SURVEY RESEARCH
Abstract
▪ Abstract For the first time in decades, conventional wisdom about survey methodology is being challenged on many fronts. The insights gained can not only help psychologists do their research better but also provide useful insights into the basics of social interaction and cognition. This chapter reviews some of the many recent advances in the literature, including the following: New findings challenge a long-standing prejudice against studies with low response rates; innovative techniques for pretesting questionnaires offer opportunities for improving measurement validity; surprising effects of the verbal labels put on rating scale points have been identified, suggesting optimal approaches to scale labeling; respondents interpret questions on the basis of the norms of everyday conversation, so violations of those conventions introduce error; some measurement error thought to have been attributable to social desirability response bias now appears to be due to other factors instead, thus encouraging different approaches to fixing such problems; and a new theory of satisficing in questionnaire responding offers parsimonious explanations for a range of response patterns long recognized by psycholo-gists and survey researchers but previously not well understood.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Humans are unable to produce the same granular measures reliably.
“Although this is useful for applications, humans are unable to produce the same granular measures reliably (Krosnick 1999).”
From Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts (2013) · cites this paper as Krosnick 1999
Cites
Grice, H. P. (1975) · Speech Acts · doi:10.1163/9789004368811_003 · Cited by 23,221 · see citing works
Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing
Klayman, J., & Ha, Y.-W. (1987) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.94.2.211 · Cited by 2,094 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452 · Cited by 15,744 · see citing works
Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts
Grimmer, J., & Stewart, B. M. (2013) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mps028 · Cited by 3,297 · see citing works
Common Method Bias in Marketing: Causes, Mechanisms, and Procedural Remedies
MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2012) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2012.08.001 · Cited by 3,051 · see citing works
Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2009) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01474.x · Cited by 2,229 · see citing works
Social network activity and social well-being
Burke, M., Marlow, C., & Lento, T. (2010) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1753326.1753613 · Cited by 1,109 · see citing works
Duckworth, A. L., & Yeager, D. S. (2015) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x15584327 · Cited by 993 · see citing works
Research synthesis: AAPOR report on online panels
Prepared for the AAPOR Executive Council by a Task Force operating under the auspices of the AAPOR Standards Committee, W. M. I., Baker, R., Blumberg, S. J., Brick, J. M., Couper, M. P., Courtright, M., Dennis, J. M., Dillman, D., Frankel, M. R., Garland, P., et al. (2010) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfq048 · Cited by 584 · see citing works
Self-citationIneffectiveness of Reverse Wording of Questionnaire Items: Let’s Learn from Cows in the Rain
Sonderen, E. V., Sanderman, R., & Coyne, J. C. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068967 · Cited by 544 · see citing works
Assessing Three Sources of Misresponse to Reversed Likert Items
Swain, S. D., Weathers, D., & Niedrich, R. W. (2008) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.45.1.116 · Cited by 386 · see citing works
Information equivalence in survey experiments
Dafoe, A., Zhang, B., & Caughey, D. (2018) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1017/pan.2018.9 · Cited by 356 · see citing works
Cultural differences in response styles: The role of dialectical thinking
Hamamura, T., Heine, S. J., & Paulhus, D. L. (2008) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.034 · Cited by 306 · see citing works
Rozental, A., Kottorp, A., Forsström, D., Månsson, K., Boettcher, J., Andersson, G., Furmark, T., & Carlbring, P. (2019) · Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy · doi:10.1017/s1352465819000018 · Cited by 230 · see citing works
Clinical and laboratory assessment of the subjective experience of drug craving
Rosenberg, H. (2009) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2009.06.002 · Cited by 251 · see citing works
Gender-related variables for health research
Nielsen, M. W., Stefanick, M. L., Peragine, D., Neilands, T. B., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Pilote, L., Prochaska, J. J., Cullen, M. R., Einstein, G., Klinge, I., et al. (2021) · Biology of Sex Differences · doi:10.1186/s13293-021-00366-3 · Cited by 238 · see citing works
