IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v43y2014i1p15-38.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Middle Alternatives Revisited

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick Sturgis
  • Caroline Roberts
  • Patten Smith

Abstract

A persistent problem in the design of bipolar attitude questions is whether or not to include a middle response alternative. On the one hand, it is reasonable to assume that people might hold opinions which are `neutral’ with regard to issues of public controversy. On the other, question designers suspect that offering a mid-point may attract respondents with no opinion, or those who lean to one side of an issue but do not wish to incur the cognitive costs required to determine a directional response. Existing research into the effects of offering a middle response alternative has predominantly used a split-ballot design, in which respondents are assigned to conditions which offer or omit a midpoint. While this body of work has been useful in demonstrating that offering or excluding a mid-point substantially influences the answers respondents provide, it does not offer any clear resolution to the question of which format yields more accurate data. In this paper, we use a different approach. We use follow-up probes administered to respondents who initially select the mid-point to determine whether they selected this alternative in order to indicate opinion neutrality, or to indicate that they do not have an opinion on the issue. We find the vast majority of responses turn out to be what we term `face-saving don’t knows’ and that reallocating these responses from the mid-point to the don’t know category significantly alters descriptive and multivariate inferences. Counter to the survey-satisficing perspective, we find that those with this tendency is greatest amongst those who express more interest in the topic area.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrick Sturgis & Caroline Roberts & Patten Smith, 2014. "Middle Alternatives Revisited," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 43(1), pages 15-38, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:43:y:2014:i:1:p:15-38
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124112452527
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124112452527
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124112452527?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patrick Sturgis & Patten Smith, 2010. "Fictitious Issues Revisited: Political Interest, Knowledge and the Generation of Nonattitudes," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(1), pages 66-84, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Florian Stoeckel & Vittorio Mérola & Jack Thompson & Benjamin Lyons & Jason Reifler, 2024. "Public perceptions and misperceptions of political authority in the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 25(1), pages 42-62, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:43:y:2014:i:1:p:15-38. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.