Two-timing: Politics and response latencies in a bilingual survey

Political Psychology

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 27-55

  Fletcher, Joseph F ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

CATI surveys; Elections and voting; Response latency

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034144929     PISSN: 0162895X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/0162-895x.00176     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Bassili, J. N. (1993). Response latency versus certainty as indexes of the strength of voting intentions in a CATI survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 54-61.
2. Bassili, J. N. (1995a). Response latency and the accessibility of voting intentions: What contributes to accessibility and how it affects vote choice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 686-695.
3. Bassili, J. N. (1995b). On the psychological reality of party identification: Evidence from the accessibility of voting intentions and of partisan feelings. Political Behavior, 17, 339-358.
4. Bassili, J. N. (1996). The "how" and "why" of response latency measurement in survey research. In N. Schwarte & S. Sudman (Eds.), Answering questions: Methodology for determining cognitive and communicative processes in survey research (pp. 319-346). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5. Bassili, J. N. (1997). As the clock ticks in election surveys. Political Psychologist, 2, 6-8.
6. Bassili, J. N., & Bors, D. A. (1997). Using response latency to increase lead time in election forecasting. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 29, 231-238.
7. Bassili, J. N., & Fletcher, J. F. (1991). Response-time measurement in survey research: A method for CATI and a new look at non-attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 331-346.
8. Fazio, R., & Williams, C. J. (1986). Attitude accessibility as a moderator of the attitude-perception and attitude-behavior relations: An investigation of the 1984 presidential election. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 505-514.
9. Forbes, H. D., & Fletcher, J. F. (1990). Partisanship and party identification. Unpublished manuscript, University of Toronto.
10. Howe, P. (1998). Rationality and sovereignty support in Quebec. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 31, 31-59.
11. Johnston, R., et al. (1996). The challenge of direct democracy: The 1992 Canadian Referendum. Montreal: McGill-Queens Press.
12. Kirk, R. E. (1982). Experimental design (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
13. Lavine, H. (1997). Reaction time: A methodological tool for political psychology? Political Psychologist, 2, 3-6.
14. Northrup, D. A., & Oram, A. E. (1994). The 1993 Canadian Election Study, incorporating the 1992 referendum survey on the Charlottetown Accord: Technical documentation. Toronto: Institute for Social Research, York University.
15. Russell, P. (1993). Constitutional odyssey: Can Canadians become a sovereign people? (2nd ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
16. Sniderman, P., Brody, R. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. Sniderman, P. M., & Carmines, E. G. (1997). Reaching beyond race. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18. Sniderman, P. M., Fletcher, J. F., Russell, P. H., & Tetlock, P. E. (1990). Strategic calculation and political values - the dynamics of language rights. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 33, 537-544.