Wording Effects in Survey Research Using Meta-Analysis to Explain the Forbid/Allow Asymmetry

Holleman, Bregje

doi:10.1076/jqul.6.1.29.4145

Cited by 33 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Since the 1940's, this wording effect has been widely investigated (Bishop, Hippler, Schwarz, & Strack, 1988;Hippler & Schwarz, 1986;Holleman, 1999a;Holleman, 2000;Krosnick & Schuman, 1988;Reuband, 2000;Schuman & Presser, 1981;Waterplas, Billiet, & Loosveldt, 1988). The effect is shown to vary between questions, but across questions a consistent pattern is shown: a meta-analysis of 52 forbid/allow questions administered in different countries and languages (Holleman, 1999b(Holleman, , 2000 showed a mean difference between 'not forbid' and 'yes allow' of 14.2% points, and a standard deviation of 9.85.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Answering attitudinal questions: modelling the response process underlying contrastive questions

Chessa

Holleman

2007

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analyse reaction time distributions and responses for attitudinal survey questions, which were part of a self-administered questionnaire about medical and ethical issues. Two contrastive versions of each question were asked, whether an issue should be forbidden or whether the government should allow it. Logically, the answers to these contrastive questions should oppose, but numerous investigations have shown that they result in the so-called forbid/allow asymmetry: respondents tend to rather say 'no' to both questions. We present a mathematical model, based on point process theory, which formalises attitude representations in memory and different stages in the response process. The data of the allow questions are used for parameter estimation, while the forbid data are used to test the predictive power of different model versions. The result is a model that describes the cognitive processes underlying the asymmetry. It indicates that the forbid/allow asymmetry is caused by the use of an increased response threshold in forbid answers, and that the asymmetry size varies due to both respondent characteristics and the issue at hand. This model is capable of simultaneously predicting the asymmetry in the reaction time distributions and in the response scores for the answering categories.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Answering attitudinal questions: modelling the response process underlying contrastive questions

Chessa

Holleman

2007

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A meta-analysis of previous forbid/allow experiments shows a mean asymmetry size of 14%: 'not forbid' was answered 14% more than 'yes allow'. The variance in the asymmetry size turned out to be large (97), the standard deviation was 9.85 (Holleman, 1999a(Holleman, , 2000. 3.…”

Section: Experiments 10mentioning

confidence: 98%

The Meanings of ‘Yes’ and ‘No’. An Explanation for the Forbid/Allow Asymmetry

Holleman

2006

Qual Quant

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other differences that stem from differences in the way that questions are asked can be even more substantial. A large asymmetry can emerge across responses to prompts that differ in valence (e.g., "forbid" vs. "allow; " Holleman, 1999). Additionally, responses to questions about wrongness (e.g., "Is it wrong to X?")…”

Section: Answers Depend On Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%