Intra-individual variation of extreme response style in mixed-mode panel studies

Social Science Research

Volumn 42, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 957-970

  Aichholzer, Julian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

Extreme response style; Latent transition analysis; Mixed mode survey; Panel survey

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875804580     PISSN: 0049089X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.01.002     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Alwin D.F. Margins of Error: A Study of Reliability in Survey Measurement 2007, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
2. Austin E.J., Deary I.J., Egan V. Individual differences in response scale use: mixed Rasch modelling of responses to NEO-FFI items. Personality and Individual Differences 2006, 40:1235-1245.
3. Bachman J.G., O'Malley P.M. Yea-saying, nay-saying, and going to extremes: black-white differences in response styles. Public Opinion Quarterly 1984, 48:491-509.
4. Baldassarri D., Bearman P. Dynamics of political polarization. American Sociological Review 2007, 72:784-811.
5. Baumgartner H., Steenkamp J.-B.E.M. Response styles in marketing research: a cross-national investigation. Journal of Marketing Research 2001, 38:143-156.
6. Baumgartner H., Steenkamp J.-B.E.M. An extended paradigm for measurement analysis of marketing constructs applicable to panel data. Journal of Marketing Research 2006, 43:431-442.
7. Billiet J.B., Davidov E. Testing the stability of an acquiescence style factor behind two interrelated substantive variables in a panel design. Sociological Methods & Research 2008, 36:542-562.
8. Bowling A. Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. Journal of Public Health 2005, 27:281-291.
9. Cantor D. A review and summary of studies on panel conditioning. Handbook of Longitudinal Research: Design Measurement and Analysis 2008, 123-138. Academic Press, Amsterdam. S. Menard (Ed.).
10. Cheung G.W., Rensvold R.B. Assessing extreme and acquiescence response sets in cross-cultural research using structural equations modeling. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 2000, 31:187-212.
11. Collins L.M., Lanza S.T. Latent Class and Latent Transition Analysis: With Applications in the Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences 2010, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
12. Converse P.E. The nature of belief systems in mass publics. Ideology and Discontent 1964, 206-226. Free Press, New York. D.E. Apter (Ed.).
13. Couch A., Keniston K. Yeasayers and naysayers: agreeing response set as a personality variable. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 1960, 60:151-174.
14. Couper M.P. The future of modes of data collection. Public Opinion Quarterly 2011, 75:889-908.
15. de Leeuw E.D. To mix or not to mix data collection modes in surveys. Journal of Official Statistics 2005, 21:233-255.
16. Dillman D.A., Phelps G., Tortora R., Swift K., Kohrell J., Berck J., Messer B.L. Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and the Internet. Social Science Research 2009, 38:1-18.
17. Eid M., Langeheine R. Separating stable from variable individuals in longitudinal studies by mixture distribution models. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective 2003, 1:179-206.
18. Eid M., Rauber M. Detecting measurement invariance in organizational surveys. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 2000, 16:20-30.
19. Greenleaf E.A. Measuring extreme response style. The Public Opinion Quarterly 1992, 56:328-351.
20. Groves R.M., Kahn R.L. Surveys by Telephone: A National Comparison with Personal Interviews 1979, Academic Press, New York.
21. Hagenaars J.A., McCutcheon A.L. Applied Latent Class Analysis 2002, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
22. Hui C.H., Triandis H.C. The instability of response sets. Public Opinion Quarterly 1985, 49:253-260.
23. INES, 2008. Irish National Election Study 2002-2007: Data Description and Documentation. <>. http://www.tcd.ie/ines/files/codebook_27_05_2009.pdf.
24. Jordan L.A., Marcus A.C., Reeder L.G. Response styles in telephone and household interviewing: a field experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly 1980, 44:210-222.
25. Kaminska O., McCutcheon A.L., Billiet J. Satisficing among reluctant respondents in a cross-national context. Public Opinion Quarterly 2010, 74:956-984.
26. Kieruj N.D., Moors G. Response style behavior: question format dependent or personal style? Quality & Quantity 2013, 47:193-211.
27. Krosnick J.A. Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology 1991, 5:213-236.
28. Krosnick J.A., Milburn M.A. Psychological determinants of political opinionation. Social Cognition 1990, 8:49-72.
29. Kuncel N.R., Tellegen A. A conceptual and empirical reexamination of the measurement of the social desirability of items: implications for detecting desirable response style and scale development. Personnel Psychology 2009, 62:201-228.
