Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 400

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Spacing, Position, and Order: Interpretive Heuristics for Visual Features of Survey Questions

Tourangeau, R.·2004·Public Opinion Quarterly

Abstract

We present the results of six experiments that demonstrate the impact of visual features of survey questions on the responses they elicit, the response process they initiate, or both. All six experiments were embedded in Web surveys. Experiments 1 and 2 investigate the effects of the placement of nonsubstantive response options (for example, “No opinion” and “Don’t know” answer options) in relation to the substantive options. The results suggest that when these options are not differentiated visually (by a line or a space) from the substantive options, respondents may be misled about the midpoint of the scale; respondents seemed to use the visual rather than the conceptual midpoint of the scale as a reference point for responding. Experiment 3, which varied the spacing of the substantive options, showed a similar result. Responses were pushed in the direction of the visual midpoint when it fell to one side of the conceptual midpoint of the response scale. Experiment 4 examined the effects of varying whether the response options, which were arrayed vertically, followed a logical progression from top to bottom. Respondents answered more quickly when the options followed a logical order. Experiment 5 examined the effects of the placement of an unfamiliar item among a series of similar items. For example, one set of items asked respondents to say whether several makes and models of cars were expensive or not. The answers for the unfamiliar items depended on the items that were nearby on the list. Our last experiment varied whether a battery of related items was administered on a single screen, across two screens, or with each item on its own screen. The intercorrelations among the items were highest when they were all on the same screen. Respondents seem to apply interpretive heuristics in assigning meaning to visual cues in questionnaires. They see the visual midpoint of a scale as representing the typical or middle response; they expect options to be arrayed in a progression beginning with the leftmost or topmost item; and they expect items that are physically close to be related to each other conceptually.

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 · 10.1093/poq/nfh035

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 400

Metadata

Authors
Tourangeau, R.
Venue
Public Opinion Quarterly
Published
2004-09-01
Volume
68
Issue
3
Pages
368-393
ISSN
  • 0033-362X (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5331
OpenAlex
W2125729884
Cited by
400
References
1
FWCI
35.46
Type
journal article
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Spacing, Position, and Order: Interpretive Heuristics for Visual Features of Survey Questions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/poq/nfh035
The paper
Tourangeau, R. (2004). Spacing, Position, and Order: Interpretive Heuristics for Visual Features of Survey Questions. Public Opinion Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfh035

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.