Reports of the use of mixed grammar chains in survey research have become common in the literature. An investigation of the misunderstanding by respondents as the result of such usage suggests that researchers may not fully appreciate the nature and impact of this form of bias introduced into their results.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarcikowskiRobert S. (1981), “Statistical Power with Group Means as the Unit of Analysis,”Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 267–85.
2.
BartkoJohn J. (1976), “On Various Intraclass Correlation Reliability Coefficients,”Psychological Bulletin, 83(5), 762–5.
3.
BrownCecil H. (1974), Wittgensteinian Linguistics.The Netherlands: Mouton and Co.
4.
ChomskyNoam (1957), Syntactic Structures.The Netherlands: Mouton and Co.
5.
ChomskyNoam (1965), Aspects of the Theory of Syntax.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
ClarkHerbert H. (1979), “Responding to Indirect Speech Acts,”Cognitive Psychology, 11, 430–77.
7.
CrystalDavid (1980), A First Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
8.
GriceH Paul (1975), “Logic and Conversation,” in Speech Acts, ColePeter, and MorganJerry L., eds. New York: Academic Press, Inc., 41–58.
9.
GriceH Paul (1978), “Some Further Notes on Logic and Conversation,” in Pragmatics, ColePeter, ed. New York: Academic Press, Inc., 113–28.
10.
SchumanHoward, and PresserStanley (1981), Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys.New York: Academic Press, Inc.
11.
StevensJames (1986), Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
