|
?:linkContext
|
-
N S c h n arz a n d B agreed that our subiecnve e\ aluation of our objective conditions of living i> a function of (he standard to which we choose to compare them Less agreement. however. has been reached about the type of comparison standard that is employed in making satisfaction judgments Theoreticallv, a number of different comparison strategies may be used to evaluate one's living conditions. For example, we may choose an im enndnidua) comparison strategy. comparing our own living conditions with those of others (e.g. ; Sirack. Schwarz. Chassein. . or an iniraindi\idual comparison strategy. comparing our current situation with our previous living conditions (e.g . Alternatively. we may evaluate our living conditions by com paring their posiu\e and negative features, that is. b\ using an intraindividual comparison strategy within the same time frame. Moreover, we may compare our current situation to our expectations, using our aspiration level as a standard of comparison (e.g , None of these comparison strategies is a priori more plausible than the other, although they accentuate different aspects of one's living conditions M any theoreticians seem to assume that the comparison standard used by a given person is relatively stable, and reflects variables that may be expected to change only slowlv over lime, such as the persons reference group (e.g Hyman and Singer, I96is. . previous experiences (e.g. . or adaptation level (e.g . In contrast to this implicit assumption, experimental research indicates that the choice of comparison standards, and their specific value at a given point in time, is a function of what happens to come to mind at the time of judgment. For example, individuals were found to evaluate their life more positively when ihe\ were induced to think of negative rather than positive events in their ow/i past (e.g. StracJ». ei a i. 1985, Experiment I), or when they were exposed to information about negative rather than positive living conditions of others (e.g. Dermer er aL. 1979; Strack ei ai.. I9S8). Note, that these findings suggest that the choice of one's own past, or of the situation of others, as a standard of comparison, as well as the specific value of the respectiv e standard used, is determined by the type of information that is salient at the time of judgment. Accordingly, a comprehensive judgment model of subjective well-being, proposed by , hypothesizes that the choice of comparison strategies is determined by the cognitive accessibility of relevant comparison information. As in other areas of judgm ent (see in press, for reviews), whatever happens to come to mind, and is applicable to the judgmental task, is likely to be used. This hypothesis has a num ber of important methodological implications and suggests that the choice of comparison strategies, as well as the value of a particular com parison standard used as part of this strategy, may be determined by the content and structure of the specific research instrument that is employed in a study. These methodological implications are the key concern of the present paper. In a research situation, the cognitive accessibility of comparison information is in part a function of the content and form of the questions asked. Questions designed to this aspect with the situation of others. II the questions direct respondents' attention to positive and negative aspects of their own situation, however, respondents ma\ evaluate their situation by com paring us positive and negative features intraindividually. Thus, whether the preceding questions increase the accessibility of only one aspect, or of several aspects with different evaluative implications, may determine whether an inter-or an intraindividual comparison strategy is used. Finally, the set of response alternatives provided to respondents may influence their own assessment of their objective situation, as well as their inferences about the situation of others. While the form erm ay determine the outcome of comparative judgments by eliciting different estimates regarding one's own objective living conditions, the latter may determine the outcome of comparisons by suggesting different estimates of the 'usual' conditions. Thus, the set of response alternatives may influence comparative judgm ents under inter-as well as intraindividual comparison strategies but with different implications, as described below. To lest these hypotheses, two studies were conducted in which subjects reported their satisfaction with their current intimate relationship. In Experiment 1, their attention was directed to only one aspect of their sexual behaviour in that relationship, which had either positive or negative evaluative implications. In Experiment 2, their attention was directed to a positive as well as to a negative aspect. The impact of sexual comparison information on judgments of relationship satisfaction w'as considered a particularly interesting testing ground for the present hypotheses because lay theories hold that comparison information plays a minor role in this domain, whereas experimental research suggests the opposite (e.g. ). In the first study, male college students who dated a steady partner, were asked to report how frequently they m asturbate or how' frequently they have sexual inter course. Based on previous research , it was assumed that a high frequency of sexual intercourse would have positive implications for the evaluation of the relationship, W'hereas a high frequency of masturbation would have negative implications. To report the frequency of each behaviour, respondents were given a set of response alternatives that ranged either from 'more than once a day' to 'less than once a week1 (high frequency range), or from 'more than once a week1 to 'never1 (low frequency range). It was assumed that respondents would report a higher frequency of inter course or masturbation, respectively, when given the higher rather than the lower frequency response alternatives. This finding would reflect the previously documented use of the response alternatives as a salient frame of reference in estimating be havioural frequencies (see . M oreover, if respondents use their own location on the scale to determine their location in the distribution, the high frequency response alternatives should suggest to them that they engage in the respective behaviour less frequently than others. In contrast, the low frequency response alternatives should suggest to them that they engage in the respective behaviour more frequently than others. Accordingly, respondents who are asked to report how often they masturbate are hypothesized to evaluate their relationship more positively after providing their report on the high Companion siraiegitw 4b.â ssess positive or negative aspects of the respondent's living conditions are likely to increase the cognitive accessibility of these aspects and may therefore influence subsequent satisfaction judgments. While researchers are often aware of the potential impact of the content of a question, a more subtle influence due to question form is usualK overlooked. Specifically, respondents are often asked to report on their living conditions b> checking one alternative from a list of response alternatives provided to them. While researchers assume that the selected alternative informs them about the respondents situation, they usually overlook that the response alternatives m a\ also serve as a source of information for the respondent (see Schwarz, in press; Schwarz and Hippier. 1987 for reviews). Assume, for example, that respondents in a leisure lime study are asked to report bow man> hours of TV the\ watch on a typical day. Some respondents are asked to provide this report on a scale ranging, in half hour steps, from 'up to '/: hour* to 'more than 2 ': hours' per day, whereas other respondents receive a scale that ranges from 'up to 21 ? hours' to "more than 4>; hours'. Previous research indicated that respondents assume that the range of the response alternatives reflects the researcher's knowledge of the distribution of the behaviour in the population. Specifically, they assume that the 'usual' or 'average' behaviour is reflected in values in the middle range of the scale and that the extremes of the scale reflect the extremes of the distribution. This assumption affects their own behavioural reports as well as subsequent comparative judgments. If a behavioural report is difficult to provide on the basis of relevant episodic information, as is usually the case for m undane behaviours that are not well represented in memory {cf. , respondents use the range of the response alternatives as a salient frame of reference to compute an estimate. Accordingly, they provide higher estimates when presented a high rather than a low frequency set of response alternatives. For example. 