The Attitude, Belief and Behavior Survey<\/strong> (incorporating the Attitudes toward Deviance Scale<\/em> [ATDS]) is a multidimensional psychometric and sociological measurement instrument developed by Dr. Virginia L. Rothwell (2009) at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Designed to investigate the complex psychosocial etiology of deviant conduct among emerging adults and collegiate populations, the instrument operationalizes core tenets of criminological theory, including differential association theory<\/a>, social learning theory, social bond theory<\/a>, classic strain theory, and the sociology of individualism and scientific rationalism. The comprehensive survey battery consists of 59 items systematically structured across nine thematic sections: informed consent and eligibility verification, self-concept and risk orientation, educational and occupational goal-strain discrepancies, peer deviant behavior, normative moral evaluations of deviance (the ATDS core), past-year self-reported deviance across 11 behavioral domains, conventional activity involvement, institutional social bonds and ideological beliefs, and sociodemographic background characteristics.<\/p>\n Constructed in strict adherence to Dillman\u2019s (2000) Tailored Design Method<\/a>, the instrument employs diverse psychometric formats, including 4-point moral wrongness scales, 4-point past-year behavioral frequency metrics, 5-point peer engagement proportions, and 4-point Likert agreement matrices. Empirical psychometric evaluations demonstrate high structural fidelity, with internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach\u2019s alpha) ranging from .78 to .89 across the attitudinal and behavioral deviance subscales. Factor-analytic models confirm a coherent multidimensional construct distinguishing between minor, consensual deviance (e.g., academic dishonesty, digital piracy, cannabis use, binge drinking) and serious, predatory delinquency (e.g., property destruction, theft, burglary, assault, illicit hard drug consumption). The survey provides researchers, sociologists, developmental psychologists, and collegiate administrators with a robust, empirically validated tool for measuring the cognitive definitions, social reinforcements, and behavioral patterns that govern non-normative conduct.<\/p>\n Attitudes toward Deviance Scale, criminological assessment, social learning theory, social bond theory, differential association, deviance measurement, collegiate substance use, academic dishonesty, digital piracy, self-reported delinquency, risk-taking propensity, strain theory<\/p>\n The Attitude, Belief and Behavior Survey was designed, standardized, and validated by Virginia L. Rothwell, Ph.D.<\/strong>, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology at the Department of Sociology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech)<\/em>, Blacksburg, Virginia (Rothwell, 2009).<\/p>\n The development and theoretical refinement of the survey battery were supervised by an academic doctoral advisory committee comprising distinguished criminologists and sociologists:<\/p>\n The primary purpose of the Attitude, Belief and Behavior Survey is to systematically examine the social, psychological, and normative mechanisms that facilitate, sustain, or inhibit deviant behavior among emerging adults, with particular diagnostic relevance to university and collegiate cohorts. Historically, criminological literature has exhibited persistent theoretical tensions concerning the causal sequencing among cognitive definitions (attitudes), peer networks (differential associations), institutional ties (social bonds), individualistic personal identities, and actual deviant conduct. This instrument was explicitly engineered to address these theoretical controversies by providing simultaneous, methodologically aligned operationalizations of multiple competing and complementary criminological models within a single, highly integrated protocol.<\/p>\n From an applied and institutional perspective, the scale serves several critical research and administrative functions:<\/p>\n The Attitude, Belief and Behavior Survey operationalizes a multifaceted conceptual architecture centered on the psychological construct of cognitive definitions of deviance<\/strong> and its structural interrelations with personality, perceived opportunity structures, and behavioral outcomes. In sociological and psychological criminology, “definitions” refer to the moral orientations, rationalizations, and normative attitudes that an individual assigns to a specific behavior, categorizing it as right or wrong, permissible or impermissible, justified or reprehensible.<\/p>\n The focal psychological construct of the survey is the degree of moral disapprobation or tolerance directed toward non-normative acts. The instrument assesses this across three primary behavioral domains:<\/p>\n The instrument incorporates psychological measures of the modern individualistic self-concept. Drawing on psychological conceptualizations of self-direction, the construct of individualism<\/em> is operationalized as personal autonomy, preference for uniqueness, and detachment from collective behavioral mandates. Concurrently, sensation seeking<\/em> is measured through the willingness to engage in risk-taking for immediate hedonic enjoyment, reflecting an underlying impulsivity and thrill-seeking temperament that lowers the barrier to deviant experimentation.<\/p>\n Deviance is not formed in a psychological vacuum; it is mediated through the perceived behaviors of proximal reference groups. The survey operationalizes peer deviance by quantifying the perceived proportion of closest friends who commit academic infractions, engage in heavy episodic drinking, or consume illicit substances. This dimension captures the observational modeling and social reinforcement parameters essential to social learning theories.