Web Survey Bibliography
Title Measuring Generalized Trust: An Examination of Question Wording and the Number of Scale Points
Author Lundmark, S.; Giljam, M.; Dahlberg, S.
Source Public Opinion Quarterly (POQ), 80, 1, pp. 26-43
Year 2016
Access date 06.02.2016
Abstract Survey institutes recently have changed their measurement of generalized trust from the standard dichotomous scale to an 11-point scale. Additionally, numerous survey institutes use different question wordings: where most rely on the standard, fully balanced question (asking if “most people can be trusted or that you need to be very careful in dealing with people”), some use minimally balanced questions, asking only if it is “possible to trust people.” By using two survey-embedded experiments, one with 12,009 self-selected respondents and the other with a probability sample of 2,947 respondents, this study evaluates the generalized trust question in terms of question wording and number of scale points used. Results show that, contrary to the more commonly used standard question format (used, for example, by the American National Election Studies and the General Social Survey), generalized trust is best measured with a minimally balanced question wording accompanied with either a seven- or an 11-point scale.
Access/Direct link Oxford Journals (Abstract) / (Full text)
Year of publication2016
Bibliographic typeJournal article
Web survey bibliography - Measurement (1822)
- Forecasting proportional representation elections from non-representative expectation surveys; 2016; Graefe, A.
- Short and Sweet? Length and Informative Content of Open-Ended Responses Using SMS as a Research Mode; 2016; Walsh, E.; Brinker, J. K.
- Adaptive survey designs to minimize survey mode effects – a case study on the Dutch Labor Force...; 2016; Calinescu, M.; Schouten, B.
- Mixing modes of data collection in Swiss social surveys: Methodological report of the LIVES-FORS mixed...; 2016; Roberts, C.; Joye, D.; Staehli, M. E.
- What is the gain in a probability-based online panel to provide Internet access to sampling units that...; 2016; Revilla, M.; Cornilleau, A.; Cousteaux, A-S.; Legleye, S; de Pedraza, P.
- Assessing targeted approach letters: effects in different modes on response rates, response speed and...; 2016; Lynn, P.
- New Generation of Online Questionnaires?; 2016; Revilla, M.; Ochoa, C.; Turbina, A.
- The Analysis of Respondent’s Behavior toward Edit Messages in a Web Survey; 2016; Park, Y.
- Comparing online and telephone survey results in the context of a skin cancer prevention campaign evaluation...; 2016; Hollier, L.P.; Pettigrew, S.; Slevin, T.; Strickland, M.; Minto, C.
- Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk; 2016; Berinsky, A.; Huber, G. A.; Lenz, G. S.
- Setting Up an Online Panel Representative of the General Population The German Internet Panel; 2016; Blom, A. G.; Gathmann, C.; Krieger, U.
- Report of the Inquiry into the 2015 British general election opinion polls; 2016; Sturgis, P., Baker, N., Callegaro, M., Fisher, St., Green, J., Jennings, W., Kuha, J., Lauderdale, B...
- Effects of Data Collection Mode and Response Entry Device on Survey Response Quality; 2016; Ha, L.; Zhang, Che.; Jiang, W.
- The Dynamic Identity Fusion Index: A New Continuous Measure of Identity Fusion for Web-Based Questionnaires...; 2016; Jimenez, J.; Gomez, A.; Buhrmester, M.; Whitehouse, H.; Swann, W. B.
- Recommended Practices for the design of business surveys questionnaires; 2016; Macchia, S.
- Web-based versus Paper-based Survey Data: An Estimation of Road Users’ Value of Travel Time Savings...; 2016; Kato, H.; Sakashita, A.; Tsuchiya, Tak.
- Respondents of a follow-up web-based survey; 2016; Stoddard, S. A.; Amparo, P.; Popick, H.; Yudd, R.; Sujeer, A.; Baath, M.
- An Examination of Opposing Responses on Duplicated Multi-Mode Survey Responses; 2016; Djangali, A.
- Reducing Underreports of Behaviors in Retrospective Surveys: The Effects of Three Different Strategies...; 2016; Lugtig, P. J.; Glasner, T.; Boeve, A.
- Participant recruitment and data collection through Facebook: the role of personality factors; 2016; Rife, S. C.; Cate, K. L.; Kosinski, M.; Stillwell, D.