37.5 per cent of a quota sample of German adults who were given the high frequency response scale described above reported watching TV for 21 /, h or more, while only 16.2 per cent of the respondents who were given Ihe low frequency response scale reported doing so . In addition, respondents may use the information extracted from the scale to form comparative judgments. If one assumes that the range of the response alternatives reflects the distribution of the behaviour in the population, checking one of the response alternatives is equivalent to determ ining one's own location in the distribution. For example, German respondents who were asked to report their TV consumption on the low frequency scale described above were likely to check values in the upper range of that scale. This suggested to them that they watch more TV than 'usual'. Respondents who received the high frequency scale, on the other hand, were likely to check values in the lower range of that scale, suggesting to them that they watch less TV than 'usual'. In line with this reasoning, the former respondents evaluated TV to be more important in their own life , and reported lower satisfaction with the variety of things they do in their leisure lime (Experiment 2), than the latter. In summary, questions about respondents' objective circumstances of life may influence subsequent satisfaction judgments in various ways. First, the content of the questions may determine which aspccls of the respondent's life are higly accessible. Second, if the questions direct respondents' attention lo only one (positive or negative) aspect, we assume that respondents will com pare their own situation with regard lo Conipanson strategies 489 raiher than the low frequency response scale Jn contrast. respondents who are asked io report how frequently the> ha\e intercourse are hypothesized to evaluate their relationship more posiuve)> after providing their report on ihe low raiher lhan the high frequency. scale FiJ'i>-one male college students (mean age = 22.8 vears) at a West German university, all o\ whom had prevmush reported daung a steady partner, participated in a study on relationship satisfaction Respondents were randomly assigned 10 conditions and anonymously answered a self-adminisiered questionnaire, which ihe\ returned in a sealed envelope. Embedded in a number of filler questions, half of ihe respondents were asked how frequently thev have sexual intercourse with their partner, while the other half reported iheir frequency of masturbation To provide these repons, respondents were given one of ihe two scales shown in , resulting in a 2(masturbation versus iniercoursel 1 2(high versus low frequency scale}-factorial between subjects design. Subsequently, respondents were asked. 'How satisfied are you with your current relationship wnh your partner?1 (I = very dissatisfied, I! = very satisfied). Finally, respondent* estimated the average frequency of intercourse (or masturbation, respectively) among college students who dale a steady partner, in an open response format. After completion of ihe experiment, respondents were carefully debriefed. For reasons of comparability across the two scales, respondents1 behavioural reports were coded io reflect frequency estimates of once a week or more, or of less lhan once a week. These proportions were analysed by a procedure suggested by . As shown in the lop row of The second row ofTable 1 shows respondents'estimates of the behaviour of a 'typical' college student, that were assessed in an open response format at the end of the questionnaire. As expected, respondents estimated a higher rate of intercourse or masturbation to be "typical' when they had reported their own behaviour on a high rather than a low frequency response scale, F( 1,42) = 14,18, p < 0.001; all other F < 1. Thus, respondents did extract information about the presumably typical behaviour from the range of the scale, again replicating our previous findings. Finally, the last row of shows respondents' reported relationship satisfaction. Analysis of variance indicates a marginally reliable interaction of both experimental variables. /\1,43) = 2.95. p < 0 .10 , and no main effects. Specifically, respondents who reported their masturbation frequency on the high frequency scale, suggesting to them that they masturbate less frequently than 'usual', evaluated their relationship more favourably than respondents who reported their masterbation behaviour on the low frequency scale, suggesting to them that they m asturbate more frequently than 'usual', F\ 1,43) = 5.3, p < 0.03, for the simple main effect. The frequency range of the intercourse question, on the other hand, did not affect respondents'judgments. F < I. In sum m ars, respondents estimated their own frequency of masturbation or inter course, as well as the average frequency of a typical college student, to be higher when C in n p u n si thev reported ihesr own behaviour on a response scale that provided high raiher than low frequency response alternatives Moreover, respondents who reported iheit masturbation behaviour apparently used the comparison information provided by the scale in evaluating iheir satisfaction with Iheir current relationship, according to an intenndividual comparison strategy. These findings replicate previous results The frequency range of the intercourse question, on the other hand, did not affect respondents' evaluation This asymmetrv probably reflects thaï the evaluative implica tions of intercourse frequency are more ambiguous than the ev aluative implications of masturbation frequency While the experiences brought to mind by the intercourse question maj be pleasam or problematic, independent of iheir sheer frequency, a high frequency of masturbation Sikelv to suggesi that something is 'missing' in the relationship, reflecting the compensatory nature of masturbation that is prevalent in naive theories of sexual behav iour Regarding the choice of comparison strategies, we note that respondents who reported how frequently thev masturbate engaged in intenndividual comparisons lo evaluate their sexual relationship when onlv one behaviour was assessed. In the second study, respondents reported both their frequency of masturbation and their frequency of intercourse, using either a high or a low frequency response scale These manipulations resulted in a 2 (high versus low frequency masturbation scale) * 2 (high versus low frequency intercourse scale) -factorial design. If respondents engage in intenndividual comparisons, as was the case when onlv one behaviour was assessed, the results should mirror the previous findings. That is. respondents should report lower satisfaction when the low frequency response scale suggests to them that they masturbate more often than others. The frequency range of the intercourse question, on the other hand. ma\ show no effect. We hypothesized, however, that respondents may prefer an intraindividua! comparison strategy if two aspects with opposite evaluative implications are salient. Specifically , they may compare their own frequency of intercourse with their own frequency of masturbation to evaluate iheir sexual relationship. Noie in this regard, lhat the range of the response alternatives did noi only affect respondents' assumptions about the behaviour of others bul also their estimates of their own behavioural frequencies. Accordingly, an intraindividua! comparison strategy should result in the most favourable evaluation of the relationship when the high frequency iniercouse scale induces respondents to estimate a high frequency of intercourse, w hile the low frequency masturbation scale leads them to estimate a low frequency of masturbation. W hen these conditions are reversed -that is, when a low frequency intercourse scale elicits estimates of low intercourse frequency, while a high frequency masturbation scale elicits estimates of high masturbation frequency -respondents should report the lowest satisfaction with their relationship. The remaining conditions should result in similar frequency estimates for intercourse and masturbation, and should therefore also result in judgments of intermediate satisfaction. Sj\i>-iour