Web Survey Bibliography
Title Respondent Processing of Rating Scales and the Scale Direction Effect
Author Caporaso, A.
Year 2016
Access date 09.06.2016
Abstract
Holding constant other scale features, the direction in which a scale is presented has been found to affect the resulting survey answers; respondents are more likely to select a scale point closer to the start of the scale regardless of its direction, producing primacy effects (Yan, 2015). What remains understudied is the mechanism underlying this scale direction effect. Two common response processing models are offered as possible explanations for these effects: satisficing, and anchoring and adjusting. The satisficing model treats the impact of scale direction as a special case of response order effect and argues that satisficers sequentially process the rating scale and select the first option that seems reasonable. The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic assumes that respondents start with an initial anchor (the beginning of a scale) and make adjustments to the anchor until a plausible point is reached. Since both notions predict a primacy effect, it is hard to know which notion offers a better account for scale direction effect. To learn more about what’s behind scale direction effects, we will collect eye tracking data from respondents’ as they respond to a web survey. As the eye movement data (e.g., fixation counts and fixation duration) show directly the amount of attention paid to question components, we will first characterize how respondents process a rating scale and how the processing differs respondent characteristics. Then we will explore which of the two notions account for the scale direction effect. This paper demonstrates how eye-tracking can be used to address theoretical issues related to respondents’ use of rating scales.
Access/Direct link Conference Homepage (abstract)
Year of publication2016
Bibliographic typeConferences, workshops, tutorials, presentations
Web survey bibliography - 2016 (264)
- Are Final Comments in Web Survey Panels Associated with Next-Wave Attrition?; 2016; McLauchlan, C.; Schonlau, M.
- Estimation and Adjustment of Self-Selection Bias in Volunteer Panel Web Surveys ; 2016; Niu, Ch.
- Facebook, Twitter, & Qr codes: An exploratory trial examining the feasibility of social media mechanisms...; 2016; Gu, L. L.; Skierkowski, D.; Florin, P.; Friend, K.; Ye, Y.
- Sensitive Questions in Online Surveys: An Experimental Evaluation of Different Implementations of the...; 2016; Hoglinger, M.; Jann, B.; Diekmann, A.
- Design and test of a web-survey for collecting observer’s ratings on dairy goats’ behavioural...; 2016; Vieira, A.; Oliveira, M. D.; Nunes, T.; Stilwell, G.
- Análisis de herramientas gratuitas para el diseño de cuestionarios on-line; 2016; Montoya, L. S.; Farran, C. X.; Catala, C. M.
- Participation in an Intensive Longitudinal Study with Weekly Web Surveys Over 2.5 Years; 2016; Barber, J. S.; Kusunoki, Y.; Gatny, H. H.; Schulz, P.
- Helping respondents provide good answers in Web surveys; 2016; Couper, M. P.; Zhang, C.
- Geht’s auch mit der Maus? – Eine Methodenstudie zu Online-Befragungen in der Jugendforschung...; 2016; Heim, R.; Konowalczyk, S.; Grgic, M.; Seyda, M.; Burrmann, U.; Rauschenbach, T.
- Shorter Interviews, Longer Surveys: Optimising the survey participant experience whilst accommodating...; 2016; Halder, A.; Bansal, H. S.; Knowles, R.; Eldridge, J.; Murray, Mi.
- Gamifying. Not all fun and games; 2016; Stubington, P.; Crichton, C.
- Are interviews costing £0.08 a waste of money? Reviewing Google Surveys for Wisdom of the Crowd...; 2016; Roughton, G.; MacKay, I.
- Observations from Twelve Years of an Annual Market Research Technology Survey; 2016; Macer, T.; Wilson, S.
- FocusVision 2015 Annual MR Technology Report; 2016; Macer, T., Wilson, S.
- The Effects of a Delayed Incentive on Response Rates, Response Mode, Data Quality, and Sample Bias in...; 2016; McGonagle, K., Freedman, V. A.
- Can Student Populations in Developing Countries Be Reached by Online Surveys? The Case of the National...; 2016; Langer, A., Meuleman, B., Oshodi, A.-G. T., Schroyens, M.
- The Effects of Vignette Placement on Attitudes Toward Supporting Family Members; 2016; Lau, C. Q., Seltzer, J. A., Bianchi, S. M.
