Bipolarity and/or duality of social survey measurement scales and the question-order effect

Quality and Quantity

Volumn 47, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 839-852

  Hafner Fink, Mitja ^a   Uhan, Samo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA   (Slovenia)

Author keywords

Attitudes; Bipolarity; Context effects; Duality; Measurement equivalence; Measurement scales

Indexed keywords

EID: 84872661822     PISSN: 00335177     EISSN: 15737845     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11135-011-9569-z     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Cambré, B., Welkenhuysen-Gybels, J., Billiet, J.: Is it content or style? An evaluation of two measurement models applied to a balanced set of ethnocentrism items. IJCS (2002). doi: 10. 1177/002071520204300101.
2. Cheung, M. W.-L., Leung, K., Au, K.: Evaluating multilevel models in cross-cultural research: an illustration with social axioms. JCCP (2006). doi: 10. 1177/0022022106290476.
3. Fishbein M., Ajzen I.: Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, London (1975).
4. Hair, M.: Using an individual differences perspective to investigate context effects in surveys: a test of the belief-sampling model. IJPOR (2005). doi: 10. 1093/ijpor/edho49.
5. Hittner, J. B.: Factorial invariance of the 13-item sense of coherence scale across gender. JHP (2007). doi: 10. 1177/1359105307074256.
6. Johnson, T. P., O'Rourke, D., Severns, E.: Effects of question context and response order on attitude questions. In: 1998 Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, pp. 857-860. American Statistical Association, Alexandria, VA (1999). http://www. amstat. org/sections/srms/proceedings/. Accessed 14 September 2009.
7. Krosnick J. A.: The impact of cognitive sophistication and attitude importance on response order and question-order effects. In: Schwartz, N., Sudman, S. (eds) Context Effects in Social and Psychological Research, pp. 203-218. Springer, New York (1992).
8. Li, T., Wehr, K.: The validity of the factor structure of the general social survey environmentalism scales across gender and ethnicity in the United States. Organ. Environ. (2007). doi: 10. 1177/1086026607306461.
9. MacIntosh R.: A confirmatory factor analysis of the affect balance scale in 38 nations: a research note. Soc. Psychol. Q. 61, 83-91 (1998).
10. Marsh H. W., Hocevar D.: Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First- and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychol. Bull. 97, 562-582 (1985).
11. Ostrom T. M.: Bipolar survey items: an information-processing perspective. In: Hippler, H.-J., Schwartz, N., Sudman, S. (eds) Social Information Processing and Survey Methodology, pp. 71-85. Springer, New York (1987).
12. Ostrom T., Betz A. M., Skowronski J. J.: Cognitive representation of bipolar survey items. In: Schwartz, N., Sudman, S. (eds) Context Effects in Social and Psychological Research, pp. 297-311. Springer, New York (1992).
13. Schuman H., Presser S.: Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments in Question Form, Wording, and Context. Academic Press, New York (1981).
14. Smith, T. W.: Ballot position: an analysis of context effects related to rotation design (GSS Methodological Report No. 55). NORC, Chicago (1988).
15. Smith T. W.: Thoughts on the nature of context effects. In: Schwartz, N., Sudman, S. (eds) Context Effects in Social and Psychological Research, pp. 163-184. Springer, New York (1992).
16. Spini, D.: Measurement equivalence of 10 value types from the Schwartz value survey across 21 countries. JCCP (2003). doi: 10. 1177/0022022102239152.
17. Sudman S., Bradbourn N. M., Schwartz N.: Thinking About Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco (1996).
18. Tourangeau R., Rasinski K. A.: Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement. Psychol. Bull. 103, 299-314 (1988).
19. Tourangeau, R., Singer, E., Presser, S.: Context effects in attitude surveys. Effects on remote items and impact on predictive validity. SMR (2003). doi: 10. 1177/0049124103251950.
20. Zaller J., Feldman S.: A simple theory of the survey response: answering questions versus revealing preferences. Am. J. Political Sci. 36, 579-616 (1992).