Wording Effects in Survey Research: Using Meta-Analysis to Explain the Forbid/Allow Asymmetry
Wording Effects in Survey Research: Using Meta-Analysis to Explain the Forbid/Allow Asymmetry
复制标题
调查研究中的措辞效应：使用荟萃分析来解释禁止/允许不对称
DOI：
10.1076/jqul.6.1.29.4145
复制
发表时间：
1999
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
B. Holleman
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
B. Holleman
标准化态度问题的答案不仅取决于受访者对问题的态度，而且还受到问题措辞的影响。这种现象的一个众所周知的例子是禁止/允许不对称。虽然动词“禁止”和“允许”应该是彼此的对应物，但对用动词“禁止”措辞的问题的回答与对等效的“允许”问题的回答并不相反：受访者对“禁止”问题的回答更有可能是“不”而不是“是”。人们通常认为这是由这两个动词的极端含义造成的。本文对自1940年以来的所有禁止/允许研究进行了荟萃分析。首先分析了这种不对称性是否可以通过问题和实验来推广。事实证明是这样的。答案“不，不禁止”比“是的，允许”更多，平均效应量相当大。然而，不对称尺寸的巨大差异提供了空间。
Answers to standardised attitude questions not only depend on the attitude respondents have on the issue, but are also influenced by the wording of the question. A well known example of this phenomenon is the forbid/allow asymmetry. Although the verbs ‘forbid’ and ‘allow’ are supposed to be each others’ counterparts, the answers to questions worded with the verb ‘forbid’ turn out not to be opposite to answers to equivalent ‘allow’-questions: respondents turn out to be more likely to respond ‘no’ rather than ‘yes’ to ‘forbid’ questions. It is commonly assumed that this is caused by the extreme connotations of both verbs. In this article a meta-analysis is reported over all forbid/allow research since 1940. First of all it is analysed whether the asymmetry can be generalised over questions and experiments. This turns out to be the case. The answer ‘no, not forbid’ is obtained more than ‘yes, allow’, and the mean effect size turns out to be quite large. The huge variance in asymmetry size however, offers roo...