Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 265

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Methodology of Longitudinal Surveys

·2009·Wiley eBooks

Abstract

In this chapter, our focus is on panel conditioning with respect to attitude questions. Our methodological approach is different from the majority of previous studies in this area, in that we do not attempt to estimate biases in marginal and associational distributions through comparison with a fresh cross-sectional sample. Rather, our approach is based on testing hypotheses on a single dataset, derived from an explicit theoretical model of the psychological mechanism underlying conditioning effects in repeated measures of the attitude. We refer to this theoretical account as the cognitive stimulus (CS) model. Specifically, we use a range of empirical indicators to evaluate the theory that repeatedly administering attitude questions serves to stimulate respondents to reflect and deliberate more closely on the issues to which the questions pertain. This, in turn, results in stronger and more internally consistent attitudes in the later waves of a panel. The chapter proceeds in the following manner. First, we review the existing literature on panel conditioning effects. Next, we set out in more detail the rationale underlying the CS hypothesis.We then use data from the first ten waves of the British Household Panel Study (BHPS) to test four inter-related hypotheses expressed as empirical expectations of the CS model. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our findings for the validity of attitude measures in panel surveys.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/9780470743874

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Venue
Wiley eBooks
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-01-23
OpenAlex
W1496409316
Cited by
265
References
0
FWCI
21.33
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.