college students (mean age = 22 " sears) at a West Germ an unnersitv. who had presioush reported dating a stead> partner, panicipated in this stud> and were randoml> assigned to conditions. The procedures used, as well as the wording of the questions, were identical to Experiment !, except that respondents in the present stud\ were asked to report their frequenc\ of intercourse as well a;, their frequency of m asturbation, following a 2(intercourse frequenc\ reported on a high versus low frequency scale) * 2(masturbatton frequency reported on a high \ersus low frequenc_\ scale) -factorial between subjects design As an additional dependent \ariable. respondents were asked how interested the\ are in sexual contacts with a partner other than their current girl-friend (1 = not interested at all. 11 = \er> interested) After completion of the experiment, respondents were carefull) debriefed. As, in Experiment I. a higher percentage of respondents reported masturbating (73.5 per cent) or ha\ing intercourse (75.3 per cent) at least once a week when given a high, than when given a low frequency response scale (45.8 per cent and 46.2 per cent, r -1.66 and 1.77 p <0.05 and 0.04. one-tailed, for masturbation and intercourse frequency reports, respeciiveh ). In addition, respondents estimated the frequency with which a typical college student has intercourse to be higher when they reported their own behaviour on the high (A/ -8.9 times per m onth) rather than the low (M ~ 5.6 limes per month) frequencv intercourse scale. ^1(1,47) = 9.57, p <0.004. Similarly, they estimated the typical frequency of masturbation to be higher when presented the high (A/ = 7.0 times per month) rather than the low (M -4.8) masturbation frequency scale, F{ 1,47) = 3.99, p <0.06. No other effects emerged. shows respondents' reported satisfaction with iheir current relationship and their reported interest in sexual contacts with other partners. As. predicted b> the intraindividual comparison hypothesis. respondents, reported the highest relationship satisfaction (A/ = S.9). and the lowest interest in other partners ( U =4.&). when the combination of the low frequency masturbation scale and the high frequencv intercourse scale elicited estimates oflow masturbation but high intercourse frequency Respondents who reported their beha\iour on the reversed combination o( scales, eliciting estimates of high masturbation but low intercourse frequency, reported the lowest satisfaction (M -7.3) and the highest interest in other partners t.'/ * 7 ] ). /f5&) = 2.17 and 2.OS. p <0.05 for planned comparisons between both groups The remaining conditions fell in between these extremes, as shown in Discussion E \penm enl 2 replicates the findings of Experiment 1 with regard to respondents' behavioural reports as well as iheir estimates of the behaviour of a 'typical' college student. In contrast to Experiment 1. however, respondents did not use the interindividual comparison information provided by the response alternatives when they e\ atuaied iheir own relationship Had they done so, they should have reported higher satisfaction when the low frequency m asturbation scale suggested to them that they masturbate less frequently then 'typical'. Such a main effect was not obtained. The data are also incompatible with the assumption that respondents mav have engaged in interindividual comparisons with respect to boih behaviours. If so. they should have reported the highest relationship satisfaction when the high frequencv m asturbation scale suggested that they masturbate less frequently than typical, while the low frequency intercourse scale suggested that they have intercourse more frequently than others. In contrast, they reported the lowest relationship satisfaction, and the highest interest in other partners, under this condition. Rather, the results suggest that respondents used an intraindividual comparison strategy and compared their own frequency of masturbation w'ith their own frequencv of intercourse. Accordingly, they reported the lowest satisfaction, and the highest interest in other partners, when the combination of response scales elicited estimates of high masturbation frequency but low intercourse frequency. Conversely, they reported the highest satisfaction, and the lowest interest in other partners, when the scales elicited estimates of low masturbation but high intercourse frequency. In com bination, the present studies suggest that the choice of comparison strategies is determined by the information that is most accessible at the time of judgment. When only one behaviour was assessed, respondents used the range of the response alternatives to infer an imerindividual comparison standard. Under these conditions, the interindividual comparison information provided by the scale was the most salient standard available. However, when several behaviours with opposite evaluative implications were assessed, respondents were more likely to compare the implications of these beha%iours iniraindividualiy, Similarly, intraindividual comparisons across lime may be expected if respondents' attention is drawn to their previous behaviour. Accordingly, the choice of an inter-or intraindividual comparison strategy is deter mined, in pan, by the number of relevant behaviours that researchers choose to assess, thus increasing their temporary cognitive accessibility. If only one behaviour relevant 10 the judgment is assessed, respondents are likeK to engage in inierindividual comparisons If two relevant behaviours with different evaluative implications are assessed, however, respondents are likely to engage in intraindividual comparisons. In both cases, the concrete value of the standard of comparison used by respondents is a function of the frequencv range of the response alternatives provided to them. Specifically respondents use the information provided by the frequency range of the response alternatives to estimate the frequency of their own behaviour, and lo infer the 'average' or 'usual' behavioural frequency, as has been shown across a wide range of different behaviours (see . In sum m ary then, we find that the nature of the judgmental process is determined lo a considerable degree by the structure of the questionnaire and by sublle aspects of question form -even under conditions where the judgm ent is important and involving, and could be based on extensive personal experience. If we want lo avoid misinterpretations of method effects as substantive effects (see for reviews of related findings), we w'ill need to learn more about the impact of our research instruments on respondents'judgments and reports. A' Schwär: and B Scheuring ZU SA M M EN FA SSU N G Der Einfluß der Fragebogenstruktur auf die Wahl \on Vergleichsstraiegien wird untersucht Dabei wird angenommen, daß die Wahl eines Vergleichsstandards sowie die Nutzung einer intra-oder inierindividuellen Vergleichsstrategie durch die kognime Verfügbarkeit rele\anier Information zum Urieilszeitpunkt bestimmt wird. Konsistent damit zeigen zwei Experimente, daß Personen zur Bewertung eines spezifischen Lebensbereiches eine interindividuelle Vergleichssiraiegie heranziehen, wenn sich nur ein Aspekt dieses Lebensbereiches im Fokus ihrer Aufmerksamkeit befindet Befinden sich zwei Aspekte mit unterschiedlichen evaluati\en Implikationen im Fokus der Aufmerksamkeit, wird ein intraindhidueller Vergleich der Implikationen dieser augenfälligen Aspekte vorgezogen Wieviele Aspekte eines Lebens bereiches zum Zeitpunki der L'rteilsbildung kognui\ leicht verfügbar sind, ist unter anderem eine Funktion der Anzahl and Anordnung relevanter Fragen im Fragebogen Theoretische und methodologische Implikationen werden diskutiert Social cognition and social reality: Information acquisition and use in the laboratory and the real world Social Information Processing and Survey Methodology Hedonic relativism and planning the good society Apple\, M. H (fcd.) Adaptation-Level Theory The Sense o f Well-Being in America Test of models of domain satisfactions and well-being Research on Aging Evaluative judgments of aspects of life as a function for vicarious exposure to hedonic extremes Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Subjective well-being Psychological Bulletin Children o f the Great Depression Studentensexualitdt. Verhalten und Einstellung Knowledge accessibility and activation The Limits o f Awareness. Intention, and Control Response effects in surveys Social Information Processing and Survey