The use of multiples in anglers’ recall of participation and harvest estimates: Some results and implications

Leisure Sciences

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 399-409

  Vaske, Jerry ^a   Huan, Tzung Cheng ^b   Beaman, Jay ^c  

^a Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences   (United States)

^b NATIONAL CHIAYI UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^c Auctor Consulting Associates Ltd   (United States)

Author keywords

Bias; Estimates; Frequency; Multiples; Quantities

Indexed keywords

OUTDOOR RECREATION; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY; SAMPLING BIAS; SPORT FISHING;

EID: 0347603957     PISSN: 01490400     EISSN: 15210588     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/714044498     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Beaman, J. G., Beaman, J. P., O’Leary, J. T., & Smith, S. (2001). The impact of seemingly minor methodological changes on estimates of travel and correcting bias. Tourism Analysis, 5, 91-96.
2. Beaman, J., Vaske, J. J., Donnelly, M. P., & Manfredo, M. J. (1997). Individual versus aggregate measures of digit preference. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 2(1), 71-80.
3. Beaman, J., Vaske, J. J., & Grenier, M. (1998). A prototype model for estimating and correcting bias in digit preference/number preference. Tourism Analysis, 2(2), 77-90.
4. Burton, S., & Blair, E. (1991). Task conditions, response formulation processes and response accuracy for behavioral frequency questions in surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 50-79.
5. Chu, A., Eisenhower, D., Hay, M., Morganstein, D., Neter, J., & Waksberg, J. (1992). Measuring the recall error in self-reported fishing and hunting activities. Journal of Official Statistics, 5(1), 19-39.
6. Cochran, W. G., & Cox, G. M. (1950). Experimental designs. New York: John Wiley.
7. Dillman, D. A., Sangster, R. L., Tarnai, J., & Rockwood, T. H. (1996). Understanding differences in people’s answers to telephone and mail surveys. In M. T. Braverman & J. K. Slater (eds.), Advances in survey research. San Francisco: Jossy-Bass Publishers.
8. Folks, V. (1988). The availability of heuristic and perceived risk. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 13-23.
9. Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1979). Automatic and effortful processes in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 356-388.
10. Hultsman, W. Z., Hultsman, J. T., & Black, D. R. (1989). “Response peaks” as a component of measurement error: Assessment implications for self-reported data in leisure research. Journal of Leisure Research, 21 (4), 310-315.
11. Huttenlocher, J., Hedges, L. V., & Bradburn, N. M. (1990). Reports of elapsed time: Bounding and rounding processes in estimation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16, 196-213.
12. Kendall, M. G. (1938). The conditions under which Sheppard’s corrections are valid. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 101 (3), 592-605.
13. Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537-567.
14. Miller, C. A., & Anderson, W. L. (2001). Digit preference in reported harvest among Illinois waterfowl hunters. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 7(1), 55-65.
15. Nadeau, R., & Niemi, R. G. (1995). Educated guesses: The process of answering factual knowledge questions in surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59, 323-346.
16. Reed, S. K. (1996). Cognition, 4th edn. (pp. 240-248). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
17. Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. M. (1974). Response effects in surveys: A review and synthesis. Chicago: Aldine.
18. Tarrant, M. A., & Manfredo, M. J. (1993). Digit preference, recall bias, and nonresponse bias in self reports of angling participation. Leisure Sciences, 15, 231-238.
19. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
20. Vaske, J. J., Beaman, J., Manfredo, M. J., Covey, D., & Knox, R. (1996). Response strategy, recall frame and digit preference in self-reports of angling participation. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 14, 54-68.
21. Whittaker, D., Vaske, J. J., Donnelly, M. P., & DeRuiter, D. S. (1998). Mail versus telephone surveys: Potential biases in expenditure and willingness to pay data. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 16(3), 15-30.******