Attitudes and Comprehension of Terms in Opinion Questions About Euthanasia

Maile O'Hara; Michael F. Schober

Maile O'Hara
Michael F. Schober

Abstract

How do people's interpretations of terms in questions affect the opinions they report? Consider a survey where respondents are asked to rate the extent to which they endorse the statement "I support euthanasia," and how firmly they hold that opinion. Might a respondent's notion of what counts as euthanasia-what the word "euthanasia" means-influence the attitudes the respondent reports? We propose that an important and understudied component of response to attitude questions involves comprehension of terms in the questions. Although the comprehension of terms in questions has long been recognized as an important component of responding to questions about facts and behaviors (see, Tourangeau, Rips, & Rasinski, 2000), little attention has been paid to how comprehension might affect responses to attitude questions. We argue that the same processes are at work.

References

Belson, W. A. (1981). The Design and Understanding of Survey Questions. Aldershot: Gower.

Belson, W. A. (1986). Validity in Survey Research. Aldershot: Gower.

Bodenhausen, G.V., & Wyer, R.S. (1987). Social cognition and social reality: Information acquisition and use in the laboratory and the real world. In H.J. Hippler, N. Schwarz, & S. Sudman (Eds.), Social Information Processing and Survey Methodology (pp. 6-41). New York: Springer Verlag.

Conrad, F.G., & Schober, M.F. (2000). Clarifying question meaning in a household telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 1-28.

Converse, P. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and Discontent (pp. 206-261). New York: Free Press.

Krosnick, J.A. (1988). The role of attitude importance in social evaluation: A study of policy preferences, presidential candidate evaluations, and voting behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 196-210.

Pennebaker, J.W., & Francis, M.E. (2001). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sanbonmatsu, D., & Fazio, R. (1990). The role of attitudes in memory-based decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 614-622.

Schober, M.F., & Conrad, F.G. (1997). Does conversational interviewing reduce survey measurement error? Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 576-602.

Schober, M.F. (1999). Making sense of questions: An interactional approach. In M.G. Sirken, D.J. Hermann, S. Schechter, N. Schwartz, J.M. Tanur, & R. Tourangeau (Eds.), Cognition and Survey Research. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Schober, M.F., & Conrad, F.G. (2002). A collaborative view of standardized survey interviews. In D. Maynard, H. Houtkoop-Steenstra, N.C. Schaeffer, & J. van der Zouwen (Eds.), Standardization and Tacit Knowledge: Interaction andPractice in the Survey Interview (pp. 67-94). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Schober, M.F., Conrad, F.G., & Fricker, S.S. (2004). Misunderstanding standardized language in research interviews. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 169-188.

Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1981). Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments in Question Form, Wording, and Context. New York: Academic Press.

Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54, 93-105.

Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1991). Context effects in attitude surveys: Applying cognitive theory to social research. European Review of Social Psychology, 2, 31-50.

Schwarz, N., & Sudman, S. (Eds.) (1992). Context Effects in Social and Psychological Research. New York: Springer Verlag.

Suessbrick, A.L., Schober, M.F., & Conrad, F.G. (2001). Different respondents interpret ordinary questions quite differently. In Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section on the Survey Research Methods. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.

Tourangeau, R., Rips, L.J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Zaller, J.R. (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.