Timepieces: Components of Survey Question Response Latencies

Political scientists have increasingly found that the time respondents require to answer survey questions is a useful measure of the strength of political attitudes. However, questions remain about the collection, use, and interpretation of response time dataparticularly latencies collected during telephone interviews, far removed from the controlled environment of a laboratory setting. This paper uses a theoretical model of question response to decompose survey response time data into three hypothesized elementscomponents of response time attributable to baseline individual differences, systematic question effects, and the accessibility of the attitudes being targeted. These findings have implications for the study of political attitudes and other mental constructs, as well as practical implications for public opinion survey researchers using response time data.

[1]  L Hasher,et al.  Fact retrieval in younger and older adults: the role of mental models. , 1996, Psychology and aging.

[2]  Thomas M. Guterbock,et al.  RACE-OF-INTERVIEWER EFFECTS IN A PREELECTION POLL VIRGINIA 1989 , 1991 .

[3]  Herbert B. Asher.  Some Consequences of Measurement Error in Survey Data , 1974 .

[4]  D. Davis.  The Direction of Race of Interviewer Effects among African-Americans: Donning the Black Mask , 1997 .

[5]  J. N. Bassili,et al.  Response-time measurement in survey research: A method for CATI and a new look at nonattitudes. , 1991 .

[6]  Jeffrey Levine,et al.  Accessibility and the Political Utility of Partisan and Ideological Orientations , 1999 .

[7]  Kenneth Mulligan,et al.  Response Latency Methodology for Survey Research: Measurement and Modeling Strategies , 2003, Political Analysis.

[8]  Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier,et al.  Time is of the Essence: Event History Models in Political Science , 1997 .

[9]  J. Krosnick,et al.  Development of attitude strength over the life cycle: surge and decline. , 1998, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[10]  Automaticity of chronically accessible constructs in person x situation effects on person perception: it's just a matter of time. , 1988 .

[11]  F. Donders,et al.  Over de snelheid van psychische Processen , 1868 .

[12]  M. Bradley,et al.  Affective picture processing: the late positive potential is modulated by motivational relevance. , 2000, Psychophysiology.

[13]  R. Fazio,et al.  Attitude accessibility as a moderator of the attitude-perception and attitude-behavior relations: an investigation of the 1984 presidential election. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[14]  J. N. Bassili,et al.  RESPONSE LATENCY VERSUS CERTAINTY AS INDEXES OF THE STRENGTH OF VOTING INTENTIONS IN A CATI SURVEY , 1993 .

[15]  J. N. Bassili,et al.  Editor's Introduction: Reflections on Response Latency Measurement in Telephone Surveys , 2000 .

[16]  Jon A. Krosnick,et al.  Do Strength‐Related Attitude Properties Determine Susceptibility to Response Effects? New Evidence From Response Latency, Attitude Extremity, and Aggregate Indices , 2000 .

[17]  W. P. Shively,et al.  Contextual data and the study of elections and voting behavior: connecting individuals to environments , 2002 .

[18]  R. Petty,et al.  Attitude strength : antecedents and consequences , 1995 .

[19]  Frank R. Kardes,et al.  On the automatic activation of attitudes. , 1986 .

[20]  Jason Wittenberg,et al.  Clarify: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results , 2003 .

[21]  R. Fazio.  Multiple Processes by which Attitudes Guide Behavior: The Mode Model as an Integrative Framework , 1990 .

[22]  Russell H. Fazio,et al.  Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. , 1995 .

[23]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Response Times: Their Role in Inferring Elementary Mental Organization , 1986 .

[24]  L. Hasher,et al.  Age and the availability of inferences. , 1992, Psychology and aging.

[25]  J. N. Bassili,et al.  Response Latency and the Accessibility of Voting Intentions: What Contributes to Accessibility and How it Affects Vote Choice , 1995 .

[26]  J. N. Bassili.  Meta-judgmental versus operative indexes of psychological attributes: The case of measures of attitude strength. , 1996 .

[27]  J. N. Bassili.  On the psychological reality of party identification: Evidence from the accessibility of voting intentions and of partisan feelings , 1995 .

[28]  Jeffrey Levine,et al.  The Dynamics of Collective Deliberation in the 1996 Election: Campaign Effects on Accessibility, Certainty, and Accuracy , 2000, American Political Science Review.

[29]  Jeffrey Levine,et al.  Election Campaigns, Social Communication, and the Accessibility of Perceived Discussant Preference , 1998 .

[30]  R. Tourangeau,et al.  Cognitive Processes Underlying Context Effects in Attitude Measurement , 1988 .

[31]  F. Donders.  On the speed of mental processes. , 1969, Acta psychologica.

[32]  Charles S. Taber,et al.  Elements of Reason: Three Steps toward a Theory of Motivated Political Reasoning , 2000 .

[33]  G. King,et al.  Unifying Political Methodology: The Likelihood Theory of Statistical Inference , 1989 .