Methodology Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research Multiple discrepancies theory Social Indicators Research Value judgments: Toward a relational theory of happiness Contrast Analysis Relative Deprivation and Social Justice, Routledge and Kegan Paul Comparison strategics (I98?) Stimmung ah Information Untersuchungen zum Einfluß von Stimmungen auf die Bewertung des eigenen Lebern Cognitive and affective processes in judgments of well-being A prehminar\ model Economic Psychology Assessing frequency reports of mundane behaviors: Contributions of cognitive psychology to questionnaire construction Re\ o f Personality and Social Psychology What mediates the impact of response alternatives on frequency reports of mundane behaviors? Applied Cognitive Psychology What response scales may tell your respondents Social Information Processing and Survey Methodology Response categories; Effects on beha\ioural reports and comparative judgments Was Befragte aus Antwortvorgaben lernen: Zur informativen Funktion von Antwomorgaben bei Veihaltensberichfen Evaluating ones Itfe: A judgment model of subjective well-being1 The Social Psychology o f Well-Being The social, the erotic, and the sexual; the complexities of sexual scripts Nebraska Symposium on Motivation The Social Psychology of Well-Being Thinking, judging and communicating Social information Processing and Survey Methodoiogx The salience of comparison standards and the activation of social norms: Consequences for judgments of happiness and their communication'. Unpublished manuscript Happiness and reminiscing: The role of lime perspective, mood, and mode of thinking' Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology Answering survey questions: The role of memory Social Information Processing and Survey Methodology Analyses o f Happiness, Martinus Nijhoff Pornography's impact on sexual satisfaction Connections Between Sex and Aggression un domaine spécifique de vie lorsque leur attention esl attirée uniquement vers un aspect de ce domaine qui a des implications évaluatives positives ou négatives. Cependant, lorsque leur attention est attirée vers deux aspects avec des implications opposées, les individus préfèrent plutôt une stratégie intraindividuelle, basée sur la comparaison des deux aspects. Si un ou deux aspects liés a ce domaine spécifique sont saillants dépend entre autres du nombre d'aspects examinés dans le questionnaire Dans deux expériences on irouve que les individus adoptent une stratégie de comparaison in ter individuelle pour évaluer Schuessler Methoden der Analyse zeitbezogener Daten. Vortragsskripten der ZUM A Arbeitstagung vom 25.9 Zimmerman Integration von qualitativen und quantitativen Forschungsansätzen Gerhard Arminger, Horst Busse, Manfred Küchler Verallgemeinerte Lipearc Modelle in der empirischen Sozialforschung Glenn R. Carroll Dynamic analysis of discrete dependent variables: A didactic essay Manfred Küchler Zur Messung der Stabilität von Wählerpotentialen Manfred Küchler Zur Konstanz der Recallfrage Rolf Porst " ALLBUS 1982" -Systematische Variablenübersicht und erste Ansätze zu einer Kritik des Fragenprogramms Peter Ph. Mohler SAR -Simple AND Retrieval mit dem Siemens-EDT-Textmanipulationsprogramm Cornelia Krauth Vergleichsstudien zum "ALLBUS 1980 Rolf Porst Datenmanagement bei qualitativen Erhebungsverfahren") -Sammlung von Arbeitspapieren und -berichten, Teil I + U Bemd Wegener Gibt es Sozialprestige? Konstruktion und Validität der Magnitude-Prestige-Skala Peter Prüfer Die Nutzung demographischer Informationen in den Veröffentlichungen mit ALLBUS-Daten Helmut Schröder Über den Zusammenhang zwischen Aktivitäten und Zufriedenheit Eine kommunale Seniorenbefragung" Michael Braun Rolf Porst Ausschöpfungen bei sozialwissenschaftlichen Umfragen. Annäherung aus der ZUMA Perspektive Schrott Campaign Effects on Voter Choicc in the German Election of Margrit Rexroth Ein Verfahren zur Erfassung von Erhebungsproblemen bei Interviews der Hauptstudie Michael Hader, Sabine Hader Ergebnisse einer Experimentellen-Studie zur Delphi-Methode Bernhard Schimpl-Neimanns, Heike Wirth t Bestandsaufnahme und Nutzungsmöglichkeiten amtlicher Mikrodaten der DDR für Sekundäranalysen zur Bildungs-und Einkommensungleichheit Norbert Schwarz, Haus-J. Hippler Subsequent Questions May Influence Answers to Preceding Questions in Mail Surveys Norbert Schwarz, Hans-J. Hippier The Numeric Values of Rating Scales: A Comparison of their Impact in Mail Surveys and Telephone Interviews Norbert Schwarz Cognition, Communication, and Survey Measurement: Some Implications for Contingent Valuation Surveys Michael Braun Objektive Schichtmessung Dagmar Krebs Richtungseffekte von Itemformulierungen Dagmar Krebs Social Desirability: The collective conscience? Judging the degree of social desirability in attitude items Bernhard Kriiger, Heiner Ritter, Cornelia Züll SPSS Einsatz auf unterschiedlichen Plattformen in einem Netzwerk: Daten und Ergebnisaustausch Jürgen H.P. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, Michael Wiedenbeck Überlegungen zu Sampling Judgments of relationship satisfaction: Inter-and intraindividual comparisons as a function of questionnaire structure Norbert Schw Arz Bettina Scheuring Judgments of relationship satisfaction: Inter-and intraindividual comparisons as a function of questionnaire structure Received 10 October i 988 Accepted 10 November 1988 GROBID - A machine learning software for extracting information from scholarly documents Two experiments demonstrate that individuals use an interindividual comparison st rat eg\ to evaluate a specific life-domain if their attention is drawn to only one aspect o f that dom ain, that has either positive or negative evaluative implications. I f their attention is drawn to two aspects with opposite implications, however, an intraindividual st rat eg \. based on the comparison o f both aspects, is preferred. Whether one or two aspects bearing on a specific domain are salient is, among other conditions, a function o f the number o f aspects assessed in a questionnaire. Theoretical and methodological implications are discussed. Comparison processes have long been recognized lo be ai ihe heart of satisfaction judgments. From eariy philosophical considerations of the nature of contentment and happiness (for a review see Tatarkiewicz, 1976) to recent empirical investigations (for reviews see Diener, 1984; Strack, Argyle and Schwarz, in press), theoreticians have Addressee for correspondence Dr N orbert Schwarz, ZU M A , P.O Box 12 21 55, D-6800 M annheim, W. German;. The reported research was supported b> grams Schw 278 2 and Str 264 2 from ihe Deutsche Forschungsgem em schaft to N Schwarz and F. Strack We want to thank Fritz Strack and Bob Wyer for iheir helpful com ments on a previous draft of this paper. N S c h n arz a n d B Stht urm e agreed that our subiecnve e\ aluation of our objective conditions of living i> a function of (he standard to which we choose to compare them Less agreement. however. has been reached about the type of comparison standard that is employed in making satisfaction judgments Theoreticallv, a number of different comparison strategies may be used to evaluate one's living conditions. For example, we may choose an im enndnidua) comparison strategy. comparing our own living conditions with those of others (e.g. Carp and Carp. 1982; Dermer. Cohen. Jacobsen and Anderson. 1979. Runciman, 1966 ; Sirack. Schwarz. Chassein. Kern and Wagner. 1988) . or an iniraindi\idual comparison strategy. comparing our current situation with our previous living conditions (e.g Brickman and Campbell. 1971; Elder. 1974; Parducci. 1984, Sirack. Schwarz and Gschneidinger. 19S5| . Alternatively. we may evaluate our living conditions by com paring their posiu\e and negative features, that is. b\ using an intraindividual comparison strategy within the same time frame. Moreover, we may compare our current situation to our expectations, using our aspiration level as a standard of comparison (e.g Campbell. 1981; Michalos. 1985] , None of these comparison strategies is a priori more plausible than the other, although they accentuate different aspects of one's living conditions M any theoreticians seem to assume that the comparison standard used by a given person is relatively stable, and reflects variables that may be expected to change only slowlv over lime, such as the persons reference group (e.g Hyman and Singer, I96is. Runciman. 1966) . previous experiences (e.g. Parducci, 1984) . or adaptation level (e.g Brickman and Campbell. 