IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v69y2016i7p2574-2584.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scale format effects on response option interpretation and use

Author

Listed:
  • Cabooter, Elke
  • Weijters, Bert
  • Geuens, Maggie
  • Vermeir, Iris

Abstract

When designing questionnaires, researchers often use different scale formats, which vary on the dimensions polarity (unipolar versus bipolar endpoint labels) and the numbering of the response options (e.g., only positive numbers versus positive and negative numbers). This study uses survey experiments and cognitive interviews, to test specific hypotheses regarding how scale formats' polarity and their numbering might affect (1) observed response distributions and (2) the meaning of response options. In line with our theoretical predictions, the results unveil consistent differences in the interpretation and use of the scale formats as a function of their polarity and numbering. Therefore, alternative formats cannot be used interchangeably as the scale formats are differently interpreted and used. In addition, researchers need to choose scale formats and interpret scale responses in accordance with respondents' interpretations.

Suggested Citation

  • Cabooter, Elke & Weijters, Bert & Geuens, Maggie & Vermeir, Iris, 2016. "Scale format effects on response option interpretation and use," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 2574-2584.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:69:y:2016:i:7:p:2574-2584
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.138
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296315005615
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.138?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Weijters, Bert & Cabooter, Elke & Schillewaert, Niels, 2010. "The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 236-247.
    2. McKEE J. McCLENDON, 1991. "Acquiescence and Recency Response-Order Effects in Interview Surveys," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 20(1), pages 60-103, August.
    3. Diamantopoulos, A. & Reynolds, N.L. & Simintiras, A.C., 2006. "The impact of response styles on the stability of cross-national comparisons," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(8), pages 925-935, August.
    4. Nowlis, Stephen M & Kahn, Barbara E & Dhar, Ravi, 2002. "Coping with Ambivalence: The Effect of Removing a Neutral Option on Consumer Attitude and Preference Judgments," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 29(3), pages 319-334, December.
    5. John R. Rossiter, 2011. "Measurement for the Social Sciences," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-1-4419-7158-6, November.
    6. Dolnicar, Sara & Grün, Bettina, 2013. "“Translating” between survey answer formats," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1298-1306.
    7. Viswanathan, Madhubalan & Sudman, Seymour & Johnson, Michael, 2004. "Maximum versus meaningful discrimination in scale response:: Implications for validity of measurement of consumer perceptions about products," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 108-124, February.
    8. Weathers, Danny & Sharma, Subhash & Niedrich, Ronald W., 2005. "The impact of the number of scale points, dispositional factors, and the status quo decision heuristic on scale reliability and response accuracy," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(11), pages 1516-1524, November.
    9. Bert Weijters & Maggie Geuens & Hans Baumgartner, 2013. "The Effect of Familiarity with the Response Category Labels on Item Response to Likert Scales," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 40(2), pages 368-381.
    10. Strizhakova, Yuliya & Coulter, Robin A. & Price, Linda L., 2008. "The meanings of branded products: A cross-national scale development and meaning assessment," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 82-93.
    11. Wong, Nancy & Rindfleisch, Aric & Burroughs, James E, 2003. "Do Reverse-Worded Items Confound Measures in Cross-Cultural Consumer Research? The Case of the Material Values Scale," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 30(1), pages 72-91, June.
    12. Mehrdad Mazaheri & Peter Theuns, 2009. "Effects of Varying Response Formats on Self-ratings of Life-Satisfaction," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 90(3), pages 381-395, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Piotr Cichocki & Piotr Jabkowski, 2023. "Response scale overstretch: linear stretching of response scales does not ensure cross-project equivalence in harmonised data," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 3729-3745, August.
    2. Weijters, Bert & Millet, Kobe & Cabooter, Elke, 2021. "Extremity in horizontal and vertical Likert scale format responses. Some evidence on how visual distance between response categories influences extreme responding," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 85-103.
    3. Islam, Mohammad Tarikul & Polonsky, Michael Jay, 2020. "Validating scales for economic upgrading in global value chains and assessing the impact of upgrading on supplier firms’ performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 144-159.
    4. Chauhan, Vivek & Gupta, Akshay & Parida, Manoranjan, 2021. "Demystifying service quality of Multimodal Transportation Hub (MMTH) through measuring users’ satisfaction of public transport," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 47-60.
    5. de Rezende, Naia A. & de Medeiros, Denise D., 2022. "How rating scales influence responses’ reliability, extreme points, middle point and respondent’s preferences," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 266-274.
    6. Weijters, Bert & Baumgartner, Hans & Geuens, Maggie, 2016. "The calibrated sigma method: An efficient remedy for between-group differences in response category use on Likert scales," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 944-960.

