CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 225Epistemology, Ethics, and MetaphysicsSurvey Methodology and NonresponseFeminist Epistemology and Gender Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Survey-Driven Romanticism

Open access
Cullen, Simon·2010·Review of Philosophy and Psychology
DOI 10.1007/s13164-009-0016-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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 · 10.1007/s13164-009-0016-1

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Critics of vignettes raised concerns regarding external validity related to the fictional nature of the vignette.

    “Critics of vignettes raised concerns regarding external validity related to the fictional nature of the vignette (Cullen, 2010).”

    From Examining Counselor Trainees’ Clinical Impressions of Pornography Use: Implications for Couple and Family Counselors (2026) · cites this paper as Cullen, 2010

    In “REALLY KNOWS ONLY BELIEVES” (page unavailable), Cullen criticizes invented, bizarre vignettes because they can confuse respondents when moved from philosophical discussion into surveys. The paper supports a concern about how vignette-based findings carry across contexts, but it does not identify the fictional nature of vignettes itself as the problem or explicitly frame the concern as external validity. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Alexander, Joshua and Jonathan M. Weinberg. 2007. Analytic epistemology and experimental philosophy. Philosophy Compass 2(1):56–80. · DOI
  2. Ceci, Stephen J. 1991. How much does schooling influence general intelligence and its cognitive components?: A reassessment of the evidence. Developmental Psychology 27:703–722. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Doris, John M., Joshua Knobe, and Robert L. Woolfolk. 2007. Variantism about responsibility. Philosophical Perspectives 21(1):183–214. · DOI
  4. Goldman, Alvin and Joel Pust. 1998. Philosophical theory and intuitional evidence. In Rethinking intuition, eds. William Ramsey and Michael DePau. Totowa: Rowman & Littlefield.
  5. Haberstroh, Susanne, Daphna Oyserman, Norbert Schwarz, Ulrich Kuhnen, and Li Jun Ji. 2002. Is the interdependent self more sensitive to question context than the independent self? Self-construal and the observation of conversational norms. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 38:323–329. · DOI
  6. Higgins, Edward Tory and Arie Kruglanski, eds. 1996. Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. Newyord: Guilford.
  7. Hofstede, Geert H. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. London: Sage.
  8. Holbrook, Allyson L., Jon A. Krosnick, David Moore, and Roger Tourangeau. 2007. Response order effects in dichotomous categorical questions presented orally: The impact of question and respondent attributes. Public Opinion Quarterly 71(3):325–348. · DOI
  9. Jobe, Jared B. and David J. Mingay. 1991. Cognition and survey measurement: History and review. Applied Cognitive Psychology 5:175–192. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Johnson, Timothy, Patrick Kulesa, Isr Llc, Young Ik Cho, and Sharon Shavitt. 2005. The relation between culture and response styles. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 36:264–277. · DOI
  11. Kauppinen, Antti. 2007. The rise and fall of experimental philosophy. Philosophical Explorations 10(2):95–118. · DOI
  12. Knobe, Joshua. 2006. The concept of intentional action: A case study in the uses of folk psychology. Philosophical Studies 130:203–231. · DOI
  13. Knobe, Joshua. 2007. Experimental philosophy. Philosophy Compass 2:81–92. · DOI
  14. Krauss, Robert M. and Susan R. Fussell. 1996. Social psychological models of interpersonal communication. In Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles, eds. Edward Tory Higgins and Arie Kruglanski. Newyord: Guilford.
  15. Krosnick, Jon A. 1999. Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology 67:537–567. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Krosnick, Jon A. and Michael A. Milburn. 1990. Conversational conventions, order of information acquisition, and the effect of base rates and individuating information on social judgements. Journal of Social Psychology 54:940–952.
  17. Lehrer, Keith. 1990. Theory of knowledge. Boulder: Westview.
  18. Machery, Edourd, Ron Mallon, Shaun Nichols, and Stephen P. Stich. 2004. Semantics, cross-cultural style. Cognition 92(3):B1–B12. · DOI
  19. Nadelhoffer, Thomas and Eddy Nahmias. 2007. The past and future of experimental philosophy. Philosophical Explorations 10(2):123–149. · DOI
  20. Nahmias, Eddy, Stephen Morris, Thomas Nadelhoffer, and J. Turner. 2005. Surveying freedom: Folk intuitions about free will and moral responsibility. Philosophical Psychology 18(5):561–584. · DOI
  21. Nichols, Shaun. 2004. Folk concepts and intuitions: from philosophy to cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Science 8(11):514–518. · DOI
  22. Nichols, Shaun, Stephen P. Stich, and Jonathan M. Weinberg. 2003. Metaskepticism: Meditations in ethno-epistemology. In The skeptics: Contemporary essays. Ashgate epistemology and mind series, ed. Steven Luper. Aldershot: Ashgate.
  23. Norenzayan, Ara and Norbert Schwarz. 1999. Telling what they want to know: participants tailor causal attributions to researchers’ interests. European Journal of Social Psychology 29:1011–1020. · DOI
  24. Oyserman, Daphna, Heather M. Coon, and Markus Kemmelmeier. 2002. Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin 128(1):3–72. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Schaeffer, Nora Cate and Stanley Presser. 2003. The science of asking questions. Annual Review of Sociology 29:65–88. · DOI
  26. Schwarz, Norbert. 1995. What respondents learn from questionnaires: The survey interview and the logic of conversation. International Statistical Review/Revue Internationale de Statistique 63(2):153–168.
  27. Schwarz, Norbert. 1996. Cognition and communication: Judgmental biases, research methods, and the logic of conversation. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
  28. Schwarz, Norbert, Fritz Strack, and Hans-Peter Mai. 1991. Assimilation and contrast effects in part-whole question sequences: A conversational logic analysis. The Public Opinion Quarterly 55:3–23. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Strack, Fritz, Leonard L. Martin, and Norbert Schwarz. 1988. Priming and communication: Social determinants of information use in judgments of life satisfaction. European Journal of Social Psychology 18:429–442. · DOI
  30. Swain, Stacey, Joshua Alexander, and Jonathan M. Weinberg. 2008. The instability of philosophical intuitions: Running hot and cold on truetemp. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 76(1):138–155. · DOI
  31. Tourangeau, Roger, Lance J. Rips, and Kenneth Rasinski. 2000. The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  32. Weinberg, Jonathan M., Shaun Nichols, and Stephan Stich. 2006. Normativity and epistemic intuitions. In Biological and cultural bases of human inference, eds. Riccardo Viale, Daniel Andler, and Lawrence A. Hirschfeld. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  33. Welkenhuysen-Gybels, Jerry, Jaak Billiet, and Bart Cambré. 2003. Adjustment for acquiescence in the assessment of the construct equivalence of likert-type score items. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 34(6):702–722. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Cullen, S.
Affiliations
Princeton University (US)
Corresponding author
Cullen, Simon
Venue
Review of Philosophy and Psychology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2010-01-30
Volume
1
Issue
2
Pages
275-296
ISSN
  • 1878-5158 (ISSN-L)
  • 1878-5166
DOI
10.1007/s13164-009-0016-1
OpenAlex
W2064764221
Cited by
225
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 9
FWCI
70.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Review of Philosophy and Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
Keywords
survey methodology, experimental philosophy, folk intuitions, conversational pragmatics, pragmatic cues, survey responses

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