30. Lang F.R., John D., Lüdtke O., Schupp J., Wagner G.G. Short assessment of the Big Five: robust across survey methods except telephone interviewing. Behavior Research Methods 2011, 43:548-567.
31. Langeheine R., van de Pol F. Latent Markov Chains. Applied Latent Class Analysis 2002, 304-341. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. A.L. McCutcheon, J.A. Hagenaars (Eds.).
32. Laursen B., Hoff E. Person-centered and variable-centered approaches to longitudinal data. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly: Journal of Developmental Psychology 2006, 52:377-389.
33. Lazarsfeld P.F., Henry N.W. Latent Structure Analysis 1968, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
34. Le H., Schmidt F.L., Putka D.J. The multifaceted nature of measurement artifacts and its implications for estimating construct-level relationships. Organizational Research Methods 2009, 12:165-200.
35. Martin J., O'Muircheartaigh C., Curtice J. The use of CAPI for attitude surveys: an experimental comparison with traditional methods. Journal of Official Statistics 1993, 9:641-661.
36. Meisenberg G., Williams A. Are acquiescent and extreme response styles related to low intelligence and education?. Personality and Individual Differences 2008, 44:1539-1550.
37. Moors G. Diagnosing response style behavior by means of a latent-class factor approach: socio-demographic correlates of gender role attitudes and perceptions of ethnic discrimination reexamined. Quality & Quantity 2003, 37:277-302.
38. Morren M., Gelissen J., Vermunt J. The impact of controlling for extreme responding on measurement equivalence in cross-cultural research. Methodology 2012, 8:159-170.
39. Muthén, L.K., Muthén, B.O., 1998-2010. Mplus User's Guide. Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles, CA.
40. Narayan S., Krosnick J.A. Education moderates some response effects in attitude measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly 1996, 60:58-88.
41. Nylund, K.L., 2007. Latent Transition Analysis: Modeling Extensions and an Application to Peer Victimization, (Dissertation), UCLA, Los Angeles.
42. Paulhus D.L. Measurement and control of response bias. Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes 1991, 17-59. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver, L.S. Wright (Eds.).
43. Reinecke J. Latent class analysis with panel data: developments and applications. ZA-Information 1999, 44:137-157.
44. Revilla M. Quality in unimode and mixed-mode designs: a multitrait-multimethod approach. Survey Research Methods 2010, 4:151-164.
45. Rorer L.G. The great response-style myth. Psychological Bulletin 1965, 63:129-156.
46. Schuman H., Presser S. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording, and Context 1981, Academic Press, New York, NY.
47. Schwarz N., Strack F., Hippler H.-J., Bishop G. The impact of administration mode on response effects in survey measurement. Applied Cognitive Psychology 1991, 5:193-212.
48. Steyer R., Schmitt M., Eid M. Latent state-trait theory and research in personality and individual differences. European Journal of Personality 1999, 13:389-408.
49. Tourangeau R., Rips L.J., Rasinski K. The Psychology of Survey Response 2000, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
50. Van Vaerenbergh, Y., Thomas, T.D., in press. Response styles in survey research: a literature review of antecedents, consequences, and remedies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. doi:10.1093/ijpor/eds1021.
51. Vannieuwenhuyze, J.T.A., Loosveldt, G., in press. Evaluating relative mode effects in mixed-mode surveys: three methods to disentangle selection and measurement effects. Sociological Methods & Research. doi:10.1177/0049124112464868.
52. Visser P.S., Bizer G.Y., Krosnick J.A. Exploring the latent structure of strength-related attitude attributes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 2006, 38:1-67.
53. Visser P.S., Krosnick J.A. Development of attitude strength over the life cycle: surge and decline. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1998, 75:1389-1410.
54. Weijters, B., 2006. Response Styles in Consumer Research (Dissertation), Ghent University.
55. Weijters B., Geuens M., Schillewaert N. The individual consistency of acquiescence and extreme response style in self-report questionnaires. Applied Psychological Measurement 2010, 34:105-121.
56. Weijters B., Geuens M., Schillewaert N. The stability of individual response styles. Psychological Methods 2010, 15:96-110.
57. Weijters B., Schillewaert N., Geuens M. Assessing response styles across modes of data collection. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 2008, 36:409-422.
58. Weisberg H.F. The Total Survey Error Approach: A Guide to the New Science of Survey Research 2005, Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.
59. Ye C., Fulton J., Tourangeau R. More positive or more extreme? A meta-analysis of mode differences in response choice. Public Opinion Quarterly 2011, 75:349-365.