1971) . In contrast to this implicit assumption, experimental research indicates that the choice of comparison standards, and their specific value at a given point in time, is a function of what happens to come to mind at the time of judgment. For example, individuals were found to evaluate their life more positively when ihe\ were induced to think of negative rather than positive events in their ow/i past (e.g. StracJ». ei a i. 1985, Experiment I), or when they were exposed to information about negative rather than positive living conditions of others (e.g. Dermer er aL. 1979; Strack ei ai.. I9S8). Note, that these findings suggest that the choice of one's own past, or of the situation of others, as a standard of comparison, as well as the specific value of the respectiv e standard used, is determined by the type of information that is salient at the time of judgment. Accordingly, a comprehensive judgment model of subjective well-being, proposed by Schwarz and Sirack (1985; in press; Schwarz, J987) , hypothesizes that the choice of comparison strategies is determined by the cognitive accessibility of relevant comparison information. As in other areas of judgm ent (see Bodenhausen and Wyer, 1987; Higgins, in press, for reviews), whatever happens to come to mind, and is applicable to the judgmental task, is likely to be used. This hypothesis has a num ber of important methodological implications and suggests that the choice of comparison strategies, as well as the value of a particular com parison standard used as part of this strategy, may be determined by the content and structure of the specific research instrument that is employed in a study. These methodological implications are the key concern of the present paper. T H E IM PA CT O F QU ESTION C O N TEN T A N D QU ESTION FO R M In a research situation, the cognitive accessibility of comparison information is in part a function of the content and form of the questions asked. Questions designed to this aspect with the situation of others. II the questions direct respondents' attention to positive and negative aspects of their own situation, however, respondents ma\ evaluate their situation by com paring us positive and negative features intraindividually. Thus, whether the preceding questions increase the accessibility of only one aspect, or of several aspects with different evaluative implications, may determine whether an inter-or an intraindividual comparison strategy is used. Finally, the set of response alternatives provided to respondents may influence their own assessment of their objective situation, as well as their inferences about the situation of others. While the form erm ay determine the outcome of comparative judgments by eliciting different estimates regarding one's own objective living conditions, the latter may determine the outcome of comparisons by suggesting different estimates of the 'usual' conditions. Thus, the set of response alternatives may influence comparative judgm ents under inter-as well as intraindividual comparison strategies but with different implications, as described below. To lest these hypotheses, two studies were conducted in which subjects reported their satisfaction with their current intimate relationship. In Experiment 1, their attention was directed to only one aspect of their sexual behaviour in that relationship, which had either positive or negative evaluative implications. In Experiment 2, their attention was directed to a positive as well as to a negative aspect. The impact of sexual comparison information on judgments of relationship satisfaction w'as considered a particularly interesting testing ground for the present hypotheses because lay theories hold that comparison information plays a minor role in this domain, whereas experimental research suggests the opposite (e.g. Zillman, 1984; Zillman and Bryant, 1988 ). E X PE R IM E N T 1: A SSESSIN G ONE BEH AV IO UR In the first study, male college students who dated a steady partner, were asked to report how frequently they m asturbate or how' frequently they have sexual inter course. Based on previous research (Simon, 1973; Giese and Schmidt, 1968) , it was assumed that a high frequency of sexual intercourse would have positive implications for the evaluation of the relationship, W'hereas a high frequency of masturbation would have negative implications. To report the frequency of each behaviour, respondents were given a set of response alternatives that ranged either from 'more than once a day' to 'less than once a week1 (high frequency range), or from 'more than once a week1 to 'never1 (low frequency range). It was assumed that respondents would report a higher frequency of inter course or masturbation, respectively, when given the higher rather than the lower frequency response alternatives. This finding would reflect the previously documented use of the response alternatives as a salient frame of reference in estimating be havioural frequencies (see Schwarz, in press; Schwarz and Hippier, 1987 for reviews) . M oreover, if respondents use their own location on the scale to determine their location in the distribution, the high frequency response alternatives should suggest to them that they engage in the respective behaviour less frequently than others. In contrast, the low frequency response alternatives should suggest to them that they engage in the respective behaviour more frequently than others. Accordingly, respondents who are asked to report how often they masturbate are hypothesized to evaluate their relationship more positively after providing their report on the high Companion siraiegitw 4b.â ssess positive or negative aspects of the respondent's living conditions are likely to increase the cognitive accessibility of these aspects and may therefore influence subsequent satisfaction judgments. While researchers are often aware of the potential impact of the content of a question, a more subtle influence due to question form is usualK overlooked. Specifically, respondents are often asked to report on their living conditions b> checking one alternative from a list of response alternatives provided to them. While researchers assume that the selected alternative informs them about the respondents situation, they usually overlook that the response alternatives m a\ also serve as a source of information for the respondent (see Schwarz, in press; Schwarz and Hippier. 1987 for reviews). Assume, for example, that respondents in a leisure lime study are asked to report bow man> hours of TV the\ watch on a typical day. Some respondents are asked to provide this report on a scale ranging, in half hour steps, from 'up to '/: hour* to 'more than 2 ': hours' per day, whereas other respondents receive a scale that ranges from 'up to 21 ? hours' to "more than 4>; hours'. Previous research (Schwarz, Hippier, Deutsch and Strack. 1985J indicated that respondents assume that the range of the response alternatives reflects the researcher's knowledge of the distribution of the behaviour in the population. Specifically, they assume that the 'usual' or 'average' behaviour is reflected in values in the middle range of the scale and that the extremes of the scale reflect the extremes of the distribution. This assumption affects their own behavioural reports as well as subsequent comparative judgments. If a behavioural report is difficult to provide on the basis of relevant episodic information, as is usually the case for m undane behaviours that are not well represented in memory {cf. Bradburn, Rips and Shevell, 1987; Schwarz in press; Strube. 1987) , respondents use the range of the response alternatives as a salient frame of reference to compute an estimate. Accordingly, they provide higher estimates when presented a high rather than a low frequency set of response alternatives. For example. 