    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. Weijters, Bert & Cabooter, Elke & Schillewaert, Niels, 2010. "The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 236-247.
    2. Elke Cabooter & Bert Weijters & Alain Beuckelaer & Eldad Davidov, 2017. "Is extreme response style domain specific? Findings from two studies in four countries," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(6), pages 2605-2622, November.
    3. Anna DeCastellarnau, 2018. "A classification of response scale characteristics that affect data quality: a literature review," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1523-1559, July.
    4. Piotr Cichocki & Piotr Jabkowski, 2023. "Response scale overstretch: linear stretching of response scales does not ensure cross-project equivalence in harmonised data," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 3729-3745, August.
    5. Jérôme Lacoeuilhe & Selima Ben Mrad & Samy Belaïd & Maria Petrescu, 2017. "Are brand benefits perceived differently in less developed economies ? A scale development and validation," Post-Print hal-01672929, HAL.
    6. Tellis, Gerard J. & Chandrasekaran, Deepa, 2010. "Extent and impact of response biases in cross-national survey research," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 329-341.
    7. Andrew M. Baker & George P. Moschis & Fon Sim Ong & Ra-Pee Pattanapanyasat, 2013. "Materialism and Life Satisfaction: The Role of Stress and Religiosity," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(3), pages 548-563, November.
    8. de Rezende, Naia A. & de Medeiros, Denise D., 2022. "How rating scales influence responses’ reliability, extreme points, middle point and respondent’s preferences," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 266-274.
    9. Weijters, Bert & Millet, Kobe & Cabooter, Elke, 2021. "Extremity in horizontal and vertical Likert scale format responses. Some evidence on how visual distance between response categories influences extreme responding," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 85-103.
    10. Ulla A. Saari & Saku J. Mäkinen, 2017. "Measuring brand experiences cross-nationally," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 24(1), pages 86-104, January.
    11. Marcella Corduas & Alfonso Piscitelli, 2017. "Modeling university student satisfaction: the case of the humanities and social studies degree programs," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 617-628, March.
    12. de Jong, M.G., 2006. "Response bias in international marketing research," Other publications TiSEM 5d4031be-97b5-4db3-962b-2, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    13. Luis Márquez & Víctor Cantillo & Julián Arellana, 2020. "Assessing the influence of indicators’ complexity on hybrid discrete choice model estimates," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 373-396, February.
    14. Pengsheng Ni & Molly Marino & Emily Dore & Lily Sonis & Colleen M Ryan & Jeffrey C Schneider & Alan M Jette & Lewis E Kazis, 2019. "Extreme response style bias in burn survivors," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-13, May.
    15. Yüksel, Atila, 2017. "A critique of “Response Bias” in the tourism, travel and hospitality research," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 376-384.
    16. Weijters, Bert & Baumgartner, Hans & Geuens, Maggie, 2016. "The calibrated sigma method: An efficient remedy for between-group differences in response category use on Likert scales," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 944-960.
    17. Samy Belaid & Selima Ben Mrad & Jérôme Lacoeuilhe & Maria Petrescu, 2017. "Are brand benefits perceived differently in less developed economies? A scale development and validation," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(3), pages 111-120, December.
    18. Marianela Denegri & María Baeza & Natalia Salinas-Oñate & Verónica Peñaloza & Horacio Miranda & Ligia Orellana, 2014. "Materialism in Pedagogy Students in Chile," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 117(2), pages 505-521, June.
    19. Stylos, Nikolaos & Vassiliadis, Chris A. & Bellou, Victoria & Andronikidis, Andreas, 2016. "Destination images, holistic images and personal normative beliefs: Predictors of intention to revisit a destination," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 40-60.
    20. Qiang Wang & Nathan A. Bowling & Qi-tao Tian & Gene M. Alarcon & Ho Kwong Kwan, 2018. "Workplace Harassment Intensity and Revenge: Mediation and Moderation Effects," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 151(1), pages 213-234, August.

    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:eee:jbrese:v:69:y:2016:i:7:p:2574-2584. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres .

    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.