Rozental, A., Kottorp, A., Boettcher, J., Andersson, G., & Carlbring, P. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157503 · Cited by 223 · see citing works
Rozental, A., Boettcher, J., Andersson, G., Schmidt, B., & Carlbring, P. (2015) · Cognitive Behaviour Therapy · doi:10.1080/16506073.2015.1008033 · Cited by 189 · see citing works
An Empirical Study of Model-Agnostic Techniques for Defect Prediction Models
Jiarpakdee, J., Tantithamthavorn, C. K., Dam, H. K., & Grundy, J. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2020.2982385 · Cited by 148 · see citing works
Discount rates and risky sexual behaviors among teenagers and young adults
Chesson, H. W., Leichliter, J. S., Zimet, G. D., Rosenthal, S. L., Bernstein, D. I., & Fife, K. H. (2006) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/s11166-006-9520-1 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
Increasing sample size compensates for data problems in segmentation studies
Dolnicar, S., Grün, B., & Leisch, F. (2016) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.09.004 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Schwarz (1999) · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000002002 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Do People Have Reproductive Goals? Constructive Preferences and the Discovery of Desired Family Size
Bhrolcháin, M. N., & Beaujouan, É. (2019) · The Springer Series on Demographic Methods and Population Analysis · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-93227-9_3 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Inconsistent Survey Reporting in Anesthesia Journals
Story, D. A., Gin, V., na Ranong, V., Poustie, S., & Jones, D. (2011) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e3182264aaf · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Rozental, A., Forsström, D., Tangen, J. A., & Carlbring, P. (2015) · Internet Interventions · doi:10.1016/j.invent.2015.05.001 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Zimmermann-Schlegel, V., Hartmann, M., Sklenarova, H., Herzog, W., & Haun, M. W. (2017) · The Oncologist · doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0245 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Investigating healthcare providers' knowledge of trichotillomania and its treatment
Marcks, B. A., Wetterneck, C. T., & Woods, D. W. (2006) · Cognitive Behaviour Therapy · doi:10.1080/16506070510010657a · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Impact on adolescent mental health of replacing screen-use with exercise: A prospective cohort study
Kandola, A., del Pozo Cruz, B., Hayes, J. F., Owen, N., Dunstan, D. W., & Hallgren, M. (2022) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2021.12.064 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
McInnerney, D., Candy, B., Stone, P., Atkin, N., Johnson, J., Hiskey, S., & Kupeli, N. (2021) · BMC Palliative Care · doi:10.1186/s12904-021-00724-3 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Rozental, A., Kothari, R., Wade, T., Egan, S., Andersson, G., Carlbring, P., & Shafran, R. (2020) · Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy · doi:10.1017/s1352465820000090 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Who Pays the Review Cost? Triage, Fairness, and Accountability in AI-authored Pull Requests
Rahman, M. S., Alam, K., Roy, B., & Roy, C. K. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.11179
Plausible Is Not Enough: Trust and Evidence in AI-Authored Pull Request Review
Rahman, M. S., Alam, K., Roy, B., & Roy, C. K. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.21144
- Authors
- Krosnick, J. A.
- Affiliations
- The Ohio State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Krosnick, Jon A.
- ORCID
- Krosnick, Jon A.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Psychology
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 1999-02
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 537-567
- ISSN
- 0066-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-2085
- OpenAlex
- W4213388807
- Cited by
- 1,852
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 83 · 2025: 98 · 2024: 79 · 2023: 104 · 2022: 107 · 2021: 114 · 2020: 109 · 2019: 123 · 2018: 81 · 2017: 82 · 2016: 82 · 2015: 96 · 2014: 87 · 2013: 100 · 2012: 86
- FWCI
- 13.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annual Review of Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Survey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
- Keywords
- survey methodology, response rate, questionnaire pretesting, measurement validity, conversational norms, response errors, social desirability bias, satisficing
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