37.5 per cent of a quota sample of German adults who were given the high frequency response scale described above reported watching TV for 21 /, h or more, while only 16.2 per cent of the respondents who were given Ihe low frequency response scale reported doing so . In addition, respondents may use the information extracted from the scale to form comparative judgments. If one assumes that the range of the response alternatives reflects the distribution of the behaviour in the population, checking one of the response alternatives is equivalent to determ ining one's own location in the distribution. For example, German respondents who were asked to report their TV consumption on the low frequency scale described above were likely to check values in the upper range of that scale. This suggested to them that they watch more TV than 'usual'. Respondents who received the high frequency scale, on the other hand, were likely to check values in the lower range of that scale, suggesting to them that they watch less TV than 'usual'. In line with this reasoning, the former respondents evaluated TV to be more important in their own life (Schwarz et al., 1985, Experiment 1) , and reported lower satisfaction with the variety of things they do in their leisure lime (Experiment 2), than the latter. In summary, questions about respondents' objective circumstances of life may influence subsequent satisfaction judgments in various ways. First, the content of the questions may determine which aspccls of the respondent's life are higly accessible. Second, if the questions direct respondents' attention lo only one (positive or negative) aspect, we assume that respondents will com pare their own situation with regard lo Conipanson strategies 489 raiher than the low frequency response scale Jn contrast. respondents who are asked io report how frequently the> ha\e intercourse are hypothesized to evaluate their relationship more posiuve)> after providing their report on ihe low raiher lhan the high frequency. scale FiJ'i>-one male college students (mean age = 22.8 vears) at a West German university, all o\ whom had prevmush reported daung a steady partner, participated in a study on relationship satisfaction Respondents were randomly assigned 10 conditions and anonymously answered a self-adminisiered questionnaire, which ihe\ returned in a sealed envelope. Embedded in a number of filler questions, half of ihe respondents were asked how frequently thev have sexual intercourse with their partner, while the other half reported iheir frequency of masturbation To provide these repons, respondents were given one of ihe two scales shown in Figure I , resulting in a 2(masturbation versus iniercoursel 1 2(high versus low frequency scale}-factorial between subjects design. Subsequently, respondents were asked. 'How satisfied are you with your current relationship wnh your partner?1 (I = very dissatisfied, I! = very satisfied). Finally, respondent* estimated the average frequency of intercourse (or masturbation, respectively) among college students who dale a steady partner, in an open response format. After completion of ihe experiment, respondents were carefully debriefed. Results Behavioural reports For reasons of comparability across the two scales, respondents1 behavioural reports were coded io reflect frequency estimates of once a week or more, or of less lhan once a week. These proportions were analysed by a procedure suggested by Rosenthal and Rosnow (1985) . As shown in the lop row of Estimates o f others'behaviour The second row ofTable 1 shows respondents'estimates of the behaviour of a 'typical' college student, that were assessed in an open response format at the end of the questionnaire. As expected, respondents estimated a higher rate of intercourse or masturbation to be "typical' when they had reported their own behaviour on a high rather than a low frequency response scale, F( 1,42) = 14,18, p < 0.001; all other F < 1. Thus, respondents did extract information about the presumably typical behaviour from the range of the scale, again replicating our previous findings. Relationship satisfaction Finally, the last row of Table 1 shows respondents' reported relationship satisfaction. Analysis of variance indicates a marginally reliable interaction of both experimental variables. /\1,43) = 2.95. p < 0 .10 , and no main effects. Specifically, respondents who reported their masturbation frequency on the high frequency scale, suggesting to them that they masturbate less frequently than 'usual', evaluated their relationship more favourably than respondents who reported their masterbation behaviour on the low frequency scale, suggesting to them that they m asturbate more frequently than 'usual', F\ 1,43) = 5.3, p < 0.03, for the simple main effect. The frequency range of the intercourse question, on the other hand, did not affect respondents'judgments. F < I. Discussion In sum m ars, respondents estimated their own frequency of masturbation or inter course, as well as the average frequency of a typical college student, to be higher when C in n p u n si 'n urarrgir^ 49] thev reported ihesr own behaviour on a response scale that provided high raiher than low frequency response alternatives Moreover, respondents who reported iheit masturbation behaviour apparently used the comparison information provided by the scale in evaluating iheir satisfaction with Iheir current relationship, according to an intenndividual comparison strategy. These findings replicate previous results (Schwarz ei a/.. 1985. Schwarz and Bienias. in press) bearing on the informative functions of response alternatives The frequency range of the intercourse question, on the other hand, did not affect respondents' evaluation This asymmetrv probably reflects thaï the evaluative implica tions of intercourse frequency are more ambiguous than the ev aluative implications of masturbation frequency While the experiences brought to mind by the intercourse question maj be pleasam or problematic, independent of iheir sheer frequency, a high frequency of masturbation Sikelv to suggesi that something is 'missing' in the relationship, reflecting the compensatory nature of masturbation that is prevalent in naive theories of sexual behav iour (Simon. I973l. Regarding the choice of comparison strategies, we note that respondents who reported how frequently thev masturbate engaged in intenndividual comparisons lo evaluate their sexual relationship when onlv one behaviour was assessed. E X PE R IM E N T 2: A SSESSIN G TW O BEHAVIOURS In the second study, respondents reported both their frequency of masturbation and their frequency of intercourse, using either a high or a low frequency response scale These manipulations resulted in a 2 (high versus low frequency masturbation scale) * 2 (high versus low frequency intercourse scale) -factorial design. If respondents engage in intenndividual comparisons, as was the case when onlv one behaviour was assessed, the results should mirror the previous findings. That is. respondents should report lower satisfaction when the low frequency response scale suggests to them that they masturbate more often than others. The frequency range of the intercourse question, on the other hand. ma\ show no effect. We hypothesized, however, that respondents may prefer an intraindividua! comparison strategy if two aspects with opposite evaluative implications are salient. Specifically , they may compare their own frequency of intercourse with their own frequency of masturbation to evaluate iheir sexual relationship. Noie in this regard, lhat the range of the response alternatives did noi only affect respondents' assumptions about the behaviour of others bul also their estimates of their own behavioural frequencies. Accordingly, an intraindividua! comparison strategy should result in the most favourable evaluation of the relationship when the high frequency iniercouse scale induces respondents to estimate a high frequency of intercourse, w hile the low frequency masturbation scale leads them to estimate a low frequency of masturbation. W hen these conditions are reversed -that is, when a low frequency intercourse scale elicits estimates of low intercourse frequency, while a high frequency masturbation scale elicits estimates of high masturbation frequency -respondents should report the lowest satisfaction with their relationship. The remaining conditions should result in similar frequency estimates for intercourse and masturbation, and should therefore also result in judgments of intermediate satisfaction. M ethod Sj\i>-iour college students (mean age = 22 " sears) at a West Germ an unnersitv. who had presioush reported dating a stead> partner, panicipated in this stud> and were randoml> assigned to conditions. The procedures used, as well as the wording of the questions, were identical to Experiment !, except that respondents in the present stud\ were asked to report their frequenc\ of intercourse as well a;, their frequency of m asturbation, following a 2(intercourse frequenc\ reported on a high versus low frequency scale) * 2(masturbatton frequency reported on a high \ersus low frequenc_\ scale) -factorial between subjects design As an additional dependent \ariable. respondents were asked how interested the\ are in sexual contacts with a partner other than their current girl-friend (1 = not interested at all. 11 = \er> interested) After completion of the experiment, respondents were carefull) debriefed. Results Behavioural répons As, in Experiment I. a higher percentage of respondents reported masturbating (73.5 per cent) or ha\ing intercourse (75.3 per cent) at least once a week when given a high, than when given a low frequency response scale (45.8 per cent and 46.2 per cent, r -1.66 and 1.77 p <0.05 and 0.04. one-tailed, for masturbation and intercourse frequency reports, respeciiveh ). Estimates o f others' beha\¡our In addition, respondents estimated the frequency with which a typical college student has intercourse to be higher when they reported their own behaviour on the high (A/ -8.9 times per m onth) rather than the low (M ~ 5.6 limes per month) frequencv intercourse scale. ^1(1,47) = 9.57, p <0.004. Similarly, they estimated the typical frequency of masturbation to be higher when presented the high (A/ = 7.0 times per month) rather than the low (M -4.8) masturbation frequency scale, F{ 1,47) = 3.99, p <0.06. No other effects emerged. Table 2 shows respondents' reported satisfaction with iheir current relationship and their reported interest in sexual contacts with other partners. Relationship satisfaction 493 As. predicted b> the intraindividual comparison hypothesis. respondents, reported the highest relationship satisfaction (A/ = S.9). and the lowest interest in other partners ( U =4.&). when the combination of the low frequency masturbation scale and the high frequencv intercourse scale elicited estimates oflow masturbation but high intercourse frequency Respondents who reported their beha\iour on the reversed combination o( scales, eliciting estimates of high masturbation but low intercourse frequency, reported the lowest satisfaction (M -7.3) and the highest interest in other partners t.'/ * 7 ] ). /f5&) = 2.17 and 2.OS. p <0.05 for planned comparisons between both groups The remaining conditions fell in between these extremes, as shown in Table 2 Discussion E \penm enl 2 replicates the findings of Experiment 1 with regard to respondents' behavioural reports as well as iheir estimates of the behaviour of a 'typical' college student. In contrast to Experiment 1. however, respondents did not use the interindividual comparison information provided by the response alternatives when they e\ atuaied iheir own relationship Had they done so, they should have reported higher satisfaction when the low frequency m asturbation scale suggested to them that they masturbate less frequently then 'typical'. Such a main effect was not obtained. The data are also incompatible with the assumption that respondents mav have engaged in interindividual comparisons with respect to boih behaviours. If so. they should have reported the highest relationship satisfaction when the high frequencv m asturbation scale suggested that they masturbate less frequently than typical, while the low frequency intercourse scale suggested that they have intercourse more frequently than others. In contrast, they reported the lowest relationship satisfaction, and the highest interest in other partners, under this condition. Rather, the results suggest that respondents used an intraindividual comparison strategy and compared their own frequency of masturbation w'ith their own frequencv of intercourse. Accordingly, they reported the lowest satisfaction, and the highest interest in other partners, when the combination of response scales elicited estimates of high masturbation frequency but low intercourse frequency. Conversely, they reported the highest satisfaction, and the lowest interest in other partners, when the scales elicited estimates of low masturbation but high intercourse frequency. C O N C LU SIO N S In com bination, the present studies suggest that the choice of comparison strategies is determined by the information that is most accessible at the time of judgment. When only one behaviour was assessed, respondents used the range of the response alternatives to infer an imerindividual comparison standard. Under these conditions, the interindividual comparison information provided by the scale was the most salient standard available. However, when several behaviours with opposite evaluative implications were assessed, respondents were more likely to compare the implications of these beha%iours iniraindividualiy, Similarly, intraindividual comparisons across lime may be expected if respondents' attention is drawn to their previous behaviour. Accordingly, the choice of an inter-or intraindividual comparison strategy is deter mined, in pan, by the number of relevant behaviours that researchers choose to assess, thus increasing their temporary cognitive accessibility. If only one behaviour relevant 10 the judgment is assessed, respondents are likeK to engage in inierindividual comparisons If two relevant behaviours with different evaluative implications are assessed, however, respondents are likely to engage in intraindividual comparisons. In both cases, the concrete value of the standard of comparison used by respondents is a function of the frequencv range of the response alternatives provided to them. Specifically respondents use the information provided by the frequency range of the response alternatives to estimate the frequency of their own behaviour, and lo infer the 'average' or 'usual' behavioural frequency, as has been shown across a wide range of different behaviours (see Schwarz, 1988, in press; Schwarz and Hippier, 1987) . In sum m ary then, we find that the nature of the judgmental process is determined lo a considerable degree by the structure of the questionnaire and by sublle aspects of question form -even under conditions where the judgm ent is important and involving, and could be based on extensive personal experience. If we want lo avoid misinterpretations of method effects as substantive effects (see Schwarz, 1987. Strack and M artin, 1987 for reviews of related findings), we w'ill need to learn more about the impact of our research instruments on respondents'judgments and reports. A' Schwär: and B Scheuring ZU SA M M EN FA SSU N G Der Einfluß der Fragebogenstruktur auf die Wahl \on Vergleichsstraiegien wird untersucht Dabei wird angenommen, daß die Wahl eines Vergleichsstandards sowie die Nutzung einer intra-oder inierindividuellen Vergleichsstrategie durch die kognime Verfügbarkeit rele\anier Information zum Urieilszeitpunkt bestimmt wird. Konsistent damit zeigen zwei Experimente, daß Personen zur Bewertung eines spezifischen Lebensbereiches eine interindividuelle Vergleichssiraiegie heranziehen, wenn sich nur ein Aspekt dieses Lebensbereiches im Fokus ihrer Aufmerksamkeit befindet Befinden sich zwei Aspekte mit unterschiedlichen evaluati\en Implikationen im Fokus der Aufmerksamkeit, wird ein intraindhidueller Vergleich der Implikationen dieser augenfälligen Aspekte vorgezogen Wieviele Aspekte eines Lebens bereiches zum Zeitpunki der L'rteilsbildung kognui\ leicht verfügbar sind, ist unter anderem eine Funktion der Anzahl and Anordnung relevanter Fragen im Fragebogen Theoretische und methodologische Implikationen werden diskutiert Table 1 1 , a higher percentage of respondents reported having iniercourse or maslurbating at least once a week when given the high than when given the low frequency response alternatives (z = 2.47 and 1.56, p <0.01 and 0.05, one-tailed, for the intercourse and m asturbation reports, respeciivelv). This finding indicates that respondents used Ihe range of the response alternatives as a frame of reference in estimating their own behaviour, as shown in previous studies (e.g. Schwartz ei a i, 1985; Schwarz and Bienias, in press). M ethod Lou frequency ranee I I several umes a ueek ( i once a ueek ( ) once even iuo ueek1 -( ) once a monih ( ) less than once a month ( 1 never High frequency range ( ) several times a day { ) once a dav ( ) 3 to A timei. a week ( ) Iv.ice a ueek ( ) once a ueek ( ) less than once a ueek Figure! Response alternatives Table 2 . 