- Quantifying Under- and Overreporting in Surveys Through a Dual-Questioning-Technique Design. ; 2016; de Jong , M.; Fox, J.-P.; Steenkamp, J. - B. E. M.
- The use and positioning of clarification features in web surveys; 2016; Metzler, A., Kunz, T., Fuchs, M.
- Online Surveys are Mixed-Device Surveys. Issues Associated with the Use of Different (Mobile) Devices...; 2016; Toepoel, V.; Lugtig, P. J.
- Electronic and paper based data collection methods in library and information science research: A comparative...; 2016; Tella, A.
- A Technical Guide to Effective and Accessible web Surveys; 2016; Baatard, G.
- The Validity of Surveys: Online and Offline; 2016; Wiersma, W.
- Methods can matter: Where Web surveys produce different results than phone interviews; 2016; Keeter, S.
- Computer-assisted and online data collection in general population surveys; 2016; Skarupova, K.
- Sunday shopping – The case of three surveys; 2016; Bethlehem, J.
- Creation and Usability Testing of a Web-Based Pre-Scanning Radiology Patient Safety and History Questionnaire...; 2016; Robinson, T. J.; DuVall, S.; Wiggins III, R
- Comprehension and engagement in survey interviews with virtual agents; 2016; Conrad, F. G.; Schober, M. F.; Jans, M.; Orlowski, R. A.; Nielsen, D.; Levenstein, R. M.
- Improving social media measurement in surveys: Avoiding acquiescence bias in Facebook research; 2016; Kuru, O.; Pasek, J.
- Psychological research in the internet age: The quality of web-based data; 2016; Ramsey, S. R.; Thompson, K. L.; McKenzie, M.; Rosenbaum, A.
- Moderators of Candidate Name-Order Effects in Elections: An Experiment; 2016; Kim, Nu.; Krosnick, J. A.; Casasanto, D.
- Measuring Generalized Trust: An Examination of Question Wording and the Number of Scale Points; 2016; Lundmark, S.; Giljam, M.; Dahlberg, S.
- Equivalence of paper-and-pencil and computerized self-report surveys in older adults; 2016; Weigold, A.; Weigold, I. K.; Drakeford, M. K.; Dykema, S. A.; Smith, C. A.
- Quality of Different Scales in an Online Survey in Mexico and Colombia; 2016; Revilla, M.; Ochoa, C.
- A multi-group analysis of online survey respondent data quality: Comparing a regular USA consumer panel...; 2016; Golden, L.; Albaum, G.; Roster, C. A.; Smith, S. M.
- Does the Inclusion of Non-Internet Households in a Web Panel Reduce Coverage Bias?; 2016; Eckman, S.
- Investigating respondent multitasking in web surveys using paradata; 2016; Sendelbah, A.; Vehovar, V.; Slavec, A.; Petrovcic, A.
- Respondent Conditioning in Online Panel Surveys: Results of Two Field Experiments; 2016; Struminskaya, B.
- Swapping bricks for clicks: Crowdsourcing longitudinal data on Amazon Turk; 2016; Daly, T. M.; Nataraajan, R.
- A reliability analysis of Mechanical Turk data; 2016; Rouse, S. V.
- Quota Controls in Survey Research.; 2016; Gittelman, S. H.; Thomas, R. K.; Lavrakas, P. J.; Lange, V.
- Presentation matters: how mode effects in item non-response depend on the presentation of response options...; 2016; Zeglovits, E.; Schwarzer, S.
- Internet-administered Health-related Quality of Life Questionnaires Compared With Pen and Paper in an...; 2016; Nitikman, M.; Mulpuri, K.; Reilly, C. W.
- Scientific Surveys Based on Incomplete Sampling Frames and High Rates of Nonresponse; 2016; Fahimi, M.; Barlas, F. M.; Thomas, R. K.; Buttermore, N. R.
- Doing Surveys Online ; 2016; Toepoel, V.
- Exploring Factors in Contributing Student Progress in the Open University; 2016; Arifin, M. H.
- Are Fast Responses More Random? Testing the Effect of Response Time on Scale in an Online Choice Experiment...; 2015; Boerger, T.