Timepieces: Components of survey question response latencies

Political Psychology

Volumn 25, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 679-702

  Johnson, Martin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Attitude accessibility; Political attitudes; Response latency; Survey methodology

Indexed keywords

EID: 6344294433     PISSN: 0162895X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00393.x     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Asher, H. B. (1974). Some consequences of measurement error in survey data. American Journal of Political Science, 18, 469-485.
2. Bargh, J. A., Lombardi, W. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1988). Automaticity of chronically accessible constructs in person x situation effects on person perception: It's just a matter of time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 599-605.
3. Bassili, J. N. (1993). Response latency versus certainty as indexes of strength of voting intentions in a CATI survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 54-61.
4. Bassili, J. N. (1996a). Meta-judgmental versus operative indexes of psychological attributes: The case of measures of attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 637-653.
5. Bassili, J. N. (1996b). The how and why of response latency measurement in telephone surveys. In N. Schwarz & S. Sudman (Eds.), Answering questions (pp. 319-346). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6. Bassili, J. N. (2000). Editor's introduction: Reflections on response latency measurement in telephone surveys. Political Psychology, 21, 1-6.
7. Bassili, J. N., & Fletcher, J. F. (1991). Response-time measurement in survey research: A method for CATI and a new look at nonattitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 331-346.
8. Bassili, J. N., & Krosnick, J. A. (2000). Do strength-related attitude properties determine susceptibility to response effects? New evidence from response latency, attitude extremity, and aggregate indices. Political Psychology, 21, 107-132.
9. Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., & Jones, B. S. (1997). Time is of the essence: Event history models in political science. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 1414-1461.
10. Brebner, J. M. T., & Welford, A. T. (1980). Introduction: An historical background sketch. In A. T. Welford (Ed.), Reaction times (pp. 1-23). New York: Academic Press.
11. Converse, P. E. (1970). Attitudes and non-attitudes: A continuation of a dialogue. In E. Tufte (Ed.), The quantitative analysis of social problems (pp. 168-289). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
12. Davis, D. W. (1997). The direction of race of interviewer effects among African-Americans: Donning the black mask. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 309-322.
13. Donders, F. C. (1969). On the speed of mental processes [Over de snelheid van psychische processen; W. G. Koster, Trans.]. Acta Psychologica, 30, 412-431. (Original work published 1868).
14. Fazio, R. H. (1990a). A practical guide for the use of response latency in social psychological research. In C. Hendrick & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Research methods in personality and social psychology (pp. 74-97). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
15. Fazio, R. H. (1990b). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an integrative framework. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 75-109.
16. Fazio, R. H. (1995). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 247-282). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C., & Kardes, F. R. (1986). On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 229-238.
18. Fazio, R. H., & Williams, C. J. (1986). Attitude accessibility as a moderator of the attitude-perception and attitude-behavior relationship: An investigation of the 1984 presidential election. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 505-514.
19. Finkel, S., Gutterbock, T. M., & Borg, M. J. (1991). Race-of-interviewer effects in a preelection poll: Virginia 1989. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 313-330.
20. Hamm, V. P., & Hasher, L. (1992). Age and the availability of inferences. Psychology and Aging, 7, 56-64.
21. Huckfeldt, R., Levine, J., Morgan, W., & Sprague, J. (1998). Election campaigns, social communication, and the accessibility of perceived discussant preference. Political Behavior, 20, 263-294.
22. Huckfeldt, R., Levine, J., Morgan, W., & Sprague, J. (1999). Accessibility and the political utility of partisan and ideological orientations. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 888-911.
23. Huckfeldt, R., Sprague, J., & Levine, J. (2000). The dynamics of collective deliberation in the 1996 election: Campaign effects on accessibility, certainty, and accuracy. American Political Science Review, 94, 641-651.
24. Johnson, M., Shively, W. P., & Stein, R. M. (2002). Contextual data and the study of elections and voting behavior: Connecting individuals to environments. Electoral Studies, 21, 219-233.
25. King, G. (1989). Unifying political methodology: The likelihood theory of statistical inference. New York: Cambridge University Press.
26. Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537-567.
27. Lodge, M., & Taber, C. (2000). Three steps toward a theory of motivated reasoning. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason (pp. 183-213). New York: Cambridge University Press.
28. Luce, R. D. (1986). Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. New York: Oxford University Press.
29. Mulligan, K., Grant, J. T., Mockabee, S. T., & Monson, J. Q. (2003). Getting more from public opinion data: Response latency methodology for survey research. Political Analysis, 11, 289-301.
30. Pachella, R. G. (1974). Interpretation of reaction time. In B. H. Kantowitz (Ed.), Human information processing: Performance and cognition (pp. 41-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. Radvansky, G. A., Zacks, R. T., & Hasher, L. (1996). Fact retrieval in younger and older adults: The role of mental models. Psychology and Aging, 11, 258-271.
32. Schupp, H. T., Cuthbert, B. N., Bradley, M. M., Cacioppo, J. T., Ito, T., & Lang, P. J. (2000). Affective picture processing: The late positive potential is modulated by motivational relevance. Psychophysiology, 37, 257-261.
33. Tomz, M., Wittenberg, J., & King, G. (2003, 5 January). CLARIFY: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results, version 2.1 (http://gking.harvard.edu).
34. Tourangeau, R., & Rasinski, K. A. (1988). Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 299-314.
35. Visser, P. S., & Krosnick, J. A. (1998). The development of attitude strength over the lifecycle: Surge and decline. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1389-1410.