2 Relationship satisfaction as a function of scale range High Frequency range of masturbation scale High Low Frequency range of intercourse scale Low High Low Relationship satisfaction Interest in other partners 8.8 5.3 7.3 7.1 8.9 4.8 8 A 5.9 11 = 'very satisfied*, or 'vcr> interested', respectively. A' = 16 per cell. Social cognition and social reality: Information acquisition and use in the laboratory and the real world G V Bodenhausen R S W\er Social Information Processing and Survey Methodology Rips. L. J. and Shevell, S. K. Springer Verlag 236 Answering autobiographical questions: The impact of memor> and inference on surveys Hedonic relativism and planning the good society . P Brickman D T Campbell Apple\, M. H (fcd.) Adaptation-Level Theory New York Academic Press The Sense o f Well-Being in America A Campbell McGraw-Hill New York Test of models of domain satisfactions and well-being F M Carp ; A Carp Research on Aging 4 Equity considerations Evaluative judgments of aspects of life as a function for vicarious exposure to hedonic extremes M Dermer S J Cohen E Jacobsen E A Anderson Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37 Subjective well-being E Diener Psychological Bulletin 235 Children o f the Great Depression Elder University Press Chicago H Giese G Schmidt Studentensexualitdt. Verhalten und Einstellung Rowohlt, Reinbek Knowledge accessibility and activation E T Higgins The Limits o f Awareness. Intention, and Control Uleman, J. S. and Bargh, J. A. New York Guilford Press In press Response effects in surveys H J Hippier N Schwarz Social Information Processing and Survey Methodology Hippier, H. J., Schwarz, N. and Sudman. S. New York Springer Verlag Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research Hyman. H. H. and Singer, E. New York Free Press Multiple discrepancies theory A Michalos Social Indicators Research 16 Value judgments: Toward a relational theory of happiness A Parducci Eiser, J. R. Springer New York R Rosenthal R L Rosnow Contrast Analysis Cambridge Cambridge University Press Relative Deprivation and Social Justice, Routledge and Kegan Paul W G Runciman Comparison strategics 495 Schwarz (I98?) Stimmung ah Information Untersuchungen zum Einfluß von Stimmungen auf die Bewertung des eigenen Lebern Heidelberg Springer Verlag Cognitive and affective processes in judgments of well-being A prehminar\ model N\ Schwarz F Strack Economic Psychology H. Brandstädter, & E. Kirchler Linz, Austria Trauner Assessing frequency reports of mundane behaviors: Contributions of cognitive psychology to questionnaire construction N Schwarz Hendrick, C. and Clark, M.J In press Re\ o f Personality and Social Psychology II What mediates the impact of response alternatives on frequency reports of mundane behaviors? N Schuarz J Btenias Applied Cognitive Psychology In press What response scales may tell your respondents . N Schwarz H Hippier H J Hippier N Schwarz S Sudman Social Information Processing and Survey Methodology New York Springer Verlag N Schwarz H J Hippier Deutsch F Strack Response categories; Effects on beha\ioural reports and comparative judgments 49 Was Befragte aus Antwortvorgaben lernen: Zur informativen Funktion von Antwomorgaben bei Veihaltensberichfen N Schwarz Planung und Analyse 15 Evaluating ones Itfe: A judgment model of subjective well-being1 N Schwarz Strack The Social Psychology o f Well-Being Strack. F., Argvle, M. and Schwarz, N. F (In pre^s} The social, the erotic, and the sexual; the complexities of sexual scripts W Simon Nebraska Symposium on Motivation Cole. J. K. and Dienst bier. R 21 University of Nebraska Press F Strack The Social Psychology of Well-Being Argyle. M and Schwarz. N. Pergamon. London In press Thinking, judging and communicating F Strack L L Martin H J Hippier Social information Processing and Survey Methodoiogx Schw arz, N. and Sudman. S. New York Springer Verlag F Strack X Schwarz B Chassein The salience of comparison standards and the activation of social norms: Consequences for judgments of happiness and their communication'. Unpublished manuscript D Kern D Wagner Universität Mannheim Happiness and reminiscing: The role of lime perspective, mood, and mode of thinking' F Strack N Schwarz E Gschneidinger Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology 49 Answering survey questions: The role of memory G Strube Social Information Processing and Survey Methodology Hippier, H. J., Schwarz, N. and Sudman, S. New York Springer Verlag Analyses o f Happiness, Martinus Nijhoff W Tatarkiewicz The Hague Pornography's impact on sexual satisfaction Zijlman Erlbaum N J Hillsdale D Zillman J Bryant Connections Between Sex and Aggression 18 un domaine spécifique de vie lorsque leur attention esl attirée uniquement vers un aspect de ce domaine qui a des implications évaluatives positives ou négatives. Cependant, lorsque leur attention est attirée vers deux aspects avec des implications opposées, les individus préfèrent plutôt une stratégie intraindividuelle, basée sur la comparaison des deux aspects. Si un ou deux aspects liés a ce domaine spécifique sont saillants dépend entre autres du nombre d'aspects examinés dans le questionnaire Dans deux expériences on irouve que les individus adoptent une stratégie de comparaison in ter individuelle pour évaluer Les implications théoriques et méthodologiques son discutées Schuessler Methoden der Analyse zeitbezogener Daten. Vortragsskripten der ZUM A Arbeitstagung vom 25.9 Gerhard Arminger Willibald Nagl F Karl 5.10.79 Zimmerman Integration von qualitativen und quantitativen Forschungsansätzen Gerhard Arminger, Horst Busse, Manfred Küchler Verallgemeinerte Lipearc Modelle in der empirischen Sozialforschung Glenn R. Carroll Dynamic analysis of discrete dependent variables: A didactic essay Manfred Küchler Zur Messung der Stabilität von Wählerpotentialen Manfred Küchler Zur Konstanz der Recallfrage Rolf Porst "ALLBUS 1982" -Systematische Variablenübersicht und erste Ansätze zu einer Kritik des Fragenprogramms Peter Ph. Mohler SAR -Simple AND Retrieval mit dem Siemens-EDT-Textmanipulationsprogramm Cornelia Krauth Vergleichsstudien zum "ALLBUS 1980 Erika Brückner Hans-Peter Kirschner Rolf Porst Peter Prüfer Peter Schmidt Methodenbericht Zum " Allbus ; Manfred Thomas P Küchler Wilson H Don Rolf Porst Werner Hagstotz Peter Prüfer Methodenbericht zum "ALLBUS 1982 " Bemd Wegener Two approaches to the analysis of judgments of prestige: Interindividual differences and the general scale Rolf Porst Synopse der ALLBUS-Variablen Datenmanagement bei qualitativen Erhebungsverfahren") -Sammlung von Arbeitspapieren und -berichten, Teil I + U Bemd Wegener Gibt es Sozialprestige? Konstruktion und Validität der Magnitude-Prestige-Skala Peter Prüfer Manfred Küchler Peter Ph Margrit Rexroth Erfahrungen mit einer Technik zur Bewertung von Interviewerverhalten Mohler Qualshop (ZUMA-Arbeitstagung zum Die Nutzung demographischer Informationen in den Veröffentlichungen mit ALLBUS-Daten Helmut Schröder Über den Zusammenhang zwischen Aktivitäten und Zufriedenheit Eine kommunale Seniorenbefragung" Michael Braun 12 93 Rolf Porst Ausschöpfungen bei sozialwissenschaftlichen Umfragen. Annäherung aus der ZUMA Perspektive Schrott Campaign Effects on Voter Choicc in the German Election of Steven E Finkei R Peter Jürgen Hoffmeyer-Zjotnik Dagmar Krebs Subjektive Statuszuweisung Margrit Rexroth Ein Verfahren zur Erfassung von Erhebungsproblemen bei Interviews der Hauptstudie Michael Hader, Sabine Hader Ergebnisse einer Experimentellen-Studie zur Delphi-Methode Bernhard Schimpl-Neimanns, Heike Wirth t Bestandsaufnahme und Nutzungsmöglichkeiten amtlicher Mikrodaten der DDR für Sekundäranalysen zur Bildungs-und Einkommensungleichheit Norbert Schwarz, Haus-J. Hippler Subsequent Questions May Influence Answers to Preceding Questions in Mail Surveys Norbert Schwarz, Hans-J. Hippier The Numeric Values of Rating Scales: A Comparison of their Impact in Mail Surveys and Telephone Interviews Norbert Schwarz Cognition, Communication, and Survey Measurement: Some Implications for Contingent Valuation Surveys Michael Braun Objektive Schichtmessung Dagmar Krebs Richtungseffekte von Itemformulierungen Dagmar Krebs Social Desirability: The collective conscience? Judging the degree of social desirability in attitude items Bernhard Kriiger, Heiner Ritter, Cornelia Züll SPSS Einsatz auf unterschiedlichen Plattformen in einem Netzwerk: Daten und Ergebnisaustausch Jürgen H.P. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, Michael Wiedenbeck Überlegungen zu Sampling Sabine Hader Die Grundlagen der Delphi-Methode: -Ein Literaturbericht -Sabine Hader Auswahlverfahren bei Telefonumfragen Peter Prüfer Qualitätsprüfung und Auswertung von Daten aus Teilpopulationen Michael Hader. Reiner Trometer ALLBUS Bibliographie (13. Fassung, Stand 30.8.94 Achim Koch
(xsd:string)
|
![[This page as RDF]](https://data.gesis.org/gesiskg/static/rdf-icon.gif){kind=icon}