Variations in response style behavior by response scale format in attitude research

International Journal of Public Opinion Research

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 320-342

  Kieruj, Natalia D ^a   Moors, Guy ^a  

^a TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956607809     PISSN: 09542892     EISSN: 14716909     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ijpor/edq001     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Alwin, D. F. (1992). Information transmission in the survey interview: Number of response categories and the reliability of attitude measurement. Sociological Methodology, 22, 83-118.
2. Alwin, D. F. (1997). Feeling thermometers versus 7-point scales. Which are better? Sociological Methods and Research, 25, 318-340.
3. Alwin, D. F., & Krosnick, J. A. (1991). The reliability of survey attitude measurement: The influence of question and respondent attributes. Sociological Methods Research, 20, 139-181.
4. Arce-Ferrer, A. J., & Ketterer, J. J. (2003). The effect of scale tailoring for crosscultural application on scale reliability and construct validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 484-501.
5. Austin, E. J., Deary, I. J., & Egan, V. (2006). Individual differences in response scale use: Mixed Rasch modelling of responses to NEO-FFI items. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1235-1245.
6. Baumgartner, H., & Steenkamp, J. E. M. (2001). Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 143-156.
7. Billiet, J. B., & Davidov, E. (2008). Testing the stability of an acquiescence style factor behind two interrelated substantive variables in a panel design. Sociologicial Methods Research, 36, 542-562.
8. Billiet, J. B., & McClendon, M. J. (2000). Modelling acquiescence in measurement models for two balanced sets of items. Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 608-628.
9. Bogner, F. X., & Wiseman, M. (1999). Towards measuring adolescent environmental perception. European Psychologist, 4, 139-151.
10. Borgers, N., Hox, J., & Sikkel, D. (2004). Response effects in surveys on children and adolescents: The effect of number of response options, negative wording, and neutral mid-point. Quality & Quantity, 38, 17-33.
11. Cicchetti, D. V., Shoinralter, D., & Tyrer, P. J. (1985). The effect of number of rating scale categories on levels of interrater reliability: Monte Carlo investigation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 31-36.
12. Clarke, I. (2001). Extreme response style in cross-cultural research. International Marketing Review, 18, 301-324.
13. Dolnicar, S., & Grün, B. (2007). Analytical robustness in cross-cultural comparisons. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 1, 140-160.
14. Hamid, P. N., Lai, J. C. L., & Cheung, S. (2001). Response bias and public private self-consciousness in Chinese. Social Behaviour and Personality, 29, 733-742.
15. Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1989). Effects of culture and response format on extreme response style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 296-309.
16. Hurley, J. R. (1998). Timidity as a response style to psychological questionnaires. The Journal of Psychology, 132, 202-210.
17. Institute of Social and Political Opinion Research (ISPO) (1997). 1995 General election study Belgium-Flanders [Questionnaire and code book]. Retrieved, October 1, 2009, from http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/findingData.
18. International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) (2002). Family and Gender Roles III [Questionnaire and code book]. Retrieved, October 1, 2009, from http://www .issp.org/data.shtml.
19. Johnson, T. R., Kulesa, P., Cho, Y. I., & Shavitt, S. (2005). The relation between culture and response styles: Evidence from 19 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 264-277.
20. Kalton, G., Roberts, J., & Holt, D. (1980). The effects of offering a middle response option with opinion questions. The Statistician, 29, 65-78.
21. Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 213-236.
22. Krosnick, J. A., & Berent, M. K. (1993). Comparisons of party identification and policy preferences: The impact of survey question format. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 941-964.
23. Krosnick, J. A., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997). Designing rating scales for effective measurement in surveys. In L. Lyberg, P. Biemer, M. Collins, L. Decker, E. DeLeeuw, C. Dippo, N. Schwarz & D. Trewin (Eds.), Survey Measurement and Process Quality (pp. 141-164). New York: Wiley-Interscience.
24. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1-55.
25. Magidson, J., & Vermunt, J. K. (2001). Latent class factor and cluster models, biplots and related graphical displays. Sociological Methodology, 31, 223-264.
26. Mandal, M. K., Ida, Y., Harizuka, S., & Upadhaya, N. (1999). Cultural difference in hand preference: Evidence from India and Japan. International Journal of Psychology, 34, 59-66.
27. Marín, G., Gamba, R. J., & Marín, B. (1992). Extreme response style and acquiescence among Hispanics. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 23, 498-509.
28. Meisenberg, G., & Williams, A. (2008). Are acquiescent and extreme response styles related to low intelligence and education? Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1539-1550.
29. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number of seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. The Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
30. Moors, G. (2003). Diagnosing response style behaviour by means of a latent class factor approach. Socio-demographic correlates of gender role attitudes and perceptions of ethnic discrimination re-examined. Quality & Quantity, 37, 277-302.
31. Moors, G. (2008). Exploring the effect of a middle response category on response style in attitude measurement. Quality & Quantity, 42, 779-794.
32. Muñiz, J., García-Cueto, E., & Lozano, L. M. (2005). Item format and the psychometric properties of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 61-69.
33. O'Muircheartaigh, C., Krosnick, J. A., & Helic, A. (2000). Middle alternatives, acquiescence, and the quality of questionnaire data. Retrieved, October 1, 2009, from http:// harrisschool.uchicago.edu/About/publications.
34. Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver & L. S. Wright (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17-59). San Diego: Academic Press.
35. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
36. Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104, 1-15.
37. Raaijmakers, Q. A. W., Van Hoof, A., 't Hart, H., Verbogt, T. F. M. A., & Vollebergh, W. A. M. (2000). Adolescents' midpoint responses on likert-type scale items: Neutral or missing values? International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 12, 208-216.
38. Saris, W. E. (1988). Variation in response functions: A source of measurement error in attitude research. Amsterdam: Sociometric Research Foundation.
39. Scherpenzeel, A., & Saris, W. E. (1997). The validity and reliability of survey questions: A meta-analysis of MTMM studies. Sociological Methods and Research, 25, 341-383.
40. Schwartz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54, 93-105.
41. Si, S. X., & Cullen, J. B. (1998). Response categories and potential cultural bias: Effects of an explicit middle point in cross-cultural surveys. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 6, 218-230.
42. Stening, B. W., & Everett, J. E. (1984). Response styles in a cross-cultural managerial study. Journal of Social Psychology, 122, 151-156.
43. Symonds, P. M. (1924). On the loss of reliability in ratings due to coarseness of the scale. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 7, 456-461.
44. Thomas, R., Uldall, B., & Krosnick, J. A. (2004). How many are too many? Number of response categories and validity. Retrieved, October 1, 2009, from http://www .allacademic.com/meta/p116103-index.html.
45. Thompson, S. C. G., & Barton, M. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 149-157.
46. Tourangeau, R., & Smith, T. W. (1996). Asking sensitive questions: The impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 275-304.
47. Van Herk, H., Poortinga, Y. H., & Verhallen, T. M. M. (2004). Response styles in rating scales: Evidence of method bias in data from six EU countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 346-360.
48. Weathers, D., Sharma, S., & Niedrich, R. W. (2005). The impact of the number of scale points, dispositional factors, and the status quo decision heuristic on scale reliability and response accuracy. Journal of Business Research, 58, 1516-1524.
49. Weijters, B. (2006). Response styles in consumer research Retrieved, October 1, 2009, from http://www.feb.ugent.be/nl/index.asp.
50. Weng, L. (2004). Impact of the number of response categories and anchor labels on coefficient alpha and test-retest reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 965-972.