<\/p>\n The construct of structural or anomic strain is operationalized through the classical cognitive discrepancy paradigm: the absolute subjective value placed on occupational and educational success versus the realistic perceived probability of realizing those aspirations. A wide negative discrepancy represents perceived institutional blockage, which can foster psychological frustration and anomic adaptations.<\/p>\n Rooted in social control constructs, this dimension evaluates the strength of an individual’s emotional and psychological bonds to conventional societal institutions. It captures cognitive attachment to primary authority figures (parents, academic instructors, law enforcement officers), academic commitment (effort invested in school, educational valuation), conventional involvement (time committed to studying, sports, volunteering, and religious liturgy), and moral belief in the legitimacy of conventional rules and secular modernity (e.g., trust in science to resolve existential crises).<\/p>\n The survey synthesizes several foundational criminological and sociological theories into an overarching empirical framework. Rather than viewing these paradigms as mutually exclusive, the instrument operationalizes them as complementary layers of human behavioral regulation.<\/p>\n The primary theoretical driver of the instrument is Ronald L. Akers\u2019 Social Learning Theory<\/a> (1998), which expanded upon Edwin Sutherland\u2019s Differential Association Theory<\/a> (1947). Sutherland posited that criminal behavior is learned through interaction with intimate personal groups via a process of communication. An individual becomes delinquent due to an excess of definitions favorable to the violation of law<\/em> over definitions unfavorable to law violation.<\/p>\n Akers formalized this by integrating behavioral psychology principles\u2014specifically differential reinforcement, vicarious imitation, and cognitive definitions. In Rothwell\u2019s instrument, this theoretical loop is measured directly: Sections 4 (behavior of close friends) captures differential association and modeling; Section 5 (ATDS) captures cognitive definitions (evaluating whether acts are considered “not wrong at all” up to “very wrong”); and Section 6 records the behavioral outcome (self-reported deviance). Social learning theory hypothesizes that peer behavior directly predicts individual attitudes, which subsequently mediate actual behavioral commission.<\/p>\n The second primary foundation is Travis Hirschi\u2019s (1969) Social Bond Theory<\/a>, articulated in Causes of Delinquency<\/em>. Hirschi inverted the classical criminological inquiry: instead of asking “Why do people break the law?”, control theorists ask “Why do people conform?” The answer lies in the strength of an individual\u2019s bond to society, composed of four distinct elements:<\/p>\n The inclusion of career goal importance paired with perceived chances of attainment is derived directly from Robert K. Merton\u2019s (1938) Classic Strain Theory<\/a> and its modern elaboration in Robert Agnew\u2019s General Strain Theory (1992)<\/a>. Merton argued that deviance proliferates when a disjunction exists between cultural goals (e.g., economic and occupational success) and institutionalized means (e.g., perceived legitimate opportunities to attain them). When aspirations are exceptionally high but perceived success expectations are low, individuals experience strain, predisposing them toward illegitimate innovations or retreatist adaptations (such as illicit substance consumption).<\/p>\n Rothwell\u2019s framework incorporates modern sociological theories regarding individualism and the shifting epistemic authority of science. Theorists such as Ulrich Beck<\/a> and Anthony Giddens<\/a> have argued that modern post-industrial societies undergo intensive individualization, wherein traditional social structures lose their binding moral authority. Individuals are compelled to construct their own biographies, identities, and normative codes. In the survey, this is captured by evaluating the respondent\u2019s self-identification as an autonomous agent separate from others, alongside faith in institutional science to resolve global crises.<\/p>\n Empirical evaluation of the Attitude, Belief and Behavior Survey has yielded robust evidence supporting its construct, convergent, predictive, and discriminant validity within sociological and psychological research paradigms.<\/p>\n Construct validity is evidenced by the robust, statistically significant correlations observed between the attitudinal metrics of the ATDS and their corresponding behavioral manifestations. Methodologically, if the ATDS accurately measures definitions favorable or unfavorable to deviance, individuals reporting higher moral tolerance for an act must logically exhibit higher frequencies of engaging in that specific behavior. In empirical field testing among collegiate cohorts (Rothwell, 2009), bivariate correlation analyses revealed moderate to high positive associations ($r = .45$<\/span> to $r = .68$<\/span>, $p < .001$<\/span>) between tolerance for a specific delinquent act and self-reported engagement in that same act over the preceding 12-month period.<\/p>\n Furthermore, convergent validity was established between peer behavioral metrics and respondent attitudes. Consistent with Akers\u2019 social learning postulate, perceived peer involvement in academic cheating, binge drinking, and cannabis use exhibited strong positive correlations with the respondent\u2019s own moral normalization of those behaviors, confirming that the scale accurately maps social learning environments.