A Correction: Attitude as a Scientific ConceptSource: Social Forces, Vol. 43, No. 4 (May, 1965), p. 578Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2574466 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 01:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Forces.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 01:44:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

578 SOCIAL FORCES

COMMUNICATIONS

A CORRECTION

To the Editors:

We wish to correct an error in a statement which appeared in our rejoinder to Professor Norman Weissberg's critique of our paper, "Attitude as a Scientific Concept." (Social Forces, March 1965, pp. 425-427). Our statement appeared in print as follows: "There are simply no adequate grounds in our originial paper for drawing the inference that we are either anti- theoretical or interested in reducing mnind phychology to 'an engineers handbook' level." (italics added.) The term "mind psychology" is particularly unfortunate in light of the fact that one of the primary points in both our article and our rejoinder is a criticism of a type of "mental- ism" implied by latent process conceptions of attitudes as reified by some of the users of such conceptions. The term in our first draft was "social psychology" and we failed to notice the error in the final draft we submitted to Social Forces.

Untiversity of Kenttcky Melvin L. DeFleur Untiversity of Indianta Frank R. Westie

HAWAII WAS FIRST

To the Editors:

Edwin Flittie's review of The People of Rhode Island, 1960, published in Social Forces, December 1964, p. 280, calls Rhode Island "the first state to be completely tracted."

Mr. Flittie is in error. Hawaii was completely tracted prior to the 1940 Census, and Washington State was tracted by 1950. (Tracts in rural parts of the latter state were termed "census county divisions.") Both are discussed in Roy V. Peel's paper in "Proceedings of the ,Census Tract Conference, December 28, 1952."

State Statistician Robert C. Schmitt State of Hawaii

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.58 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 01:44:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions