IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v58y2024i4d10.1007_s11135-023-01825-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scale matters: unravelling the impact of Likert scales on political self-placement

Author

Listed:
  • Cristina Aybar

    (GIPEyOP, Universitat de Valencia)

  • Virgilio Pérez

    (GIPEyOP, Universitat de Valencia)

  • Jose M. Pavía

    (GIPEyOP, Universitat de Valencia)

Abstract

Worldwide, Likert scales are used to measure ideology of both public opinion and individual voters, with the utilization of a self-assessment numerical scale as the most widely accepted tool, despite the multifaceted nature of the concept. However, in contrast to this prevailing consensus, there is a lack of agreement regarding what particular scale should be used and about the benefits of the different scales. This paper seeks to provide insights into these questions by analysing Spanish public opinion ideology as measured by CIS surveys. In 1976, the Centre for Sociological Research (CIS), a leading public body for studies of Spanish society, defined the ideological self-placement scale as being from 1 to 10. Since then, a myriad of different scales has been applied by CIS in more than 1400 surveys (over 3.5 million interviews). In total, we identify 20 scales in studies with available microdata, with the number rising to 28 when all the CIS studies carried out are included. This research identifies which scale is used in each study and analyses whether this has an effect on the estimation of the ideological distribution of the population. After studying, from an empirical perspective, the relationship structures between the different scales, we conclude that the scale used does have an effect. We finish the paper by offering clear guidelines on how questionnaires related to ideology should be asked.

Suggested Citation

  • Cristina Aybar & Virgilio Pérez & Jose M. Pavía, 2024. "Scale matters: unravelling the impact of Likert scales on political self-placement," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 3725-3746, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:58:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s11135-023-01825-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-023-01825-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-023-01825-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-023-01825-2?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kroh, Martin, 2007. "Measuring Left-Right Political Orientation: The Choice of Response Format," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 71(2), pages 204-220.
    2. Weijters, Bert & Millet, Kobe & Cabooter, Elke, 2021. "Extremity in horizontal and vertical Likert scale format responses. Some evidence on how visual distance between response categories influences extreme responding," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 85-103.
    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. Juvalta, Sibylle & Speranza, Camilla & Robin, Dominik & El Maohub, Yassmeen & Krasselt, Julia & Dreesen, Philipp & Dratva, Julia & Suggs, L. Suzanne, 2023. "Young people's media use and adherence to preventive measures in the “infodemic”: Is it masked by political ideology?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 317(C).
    2. Pei-shan Liao, 2014. "More Happy or Less Unhappy? Comparison of the Balanced and Unbalanced Designs for the Response Scale of General Happiness," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 15(6), pages 1407-1423, December.
    3. Simon Gaechter & Kyeongtae Lee & Martin Sefton, 2020. "Risk, Temptation, and Efficiency in Prisoner's Dilemmas," Discussion Papers 2020-15, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    4. Denise Laroze & David Hugh-Jones & Arndt Leininger, 2015. "The impact of group identity on coalition formation," University of East Anglia School of Economics Working Paper Series 2015-03, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    5. Economou, Athina & Gavroglou, Stavros & Kollias, Christos, 2013. "Economic fluctuations and political self-placement," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 57-65.
    6. Economou Athina & Kollias Christos, 2015. "Terrorism and Political Self-Placement in European Union Countries," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 21(2), pages 217-238, April.
    7. Carlotta Balestra & Nicolas Ruiz, 2015. "Scale-Invariant Measurement of Inequality and Welfare in Ordinal Achievements: An Application to Subjective Well-Being and Education in OECD Countries," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 123(2), pages 479-500, September.
    8. Tiberius, Victor & Gojowy, Robin & Dabić, Marina, 2022. "Forecasting the future of robo advisory: A three-stage Delphi study on economic, technological, and societal implications," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).

    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:spr:qualqt:v:58:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s11135-023-01825-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.