Home > Publications . Search All . Browse All . Country . Browse PSC Pubs . PSC Report Series

PSC In The News

RSS Feed icon

Shaefer and Edin's book ($2 a Day) cited in piece on political debate over plight of impoverished Americans

Eisenberg tracks factors affecting both mental health and athletic/academic performance among college athletes

Shapiro says Americans' low spending reflects "cruel lesson" about the dangers of debt

Highlights

Susan Murphy elected to the National Academy of Sciences

Maggie Levenstein named director of ISR's Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research

Arline Geronimus receives 2016 Harold R. Johnson Diversity Service Award

PSC spring 2016 newsletter: Kristin Seefeldt, Brady West, newly funded projects, ISR Runs for Bob, and more

Next Brown Bag

PSC Brown Bags
will resume fall 2016

"Up Means Good" the effect of screen position on evaluative ratings in web surveys

Publication Abstract

Tourangeau, Roger, Mick P. Couper, and Frederick G. Conrad. 2013. ""Up Means Good" the effect of screen position on evaluative ratings in web surveys." Public Opinion Quarterly, 77: 69-88.

This paper presents results from six experiments that examine the effect of the position of an item on the screen on the evaluative ratings it receives. The experiments are based on the idea that respondents expect "good" things-those they view positively-to be higher up on the screen than "bad" things. The experiments use items on different topics (Congress and HMOs, a variety of foods, and six physician specialties) and different methods for varying their vertical position on the screen. A meta-analysis of all six experiments demonstrates a small but reliable effect of the item's screen position on mean ratings of the item; the ratings are significantly more positive when the item appears in a higher position on the screen than when it appears farther down. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that respondents follow the "Up means good" heuristic, using the vertical position of the item as a cue in evaluating it. Respondents seem to rely on heuristics both in interpreting response scales and in forming judgments.

DOI:10.1093/poq/nfs063 (Full Text)

PMCID: PMC3954164. (Pub Med Central)

Browse | Search : All Pubs | Next