IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mnh/spaper/2751.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Measuring information accessibility and predicting response-effects : the validity of response-certainties and response-latencies

Author

Listed:
  • Stocké, Volker

Abstract

Respondents’ reports about the frequency of everyday behavior are often found to differ considerably when either low- or high-frequency response scales are used to record the answers. It has been hypothesized that the susceptibility to this type of response effect is determined by the cognitive accessibility of the respective target information in respondents’ memory. The first aim of the present paper is to test this hypothesis using two alternative, individual level indicators for the cognitive accessibility of information. These measures are the subjects’ self-reported response certainty and the time needed to answer the question under consideration. A second issue addressed in this paper is how response certainties and response latencies should be transformed prior to data analysis in order to maximize their predictive power for response effects. Accordingly, the ability of untransformed measures to predict scale effects is compared with that of logarithmic, square-root and reciprocally transformed versions. The empirical results show that untransformed response certainties and response latencies are equally valid predictors about whether and to what extent subjects’ answers are affected by the presentation of response options. A square-root transformation is found to have no effect on both measures, whereas a logarithmic transformation slightly improves the validity of response certainties. In contrast, a reciprocal transformation proves to have a substantially positive effect on both measures and improves their ability to predict the reliability of respondents’ survey reports.

Suggested Citation

  • Stocké, Volker, 2003. "Measuring information accessibility and predicting response-effects : the validity of response-certainties and response-latencies," Papers 03-33, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    • Handle: RePEc:mnh:spaper:2751
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://madoc.bib.uni-mannheim.de/2751/1/dp03_33.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mulligan, Kenneth & Grant, J. Tobin & Mockabee, Stephen T. & Monson, Joseph Quin, 2003. "Response Latency Methodology for Survey Research: Measurement and Modeling Strategies," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 289-301, July.
    2. Menon, Geeta & Raghubir, Priya & Schwarz, Norbert, 1995. "Behavioral Frequency Judgments: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Framework," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 22(2), pages 212-228, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vera Toepoel & Corrie Vis & Marcel Das & Arthur van Soest, 2009. "Design of Web Questionnaires," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 37(3), pages 371-392, February.
    2. Arslan, Ruben C. & Brümmer, Martin & Dohmen, Thomas & Drewelies, Johanna & Hertwig, Ralph & Wagner, Gert G., 2020. "How people know their risk preference," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 10.
    3. Toepoel, V. & Vis, C.M. & Das, J.W.M. & van Soest, A.H.O., 2006. "Design of Web Questionnaires : An Information Processing Perspective for the Effect of Response Categories," Other publications TiSEM bb20f0d3-5f5d-46b3-92f4-2, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Jochen Mayerl & Thorsten Faas, 2018. "Campaign dynamics of cognitive accessibility of political judgments: measuring the impact of campaigns and campaign events using response latencies in two German rolling cross section studies," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1575-1592, July.
    5. Ivar Krumpal & Heiko Rauhut & Dorothea Böhr & Elias Naumann, 2011. "The framing of risks and the communication of subjective probabilities for victimizations," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1331-1348, October.
    6. Béatrice Parguel & Florence Benoît-Moreau & Fabrice Larceneux, 2011. "How Sustainability Ratings Might Deter ‘Greenwashing’: A Closer Look at Ethical Corporate Communication," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(1), pages 15-28, August.
    7. Robert Belli & Sangeeta Agrawal & Ipek Bilgen, 2012. "Health status and disability comparisons between CATI calendar and conventional questionnaire instruments," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 813-828, April.
    8. Litvine, Dorian & Gazull, Laurent & Dabat, Marie-Hélène, 2014. "Assessing the potential demand for biofuel by combining Economics and Psychology: A focus on proximity applied to Jatropha oil in Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 85-95.
    9. Menon, Geeta & Kyung, Ellie J. & Agrawal, Nidhi, 2009. "Biases in social comparisons: Optimism or pessimism?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 39-52, January.
    10. Stocké, Volker, 2003. "Measuring Information Accessibility and Predicting Response-Effects: The Validity of Response-Certainties and Response-Latencies," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 03-33, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    11. Nader T. Tavassoli & Matteo Visentin, 2022. "To buy or how much to buy? Partition dependence in purchase-quantity decisions," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 177-188, June.
    12. Bärbel Knäuper & Kimberly Carrière & Melodie Chamandy & Zhen Xu & Norbert Schwarz & Natalie O. Rosen, 2016. "How aging affects self-reports," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 185-193, June.
    13. David Comerford & Liam Delaney & Colm Harmon, 2009. "Experimental Tests of Survey Responses to Expenditure Questions," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 30(Special I), pages 419-433, December.
    14. Maity, Moutusy & Dass, Mayukh & Kumar, Piyush, 2018. "The impact of media richness on consumer information search and choice," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 36-45.
    15. Guan, Chong & Lam, Shun Yin, 2019. "Product Rating Statistics as Consumer Search Aids," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 51-70.
    16. Antonia Mantonakis & Norbert Schwarz & Amanda Wudarzewski & Carolyn Yoon, 2017. "Malleability of taste perception: biasing effects of rating scale format on taste recognition, product evaluation, and willingness to pay," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 293-303, June.
    17. Paul W. Miniard & Rama K. Jayanti & Cecilia M. O. Alvarez & Peter R. Dickson, 2018. "What brand extensions need to fully benefit from their parental heritage," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 948-963, September.
    18. Mukherjee, Ashesh & Burnham, Thomas & King, Dan, 2021. "Anticipated firm interaction can bias expressed customer satisfaction," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    19. Medina-Molina, Cayetano & Rey-Moreno, Manuel & Periáñez-Cristóbal, Rafael, 2021. "Analysis of the moderating effect of front-of-pack labelling on the relation between brand attitude and purchasing intention," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 304-310.
    20. Philippe Verduyn & Francis Tuerlinckx & Kirsty Van Gorp, 2013. "Measuring the duration of emotional experience: the influence of actual duration and response format," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 2557-2567, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mnh:spaper:2751. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Katharina Rautenberg (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sfmande.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.