IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rug/rugwps/10-636.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels

Author

Listed:
  • B. WEIJTERS
  • E. CABOOTER
  • N. SCHILLEWAERT
  • -

Abstract

Questionnaires using Likert-type rating scales are an important source of data in marketing research. Researchers use different rating scale formats with varying number of response categories and varying label formats (e.g., seven point rating scales labeled at the endpoints, fully labeled five point scales…), but have few guidelines when selecting a specific format. Drawing from the response style literature, we formulate hypotheses on the effect of the labeling of response categories and the number of response categories on net acquiescence response style, extreme response style and misresponse to reversed items. We test the hypotheses in an online survey (N=1207) with eight experimental conditions and a follow-up study with two experimental conditions (N = 226). We find evidence of strong effects of scale format on response distributions and misresponse to reversed items and formulate recommendations on scale format choice

Suggested Citation

  • B. Weijters & E. Cabooter & N. Schillewaert & -, 2010. "The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 10/636, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    • Handle: RePEc:rug:rugwps:10/636
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wps-feb.ugent.be/Papers/wp_10_636.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simonson, Itamar, 1989. "Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(2), pages 158-174, September.
    2. Dhar, Ravi, 1997. "Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(2), pages 215-231, September.
    3. McKEE J. McCLENDON, 1991. "Acquiescence and Recency Response-Order Effects in Interview Surveys," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 20(1), pages 60-103, August.
    4. V. Srinivasan & Amiya K. Basu, 1989. "The Metric Quality of Ordered Categorical Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 8(3), pages 205-230.
    5. Nowlis, Stephen M & Kahn, Barbara E & Dhar, Ravi, 2002. "Coping with Ambivalence: The Effect of Removing a Neutral Option on Consumer Attitude and Preference Judgments," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 29(3), pages 319-334, December.
    6. Rossi P. E & Gilula Z. & Allenby G. M, 2001. "Overcoming Scale Usage Heterogeneity: A Bayesian Hierarchical Approach," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 96, pages 20-31, March.
    7. Weijters, Bert & Geuens, Maggie & Schillewaert, Niels, 2009. "The proximity effect: The role of inter-item distance on reverse-item bias," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 2-12.
    8. Weathers, Danny & Sharma, Subhash & Niedrich, Ronald W., 2005. "The impact of the number of scale points, dispositional factors, and the status quo decision heuristic on scale reliability and response accuracy," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(11), pages 1516-1524, November.
    9. Strizhakova, Yuliya & Coulter, Robin A. & Price, Linda L., 2008. "The meanings of branded products: A cross-national scale development and meaning assessment," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 82-93.
    10. Wong, Nancy & Rindfleisch, Aric & Burroughs, James E, 2003. "Do Reverse-Worded Items Confound Measures in Cross-Cultural Consumer Research? The Case of the Material Values Scale," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 30(1), pages 72-91, June.
    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. Cabooter, Elke & Weijters, Bert & Geuens, Maggie & Vermeir, Iris, 2016. "Scale format effects on response option interpretation and use," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 2574-2584.
    2. Martijn G. de Jong & Donald R. Lehmann & Oded Netzer, 2012. "State-Dependence Effects in Surveys," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(5), pages 838-854, September.
    3. de Jong, M.G., 2006. "Response bias in international marketing research," Other publications TiSEM 5d4031be-97b5-4db3-962b-2, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Hristina Nikolova & Cait Lamberton, 2016. "Men and the Middle: Gender Differences in Dyadic Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 43(3), pages 355-371.
    5. Georgios Gerasimou, 2016. "Asymmetric dominance, deferral, and status quo bias in a behavioral model of choice," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(2), pages 295-312, February.
    6. Reich, Taly & Fulmer, Alexander G. & Dhar, Ravi, 2022. "In the face of self-threat: Why ambivalence heightens people’s willingness to act," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    7. Cheng, Yin-Hui & Chuang, Shih-Chieh & Pei-I Yu, Annie & Lai, Wan-Ting, 2019. "Change in your wallet, change your choice: The effect of the change-matching heuristic on choice," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 67-76.
    8. Callander, Steven & Wilson, Catherine H., 2008. "Context-dependent voting and political ambiguity," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(3-4), pages 565-581, April.
    9. Andreas Herrmann & Mark Heitmann & Andreas Brandenberg & Torsten Tomczak, 2007. "Automobilwahl online — Gestaltung des Car-Konfigurators unter Berücksichtigung des individuellen Entscheidungsverhaltens," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 59(3), pages 390-412, May.
    10. Heribert Gierl & Christina Eleftheriadou, 2005. "Asymmetrisch überlegene Stockouts als Phantomprodukte," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 57(6), pages 475-502, September.
    11. Kivilcim Dogerlioglu-Demir & Cenk Koçaş & Nilsah Cavdar Aksoy, 2023. "The role of presentation order in consumer choice: the abrupt disparity effect," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 251-268, June.
    12. MacKenzie, Scott B. & Podsakoff, Philip M., 2012. "Common Method Bias in Marketing: Causes, Mechanisms, and Procedural Remedies," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 88(4), pages 542-555.
    13. Eugene J. S. Won, 2007. "—A Theoretical Investigation of the Effects of Similarity on Brand Choice Using the Elimination-by-Tree Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 868-875, 11-12.
    14. Kristen E. Duke & On Amir, 2023. "The Importance of Selling Formats: When Integrating Purchase and Quantity Decisions Increases Sales," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(1), pages 87-109, January.
    15. Yang, Xue & Liu, Na & Teo, Hock Hai, 2017. "How do users cope with trial restrictions? A field experiment on free trial software," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 339-349.
    16. Mark Heitmann & Andreas Herrmann, 2007. "Die Zufriedenheit mit dem Entscheidungsprozess als Determinante der Kundenbindung," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 59(5), pages 530-566, August.
    17. Maltz, Amnon & Rachmilevitch, Shiran, 2021. "A model of menu-dependent evaluations and comparison-aversion," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    18. Yan, Huan & Chang, En-Chung & Chou, Ting-Jui & Tang, Xiaofei, 2015. "The over-categorization effect: How the number of categorizations influences shoppers' perceptions of variety and satisfaction," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 631-638.
    19. Müller, Holger & Benjamin Kroll, Eike & Vogt, Bodo, 2010. "“Fact or artifact? Empirical evidence on the robustness of compromise effects in binding and non-binding choice contextsâ€," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 441-448.
    20. A. Ye(scedilla)im Orhun, 2009. "Optimal Product Line Design When Consumers Exhibit Choice Set-Dependent Preferences," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(5), pages 868-886, 09-10.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:rug:rugwps:10/636. 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: Nathalie Verhaeghe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ferugbe.html .

    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.