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 (109)
- Telephone versus Online Survey Modes for Election Studies: Comparing Canadian Public Opinion and Vote...; 2017; Breton, C.; Cutler, F.; Lachance, S.; Mierke-Zatwarnicki, A.
- Comparing acquiescent and extreme response styles in face-to-face and web surveys; 2017; Liu, M.; Conrad, F. G.; Lee, S.
- The Failure of the Polls: Lessons Learned from the 2015 UK Polling Disaster; 2017; Sturgis, P.
- Incorporating eye tracking into cognitive interviewing to pretest survey questions; 2016; Neuert, C.; Lenzner, T.
- Are interviews costing £0.08 a waste of money? Reviewing Google Surveys for Wisdom of the Crowd...; 2016; Roughton, G.; MacKay, I.
- The Effects of a Delayed Incentive on Response Rates, Response Mode, Data Quality, and Sample Bias in...; 2016; McGonagle, K., Freedman, V. A.
- Privacy Concerns in Responses to Sensitive Questions. A Survey Experiment on the Influence of Numeric...; 2016; Bader, F., Bauer, J., Kroher, M., Riordan, P.
- Does survey mode matter for studying electoral behaviour? Evidence from the 2009 German Longitudinal...; 2016; Bytzek, E.; Bieber, I. E.
- Forecasting proportional representation elections from non-representative expectation surveys; 2016; Graefe, A.
- Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk; 2016; Berinsky, A.; Huber, G. A.; Lenz, G. S.
- 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...
- Sample Representation and Substantive Outcomes Using Web With and Without Incentives Compared to Telephone...; 2016; Lipps, O.; Pekari, N.
- Evaluating a New Proposal for Detecting Data Falsification in Surveys; 2016; Simmons, K.; Mercer, A. W.; Schwarzer, S.; Courtney, K.
- Identifying Pertinent Variables for Nonresponse Follow-Up Surveys. Lessons Learned from 4 Cases in Switzerland...; 2016; Vandenplas, C.; Joye, D.; Staehli, M. E.; Pollien, A.
- Methods can matter: Where Web surveys produce different results than phone interviews; 2016; Keeter, S.
- HUFFPOLLSTER: Why Reaching Latinos Is A Challenge For Pollsters; 2016; Jackson, N. M.; Edwards-Levy, A.; Velencia, J.
- 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.
- Online and Social Media Data As an Imperfect Continuous Panel Survey; 2016; Diaz, F.; Garmon, F.; Hofman, J. K.; Kiciman, E.; Rothschild, D.
- Translating Answers to Open-ended Survey Questions in Cross-cultural Research: A Case Study on the Interplay...; 2015; Behr, D.
- Using Video to Reinvigorate the Open Question; 2015; Cape, P.
- On Bias Adjustments for Web Surveys; 2015; Fan, L.; Lou, W.; Landsman, V.
- Measuring Political Knowledge in Web-Based Surveys: An Experimental Validation of Visual Versus Verbal...; 2015; Munzert, S.; Selb, P.
- Mode System Effects in an Online Panel Study: Comparing a Probability-based Online Panel with two Face...; 2015; Struminskaya, B.; De Leeuw, E. D.; Kaczmirek, L.
- Data collection mode effect on feeling thermometer questions: A comparison of face-to-face and Web surveys...; 2015; Liu, M., Wang, Yi.
- Do Attempts to Improve Respondent Attention Increase Social Desirability Bias?; 2015; Clifford, S.; Jerit, J.
- HUFFPOLLSTER: Pollsters Debate If Modern Surveys Can Be Trusted; 2015; Blumenthal, M.; Edwards-Levy, A.; Velencia, J.
- Can a non-probabilistic online panel achieve question quality similar to that of the European Social...; 2015; Revilla, M.; Saris, W. E.; Loewe, G.; Ochoa, C.
- Data Collection Mode Effects On Political Knowledge; 2014; Liu, M., Wang, Y.
- Self-reported cheating in web surveys on political knowledge; 2014; Jensen, C., Thomsen, J. P. F.
- The Power of Partisanship in Brazil: Evidence from Survey Experiments; 2014; Samuels, D., Zucco, C.
- Online Polls and Registration-Based Sampling: A New Method for Pre-Election Polling; 2014; Barber, M. J., Mann, C. B., Monson, J. Q., Patterson, K. D.
- Does Survey Mode Still Matter? Findings from a 2010 Multi-Mode Comparison; 2014; Ansolabehere, S., Schaffner, B. F.
- Measuring Political Participation—Testing Social Desirability Bias in a Web-Survey Experiment; 2014; Persson, M., Solevid, M.
- What Does the Satisfaction with Democracy Measure Mean to Respondents in Different Countries? How Cross...; 2014; Behr, D., Braun, M.
- Professional respondents in nonprobability online panels; 2014; Hillygus, D. S., Jackson, N. M., Young, M.
- Online panels and validity; 2014; Groenlund, K., Strandberg, K.
- Two Are Better Than One: The Use of a Mixed-Mode Data Collection to Improve the Electoral Forecast; 2014; de Rada, V. D., Pasadas del Amo, S.
- The Short-term Campaign Panel of the German Longitudinal Election Study 2009. Design, Implementation...; 2013; Steinbrecher, M., Rossmann, J.
- Relative Mode Effects on Data Quality in Mixed-Mode Surveys by an Instrumental Variable; 2013; Vannieuwenhuyze, J. T. A., Revilla, M.
- Web Versus Outbound: A Mode Face-Off Following the Presidential Debate; 2013; Marlar, J.
- Propensity Score Weighting – Can Personality Adjust for Selectivity?; 2013; Glantz, A., Greszki, R.
- Especially for You: Motivating Respondents in an Internet Panel by Offering Tailored Questions; 2012; Oudejans, M.
- Presidential Elections in Iceland 2012 – Did online panel surveys give false hope to new candidates...; 2012; Jonsdottir, G. A., Dofradottir, A. G., Bjornsdottir, A. E.
- Effects of Technical Difficulties on Item Nonresponse and Response Favorability in a Mixed-Mode Survey...; 2012; Gibson, J. L.
- Where is Neutral? Using Negativity Biases to Interpret Thermometer Scores; 2012; Soroka, S., Albaugh, Q.
- I Got a Feeling: Comparison of Feeling Thermometers with Verbally Labeled Scales in Attitude Measurement...; 2012; Thomas, R. K., Bremer, J.
- Scrutinizing Dynamics – Rolling panel waves in theory and practice; 2012; Faas, T., Blumenberg, J. N.
- Toward wiser public judgment; 2011; Yankelovich, D., Friedman, W.
- Mass informed consent: Evidence on upgrading democracy with polls and new media; 2011; Simon, A. F.