Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T04:02:30.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response Latency Methodology for Survey Research: Measurement and Modeling Strategies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Kenneth Mulligan ,
J. Tobin Grant ,
Stephen T. Mockabee  and
Joseph Quin Monson
Kenneth Mulligan
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Ohio State University, 2140 Derby Hall, 154 N. Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210. e-mail: [email protected]
J. Tobin Grant
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901. e-mail: [email protected]
Stephen T. Mockabee
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Cincinnati, PO Box 210375, Cincinnati, OH 45221. e-mail: [email protected]
Joseph Quin Monson
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In public opinion research, response latency is a measure of attitude accessibility, which is the ease or swiftness with which an attitude comes to mind when a respondent is presented with a survey question. Attitude accessibility represents the strength of the association in memory between an attitude object and an evaluation of the object. Recent research shows that attitude accessibility, as measured by response latency, casts light on a wide range of phenomena of public opinion and political behavior. We discuss response latency methodology for survey research and advocate the use of latent response latency timers (which are invisible both to respondents and interviewers) as a low cost, low-maintenance alternative to traditional methods of measuring response latency in public opinion surveys. We show that with appropriate model specification latent response latency timers may provide a suitable alternative to the more complicated and expensive interviewer-activated timers.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , Summer 2003 , pp. 289 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © Political Methodology Section of the American Political Science Association 2003 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bassili, John N. 1993. “Response Latency Versus Certainty as Indexes of the Strength of Voting Intentions in a CATI Survey.” Public Opinion Quarterly 57:54–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassili, John N. 1996. “The How and Why of Response Latency Measurement in Telephone Surveys.” In Answering Questions, eds. Schwarz, Norbert and Sudman, Seymour. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 319–346.Google Scholar
Bassili, John N. 1997. “As the Clock Ticks in Election Surveys.” The Political Psychologist 2:6–8.Google Scholar
Bassili, John N. 2000. “Editor's Introduction: Reflections on Response Latency Measurement in Telephone Surveys.” Political Psychology 21:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassili, John N., and Fletcher, Joseph F. 1991. “Response Time Measurement in Survey Research: A Method for CATI and a New Look at Attitudes.” Public Opinion Quarterly 55:331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassili, John N., and Krosnick, Jon A. 2000. “Do Strength-Related Attitude Properties Determine Susceptibility to Response Effects? New Evidence from Response Latency, Attitude Extremity, and Aggregate Indices.” Political Psychology 21:107–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassili, John N., and Stacey Scott, B. 1996. “Response Latency as a Signal to Question Problems in Survey Research.” Public Opinion Quarterly 60:390–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Jones, Bradford S. 2003. Timing and Political Change: Event History Models in Political Science. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Zorn, Christopher J. W. 2001. “Duration Models and Proportional Hazards in Political Science.” American Journal of Political Science 45:972–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, ed. Apter, David. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Fazio, Russell H. 1990. “A Practical Guide to the Use of Response Latency in Social Psychological Research.” In Research Methods in Personality and Social Psychology, eds. Hendrick, Clyde and Clark, S. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Fazio, Russell H. 1995. “Attitudes as Object-Evaluation Associations: Determinants, Consequences, and Correlates of Attitude Accessibility.” In Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, eds. Petty, Richard E. and Krosnick, A. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fazio, Russell H., Sanbonmatsu, David M., Powell, Martha C., and Kardes, Frank R. 1986. “On the Automatic Activation of Attitudes.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50:229–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fazio, Russell H., and Williams, Carol J. 1986. “Attitude Accessibility as a Moderator of the Attitude-Perception and Attitude-Behavior Relations: An Investigation of the 1984 Presidential Election.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50:505–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, Joseph F. 2000. “Two-Timing: Politics and Response Latencies in a Bilingual Survey.” Political Psychology 21:27–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, J. Tobin, Mockabee, Stephen T., and Monson, Quin. 1999. “The Accessibility of Party Identification During a Political Campaign Season.” Paper presented at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, Levine, William Morgan, Jeffrey, and Sprague, John. 1998. “Election Campaigns, Social Communication, and the Accessibility of Perceived Discussant Preference.” Political Behavior 20:263–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, Levine, William Morgan, Jeffrey, and Sprague, John. 1999. “Accessibility and the Political Utility of Partisan and Ideological Orientations.” American Journal of Political Science 43:888–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, and Sprague, John. 2000. “Political Consequences of Inconsistency: The Accessibility and Stability of Abortion Attitudes.” Political Psychology 21:57–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, Sprague, John, and Levine, Jeffrey. 2000. “The Dynamics of Collective Deliberation in the 1996 Election: Campaign Effects on Accessibility, Certainty, and Accuracy.” American Political Science Review 94:641–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A., Boninger, David S., Chuang, Yao C., Berent, Matthew K., and Carnot, Catherine G. 1993. “Attitude Strength: One Construct or Many Related Constructs?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65:1132–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R. Duncan. 1986. Response Times: Their Role in Inferring Elementary Mental Organization. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Newby-Clark, Ian R., McGregor, Ian, and Zanna, Mark P. 2002. “Thinking and Caring About Cognitive Inconsistency: When and for Whom Does Attitudinal Ambivalence Feel Uncomfortable.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82:157–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petty, Richard E., and Krosnick, Jon A. 1995. Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Ratcliff, Roger. 1993. “Methods for Dealing with Reaction Time Outliers.” Psychological Bulletin 114:510–531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sniderman, Paul M., and Carmines, Edward G. 1997. Reaching Beyond Race. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tourangeau, Roger, and Rasinski, Kenneth. 1988. “Cognitive Processes Underlying Context Effects in Attitude Measurement.” Psychological Bulletin 103:299–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John, and Feldman, Stanley. 1992. “A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions Versus Revealing Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science 36:579–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Mulligan supplementary material

Appendix

Download Mulligan supplementary material(File)
File 57.3 KB