- Comparisons of Online Recruitment Strategies for Convenience Samples: Craigslist, Google AdWords, Facebook...; 2016; Antoun, C., Zhang, C., Conrad, F. G., Schober, M. F.
- Comparing Cognitive Interviewing and Online Probing: Do They Find Similar Results?; 2016; Meitinger, K., Behr, D.
- A new model for concept evaluation; 2016; Allen, D. R.
- Feature phones no barrier to conducting an effective conjoint study ; 2016; de Rooij, R.; Dossin, R.
- A look at the unique data-gathering process behind the Harvard Impact Study; 2016; Vitale, J.
- Research gamification for quality pharmaceutical stakeholder insights; 2016; Mondry, B.; Fink, L.
- The impact of survey duration on completion rates among Millennial respondents ; 2016; Coates, D.; Bliss, M.; Vivar, X.
- SurveyTester from Knowledge Navigators ; 2016; Macer, T.
- Marrying passive and custom data for effective mobile targeting; 2016; King, K.; Stevens, N.
- Simplifying your mobile solution; 2016; Berry, K.
- How to maximize survey response rates ; 2016; DeVall, R.; Colby, C.
- Participation rates of childhood cancer survivors to self-administered questionnaires: a systematic...; 2016; Kilsdonk, E.; Wendel, E.; van Dulmen-den Broeder, E.; van Leeuwen, F.E.; Van Den Berg, M. H.; Jaspers...
- Google's MIDAS Touch: Predicting UK Unemployment with Internet Search Data; 2016; Smith, Pau.
- Patient preference: a comparison of electronic patient-completed questionnaires with paper among cancer...; 2016; Martin, P.; Brown, M.C.; Espin‐Garcia, O.; Cuffe, S.; Pringle, D.; Mahler, M.; Villeneuve, J.;...
- Mixed Mode Research: Issues in Design and Analysis; 2016; Hox, J.; De Leeuw, E. D.; Klausch, L. T.
- Does the Use of Smartphones to Participate in Web Surveys Affect the Survey Experience when Sensitive...; 2016; Toninelli, D.; Revilla, M.
- Device use in web surveys: The effect of differential incentives; 2016; Mavletova, A. M.; Couper, M. P.
- Device Effects - How different screen sizes affect answers in online surveys; 2016; Fisher, B.; Bernet, F.
- Effects of motivating question types with graphical support in multi channel design studies; 2016; Luetters, H.; Friedrich-Freksa, M.; Vitt, SGoldstein, D. G.
- Analyzing Cognitive Burden of Survey Questions with Paradata: A Web Survey Experiment; 2016; Hoehne, J. K.; Schlosser, S.; Krebs, D.
- Why Do Web Surveys Take Longer on Smartphones?; 2016; Couper, M. P.; J. J.Peterson, G. J.
- Do Initial Respondents Differ From Callback Respondents? Lessons From a Mobile CATI Survey; 2016; Vicente, P.; Marques, C.
- Secondary Respondent Consent in the German Family Panel; 2016; Schmiedeberg, C.; Castiglioni, L.; Schroeder, J.
- Online Focus Group Discussion is a Valid and Feasible Mode When Investigating Sensitive Topics Among...; 2016; Wettergren, L.; Eriksson, L. E.; Nilsson, J.; Jarvaeus, A.; Lampic, C.
- A look into the challenges of mixed-mode surveys; 2016; Klausch, L. T.
- The use of online social networks as a promotional tool for self-administered internet surveys; 2016; de Rada, V. D.; Arino, L. V. C; Blasco, M. G
- Optimizing Self-response for the 2020 Census ; 2016; Bentley, M.
- Improving Data Quality in a Web Survey of Youth and Teens ; 2016; Horton, V. M.; Branson, R.; Phillips, B. T.; Fowlkes, E.
- Impact of Field Period Length and Contact Attempts on Representativeness for Web Survey ; 2016; Bertoni, N.; Turakhia, C.; Magaw, R.; Ackermann, A.
- Have You Taken Your Survey Yet? Optimum Interval for Reminders in Web Panel Surveys ; 2016; Kanitkar, K. N.; Liu, D.
- Respondent Processing of Rating Scales and the Scale Direction Effect ; 2016; Caporaso, A.
- The Effects of Pictorial vs. Verbal Examples on Survey Responses ; 2016; Sun, H.; Bertling, J.; Almonte, D.
- Evaluating Grid Questions for 4th Graders; 2016; Maitland, A.