Limitations: (1) Theoretical justification is undeveloped. (2) Requires expensive equipment. (3) Unknown correlations.

(4) Brain wave and MRI.

Potential: (1) Precise measures, long scales. (2) Usable in complex settings. (3) Non-reactive. (4) Perhaps usable with non-human primates.

Limitations: (1) Expensive equipment. (2) Trained technicians. (3) Cumbersome.

(5) Behavioral cues.

Properties: (1) No deception. (2) Unobtrusive. (3) Computer coded.

Limitations: (1) Requires laboratory. (2) Unknown measurement properties.

(6) Factorial Surveys. Properties and limitations similar to other questionnaires, but with greater ranges of independent variables measurable.

General points on these measures:

1. All are available.

2. Need varying amounts of development.

3. Researchers may choose the most appropriate measures, based on theoretical and practical considerations.

References (to be supplied)