Acquiescence and Recency Response-Order Effects in Interview Surveys

Abstract

Split-ballot experiments for three sets of items measuring attitudes towards lawyers, anomia, and self-esteem were included in a telephone survey to test for both acquiescence and response-order effects. The experimental design also investigated whether these response effects would be reduced by giving respondents an explicit opportunity to say “don't know” (a filtered question form). Extensive evidence for both acquiescence and recency response-order effects was found. These response effects also often occurred for the same item. Thus the use of a forced-choice form to avoid acquiescence to agree-disagree items may often substitute one type of response effect (recency order effects) for another (agreeing-response bias). Furthermore, there was very little evidence that the use of a filtered-question form would reduce these response effects. In addition to these practical conclusions, the patterns of these response effects across the three different types of attitudes, as well as their relationships to education and income, have important theoretical implications. Lack of item-specific expertise, for example, may be a more important cause of acquiescence and recency effects than low cognitive sophistication.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 121 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.