IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v49y2020i3p567-602.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Generalization of Classic Question Order Effects Across Cultures

Author

Listed:
  • Tobias H. Stark
  • Henning Silber
  • Jon A. Krosnick
  • Annelies G. Blom
  • Midori Aoyagi
  • Ana Belchior
  • Michael Bosnjak
  • Sanne Lund Clement
  • Melvin John
  • Guðbjörg Andrea Jónsdóttir
  • Karen Lawson
  • Peter Lynn
  • Johan Martinsson
  • Ditte Shamshiri-Petersen
  • Endre Tvinnereim
  • Ruoh-rong Yu

Abstract

Questionnaire design is routinely guided by classic experiments on question form, wording, and context conducted decades ago. This article explores whether two question order effects (one due to the norm of evenhandedness and the other due to subtraction or perceptual contrast) appear in surveys of probability samples in the United States and 11 other countries (Canada, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom; N = 25,640). Advancing theory of question order effects, we propose necessary conditions for each effect to occur, and found that the effects occurred in the nations where these necessary conditions were met. Surprisingly, the abortion question order effect even appeared in some countries in which the necessary condition was not met, suggesting that the question order effect there (and perhaps elsewhere) was not due to subtraction or perceptual contrast. The question order effects were not moderated by education. The strength of the effect due to the norm of evenhandedness was correlated with various cultural characteristics of the nations. Strong support was observed for the form-resistant correlation hypothesis.

Suggested Citation

  • Tobias H. Stark & Henning Silber & Jon A. Krosnick & Annelies G. Blom & Midori Aoyagi & Ana Belchior & Michael Bosnjak & Sanne Lund Clement & Melvin John & Guðbjörg Andrea Jónsdóttir & Karen Lawso, 2020. "Generalization of Classic Question Order Effects Across Cultures," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 49(3), pages 567-602, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:49:y:2020:i:3:p:567-602
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124117747304
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124117747304
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124117747304?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
    ---><---

    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:sae:somere:v:49:y:2020:i:3:p:567-602. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.