<\/p>\n Predictive validity was substantiated through multiple ordinary least squares (OLS) regression and multivariate logistic regression modeling. When controlling for demographic variables (gender, age, race, socioeconomic status), the ATDS subscales emerged as powerful, independent predictors of deviant conduct:<\/p>\n Discriminant validity was verified across distinct behavioral classifications. Factor analyses and inter-item correlation matrices demonstrated that attitudes toward minor, non-predatory offenses (such as media piracy or occasional cheating) loaded distinctly from predatory and high-harm offenses (such as burglary, domestic theft, and physical assault). The mean moral wrongness score for severe predatory crimes approached the absolute ceiling ($M > 3.85$<\/span> on a 4-point metric, with near-zero variance), whereas minor institutional and substance offenses demonstrated broad, normal distributional variance ($M = 2.10$<\/span> to $2.85$). This confirms that the instrument effectively discriminates between normative youthful boundary-testing and serious anti-social criminality.<\/p>\n The Attitude, Belief and Behavior Survey has undergone extensive internal consistency and psychometric reliability testing. Reliability estimations were derived primarily through Cronbach\u2019s alpha ($\u0007lpha$<\/span>) coefficients, calculated across the composite scales and individual dimensional subscales.<\/p>\n The central 11-item Attitudes toward Deviance Scale<\/em> (ATDS; Q13\u2013Q23) demonstrated high overall internal consistency, yielding a full-scale Cronbach\u2019s alpha of $\u0007lpha = .86$<\/span>. When evaluated as discrete thematic subscales, the instrument retained robust reliability coefficients:<\/p>\n The ancillary psychological and sociological subscales embedded within the survey also demonstrated satisfactory to high reliability across collegiate testing administrations:<\/p>\n The structural validity of the Attitude, Belief and Behavior Survey was examined through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal axis factoring with promax (oblique) rotation, followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess goodness-of-fit for the hypothesized theoretical architecture.<\/p>\n EFA conducted on the 11 moral evaluation items (Q13\u2013Q23) revealed a clear two-factor latent structure based on Kaiser\u2019s criterion (eigenvalues $> 1.0$<\/span>) and Cattell\u2019s scree test inflection, collectively accounting for $62.4%$<\/span> of the total variance:<\/p>\n Subsequent confirmatory factor analytic modeling supported the structural validity of the two-factor attitudinal deviance model over a unidimensional formulation. Model fit indices demonstrated acceptable to superior correspondence with empirical data:<\/p>\n Factor inter-correlations between the two latent deviance dimensions were moderate ($r = .48, p < .001$<\/span>), confirming that while the constructs share common variance under an overarching deviance umbrella, they remain structurally distinct cognitive entities.<\/p>\n The complete survey is an extensive self-administered questionnaire. A structured breakdown of its design parameters and administration protocol is detailed below:<\/p>\n The Attitude, Belief and Behavior Survey was formally established and published in 2009<\/strong> as part of Dr. Virginia L. Rothwell\u2019s doctoral dissertation, titled “The Relationship between Attitudes toward Deviance and Deviant Behavior: The Influence of Science, Individualism, Social Bonds and Deviant Peers,”<\/em> submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), Blacksburg, Virginia.<\/p>\n In accordance with the scholarly archiving protocols of Virginia Tech\u2019s Electronic Theses and Dissertations (VT ETD) repository, the dissertation and its survey instrument are accessible for research purposes. The scale is in the public domain for academic, non-commercial research and educational investigations<\/strong>, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution and bibliographic citation are accorded to Dr. Rothwell and Virginia Tech. Commercial usage, institutional marketing, or incorporation into proprietary commercial assessment software requires formal written consent from the author and copyright administrators.<\/p>\n The full survey instrument as constructed and standardized by Virginia L. Rothwell (2009) is presented below across all nine sequential operational sections:<\/em><\/p>\n Q1:<\/strong> I have read the consent document and understand that by completing this survey I acknowledge that I was provided a consent document, with a description of the rationale for this study, issues related to confidentiality, and possible risks and benefits of participation.<\/p>\n Q2:<\/strong> I understand that I must be at least 18 years of age to participate in this survey and certify that I am, indeed 18 years of age.<\/p>\nKeywords<\/h2>\n
Authors<\/h2>\n
\n
Purpose<\/h2>\n
\n
Psychological Construct<\/h2>\n
1. Core Attitudinal Dimension: Moral Evaluation of Deviant Conduct (ATDS)<\/h3>\n
\n
2. Individualism, Autonomy, and Sensation Seeking<\/h3>\n
3. Differential Association and Social Learning Reinforcements<\/h3>\n
4. Structural Strain: Aspirations vs. Expectations Gap<\/h3>\n
5. Institutional Attachment, Commitment, and Conventional Beliefs<\/h3>\n
Theoretical Framework<\/h2>\n
1. Akers\u2019 Social Learning Theory and Sutherland\u2019s Differential Association<\/h3>\n
2. Hirschi\u2019s Social Control and Social Bond Theory<\/h3>\n
\n
3. Classic Anomie and Strain Theory<\/h3>\n
4. Theories of Modernity, Individualism, and Rationalism<\/h3>\n
Validity<\/h2>\n
1. Construct and Convergent Validity<\/h3>\n
2. Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity<\/h3>\n
\n
3. Discriminant Validity<\/h3>\n
Reliability<\/h2>\n
1. Internal Consistency of Attitudinal Dimensions<\/h3>\n
\n
2. Internal Consistency of Theoretical Predictor Scales<\/h3>\n
\n
Factor Analysis<\/h2>\n
1. Exploratory Factor Analysis of the ATDS Items<\/h3>\n
\n
2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Structural Fit<\/h3>\n
\n
Instrument \/ Measurement Tool<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
Permissions & Fee and Test Year<\/h2>\n
References<\/h2>\n
\n
Items of the Scale<\/h2>\n
Section 1: Informed Consent and Participant Eligibility<\/h3>\n
\n
\n