The first step in measuring a person's position on a topic is to have them complete the ordered alternatives questionnaire. This questionnaire usually consists of 9-11 statements concerning the issue at hand and representing a range of positions on the issue (O'Keefe 1990, p. 30). Please review the following questionnaire:


(A) Since alcohol is the curse of mankind, the sale and use of alcohol, including light beer, should be completely abolished.
(B) Since alcohol is the main cause of corruption in public life, lawlessness, and immoral acts, its sale and use should be prohibited.
(C) Since it is hard to stop at a reasonable moderation point in the use of alcohol, it is safer to discourage its use.
(D) Alcohol should not be sold or used except as a remedy for snake bites, cramps, colds, fainting, and other aches and pains.
(E) The arguments in favor and against the sale and use of alcohol are nearly equal.
(F) The sale of alcohol should be so regulated that it is available in limited quantities for special occasions.
(G) The sale and use of alcohol should be permitted with proper state controls, so that the revenue from taxation may be used for the betterment of schools, highways, and other state institutions.
(H) Since prohibition is a major cause of corruption in public life, lawlessness, immoral acts, and juvenile delinquency, the sale and use of alcohol should be legalized.
(I) It has become evident that man cannot get along without alcohol; therefore there should be no restriction whatsoever on its sale and use.
(M. Sherif et al. 1961, p. 133).

After reviewing this questionnaire, it becomes obvious that each statement takes a stand either for, against, or neutral towards the issue of prohibition. The questionnaire is completed in the following fashion. First the respondent marks the statement found to be most agreeable and then all other agreeable statements. The next step is to mark the most objectionable statement and all other objectionable statements. Neutral statements are left blank (M. Sherif et al 1961, p. 133). The resulting organization of statements represents that person's latitudes of acceptance, rejection, and noncommitment.

As was mentioned earlier, these latitudes may be effected by the respondent's level of ego-involvement on the subject. Ego-involvement is exactly what it sounds like: the level of personal involvement an individual has with the topic. It is important to remember that although an extreme stand on an issue and a high level of ego-involvement are empirically related (there is a high likelihood that the two will go hand in hand), they are two distinct concepts (O'Keefe 1990, p. 33). The theorists predict that a moderate subject, one with a high latitude of noncommitment, will have a greater susceptibility towards attitude change than will someone with a higher level of involvement (C.W. Sherif et al. 1967, p. 133).

Other factors effecting the latitudes are assimilation and contrast effects. Since the first step in developing an opinion on an issue is to determine what position is being advocated, these two effects explain how that position is translated by the receiver (O'Keefe 1990, p. 35). A person's level of ego-involvement can result in an assimilation effect if the stand taken in the message is close to the person's latitude of acceptance. On the same note, a contrast effect will arise if the message is near one's latitude of rejection (C.W. Sherif et al. 1965, p. 14). Therefore it may be important in some cases to measure the level of ego-involvement a respondent has with the issue. Either of the two following methods will measure ego-involvement.

Measurement of the latitude of rejection determined through the ordered alternatives questionnaire is directly related to the level of ego-involvement on an issue (C.W. Sherif et al, 1965, p. 234). This means that the larger the latitude of rejection is, the greater the level of ego-involvement. The assumption is that a person with a personal stand on an issue will reject more statements than someone who is not as involved with the subject (O'Keefe 1990, p. 33). Another method requires that the participant arrange a multitude of statements into as many positions as that person feels are necessary to properly represent the topic. It was found that highly involved people will create fewer categories (O'Keefe 1990, p. 35), possibly because they feel that their own stand is correct and that all diverging statements belong in only one category- the wrong one.

---

Click here to return to the

Social Judgment Theory Home Page.