The survey response process from a cognitive viewpoint

Published date03 April 2018
Date03 April 2018
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-06-2017-0034
Pages169-181
AuthorRoger Tourangeau
Subject MatterEducation,Curriculum, instruction & assessment,Educational evaluation/assessment
The survey response process from
a cognitive viewpoint
Roger Tourangeau
Methodology Unit, Westat Inc, Rockville, Maryland, USA
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to examine the cognitiveprocesses involved in answering survey questions. It
also briey discusses how the cognitive viewpoint has been challenged by other approaches (such as
conversationalanalysis).
Design/methodology/approach The paper reviews the major components of the response process
and summarizes work examining how each of these components can contribute to measurement errors in
surveys.
Findings The Cognitive Aspects of Survey Methodology (CASM) model of the survey response
process is still generating useful research, but both the satiscing model and the conversational
approach provide useful supplements, emphasizing motivational and social sources of error neglected
in the CASM approach.
Originality/value The paper provides an introduction to the cognitive processes underlying survey
responsesand how these processes can explain why survey responses may be inaccurate.
Keywords Comprehension, Measurement error, Reporting error, Survey response process
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
It is a truth universally acknowledged at least since the 1980s that much of the
measurement error in surveys stems from problems that respondents have in
carrying out the cognitive operations needed for accurate answers. This idea rst
emerged in the 1960s (Neter and Waksberg, 1964), at about the same time that
cognitive psychology was emerging as a distinct eld, and received fuller articulation
at the 1983 Advanced Seminar on Cognitive Aspects of Survey Methodology (CASM).
The CASM seminar introduced a model of the response process that featured four
components: comprehension of the question, retrieval of information, integration of
that information into an estimate or judgment and reporting of that judgment
(Tourangeau, 1984). One enterprising student at the University of Maryland dubbed a
more elaborate version of this model the ESCRIMEmodel (encoding, storage,
comprehension, retrieval, integration, mapping and editing). Encodingand
storagerefer to taking in and interpreting experiences and then storing them in
long-term memory (LTM). Mappingrefers to translating an underlying judgment
onto one of the available response options. Editingrefers to modifying onesanswer
before reporting it.
Some alternative models assume there are two or more distinct routes respondents
take to come up with their answers. Cannell et al. (1981) argued that some respondents
carried out cognitive processes like those in the CASM model and were likely to
provide adequate answers, but others opt out of this effortful path and give answers
marked by problems like acquiescence bias. Krosnick (1991,1999) distinguishes three
routes to an answer:
Survey
response
process
169
Received30 June 2017
Revised12 September 2017
Accepted13 December 2017
QualityAssurance in Education
Vol.26 No. 2, 2018
pp. 169-181
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0968-4883
DOI 10.1108/QAE-06-2017-0034
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT