Cognitive processes in hunters' recall of participation and harvest estimates

Journal of Wildlife Management

Volumn 69, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 967-975

  Beaman, Jay ^a   Vaske, Jerry J ^b   Miller, Craig A ^c  

^a Auctor Consulting Associates Ltd   (United States)

^b Veterinary Dentistry and Oral Surgery   (United States)

^c LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

0 5 prototypes; Bias; Hunter surveys; Illinois; Multipliers; Response heaping

Indexed keywords

ERROR ANALYSIS; HUNTING; SURVEY DESIGN; SURVEYING;

ILLINOIS; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES; WESTERN HEMISPHERE; WORLD;

EID: 27944458823     PISSN: 0022541X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2193/0022-541X(2005)069[0967:CPIHRO]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. ANDERSON, W. L., D. D. THORNBURG, AND R. M. WITTON. 1996. Estimating Canada goose harvest in southern Illinois quota zones. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:233-237.
2. ATWOOD, E. L. 1956. Validity of mail survey data on bagged waterfowl. Journal of Wildlife Management 20:1-16.
3. BEAMAN, J. G., J. J. VASKE, AND M. GRENIER. 1998. A prototype model for estimating and correcting bias in digit preference/number preference. Tourism Analysis 2:77-90.
4. _, M. P. DONNELLY, AND M. J. MANFREDO. 1997. Individual versus aggregate measures of digit preference. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 2:71-80.
5. _, J. P. BEAMAN, J. T. O'LEARY, AND S. SMITH. 2001. The impact of seemingly minor methodological changes on estimates of travel and correcting bias. Tourism Analysis 5:91-96.
6. BURTON, S., AND E. BLAIR. 1991. Task conditions, response formulation processes and response accuracy for behavioral frequency questions in surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 55:50-79.
7. CHU, A., D. EISENHOWER, M. HAY, D. MORGANSTEIN, J. NETER, AND J. WAKSBERG. 1992. Measuring the recall error in self-reported fishing and hunting activities. Journal of Official Statistics 8:19-39.
8. HULTSMAN, W. Z., J. T. HULTSMAN, AND D. R. BLACK. 1989. "Response peaks" as a component of measurement error: assessment implications for self-reported data in leisure research. Journal of Leisure Research 21:310-315.
9. HUTTENLOCHER, J., L. V. HEDGES, AND N. M. BRADBURN. 1990. Reports of elapsed time: bounding and founding processes in estimation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 16:196-213.
10. JOHNSON, F. A., B. K. WILLIAMS, J. D. NICHOLS, J. E. HINES, W. L. KENDALL, G. W. SMITH, AND D. F. CAITHAMER. 1993. Developing an adaptive harvest management strategy for harvesting waterfowl. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 58:565-583.
11. MILLER, C. A., AND W. L. ANDERSON. 2002. Digit preference in reported harvest among Illinois waterfowl hunters. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 7:55-65.
12. _, L. K. CAMPBELL, AND J. A. YEAGLE. 2001. Results of the 2000 Illinois hunter harvest survey. Job completion report. Federal aid in wildlife restoration W-112-R-10. Human dimensions program report HR-01-01. Illinois Natural History Society, Champaign, USA.
13. NADEAU, R., AND R. G. NIEMI. 1995. Educated guesses: the process of answering factual knowledge questions in surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 59:323-346.
14. REED, S. K. 1996. Cognition. Fourth edition. Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, California, USA.
15. SEN, A. R. 1973. Response errors in Canadian waterfowl surveys. Journal of Wildlife Management 37:485-491.
16. SPARROWE, R. D., AND J. H. PATTERSON. 1987. Conclusions and recommendations from studies under stabilized duck hunting regulations; management implications and future directions. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 52:320-326.
17. SCHWARZ, N. 1990. Assessing frequency reports of mundane behavior: contributions of cognitive psychology to questionnaire construction. Pages 98-119 in C. Hendrick and M. Clark, editors. Research methods in personality and social psychology. Sage, Newbury Park, California, USA.
18. _, AND S. SUDMAN, editors. 1992. Context effects in social and psychological research. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA.
19. SUDMAN, S., AND N. M. BRADBURN. 1974. Response effects in surveys: a review and synthesis. Aldine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
20. _, AND N. SCHWARZ. 1996. Thinking about answers: the application of cognitive processes to survey methodology. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California, USA.
21. TARRANT, M. A., AND M. J. MANFREDO. 1993. Digit preference, recall bias, and nonresponse bias in self reports of angling participation. Leisure Sciences 15:231-238.
22. TROST, R. E., D. E. SHARP, AND S. T. KELLY. 1987. Duck harvests and proximate factors influencing hunting activity and success during the period of stabilized regulations. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 52:216-232.
23. TVERSKY, A., AND D. KAHNEMAN. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124-1131.
24. VASKE, J. J., J. G. BEAMAN, M. J. MANFREDO, D. COVEY, AND R. KNOX. 1996. Response strategy, recall frame and digit preference in self-reports of angling participation. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1:54-68.
25. _, T. C. HUAN, AND J. G. BEAMAN. 2003. The use of multiples in anglers' recall of participation and harvest estimates: some results and implications. Leisure Sciences 25:399-410.
26. WILLIAMS, B. K., AND F. A. JOHNSON. 1995. Adaptive management and the regulation of waterfowl harvests. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:430-436.
27. _, AND K. WILKINS. 1996. Uncertainty and the adaptive management of waterfowl harvests. Journal of Wildlife Management 60:223-232.
28. WRIGHT, V. L. 1978. Causes and effects of biases on waterfowl harvest estimates. Journal of Wildlife Management 42:215-262.