What is sexual harassment? It depends on who asks! Framing effects on survey responses

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 189-202

  Galesic, Mirta ^a   Tourangeau, Roger ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPUTER; FEMALE; FREQUENCY ANALYSIS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; SEXUAL HARASSMENT; WEB BROWSER;

EID: 33947193977     PISSN: 08884080     EISSN: 10990720     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acp.1336     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Bachman, R. (2000). Violence against women: Synthesis of research for criminal justice policy-makers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
2. Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, efficiency, intention, and control in social cognition. In R. S. Wyer, Jr, & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (2nd ed., pp. 1-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Cowan, C. D., Murphy, L. R., & Weiner, J. (1978). Effects of supplemental questions on victimization estimates from the National Crime Survey. In Proceedings of the American Statistical Association Section on Survey Research Methods 1978 (pp. 277-282). Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.
4. Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18.
5. Fisher, B. S., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). Measuring the sexual victimization of women: Evolution, current controversies, and future research. Criminal Justice, 4, 317-390.
6. Fisher, B. S. (2004). Measuring rape against women: The significance of survey questions. DC: National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ 199705.
7. Foulis, D., & McCabe, M. (1997). Sexual harassment: Factors affecting attitudes and perceptions. Sex Roles, 37, 773-798.
8. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9. Gutek, B. A., Murphy, R. O., & Dourna, B. (2004). A review and critique of the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ). Law and Human Behavior 28, 457-482.
10. Kadela Collins, K. (2003). Sexual harassment in the workplace - An online survey. Retrieved 12/l/2005 from http://www.mimh.edu/shw/
11. Kleck, G., & Gertz, M. (1995). Armed resistance to crime: The prevalence and nature of self-defense with a gun. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 150-187.
12. Kleck, G. (1997). Targeting guns: Firearms and their control. NY Aldine de Gruyter.
13. Koss, M. (1992). The underdetection of rape: A review of prevalence research methods. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 63-75.
14. Koss, M. (1993). Detecting the scope of rape: A review of prevalence research methods. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8, 198-222.
15. Koss, M. (1996). The measurement of rape victimization in crime surveys. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 55-69.
16. Lynch, J. P. (1996). Clarifying divergent estimates of rape from two national surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 410-430.
17. Norenzayan, A., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Telling what they want to know: Participants tailor causal attributions to researchers' interests. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 1011-1020.
18. Presser, S., Blair, J., & Triplett, T. (1992). Survey sponsorship, response rates, and response effects. Social Science Quarterly, 73, 699-702.
19. Reilly, M. E., Lott, B., & Gallogly, S. M. (1986). Sexual harassment of university students. Sex Roles, 15, 333-358.
20. Schacter, D. L. (1987). Implicit memory: History and current status. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 13, 501-518.
21. Schober, M. F., & Conrad, F. G. (1997). Does conversational interviewing reduce survey measurement error? Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 576-602.
22. Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being, informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 513-523.
23. Smith, D. M., Schwarz, N., Roberts, T. R., & Ubel, P. A. (2006). Why are you calling me? How study introductions change response patterns. Quality of Life Research, 15, 621-630.
24. Strack, F., Schwarz, N., & Wänke, M. (1991). Semantic and pragmatic aspects of context effects in social and psychological research. Social Cognition, 9, 111-125.
25. Tourangeau, R., & McNeeley, M. (2003). Measuring crime and crime victimization: Methodological issues. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council.
26. Tourangeau, R., & Rasinski, K. (1988). Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 299-314.
27. Tourangeau, R., Rasinski, K., Bradburn, N., & D'Andrade, R. (1989a). Belief accessibility and context effects in attitude measurement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 401-421.
28. Tourangeau, R., Rasinski, K., Bradburn, N., & D'Andrade, R. (1989b). Carryover effects in attitude surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 53, 495-524.
29. Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.