Respondents in self-administered, paper-based surveys answer open-ended frequency questions differently depending on the size of the response field provided. Longer fields increase the proportion of alphanumeric elaborations or answers explicitly designated as an estimate (``about 20,'' ``60-70''). By contrast, shorter fields yield higher proportions of pure digit responses. It is assumed that respondents interpret the size of the response field as an instruction regarding the format of the expected answer. In this article, the authors assess the effect of the length of the response field in a web survey compared to a paper-and-pencil questionnaire. Results indicate that the effect of the length of the response field is more pronounced in the paper-and-pencil condition compared to the web survey condition. This raises the question as to what extent the underlying visual design language differs across self-administered survey modes.
Belli, F.R., Schwarz, N., Singer, E., & Talarico, J. (2000). Decomposition can harm the accuracy of behavioural frequency reports. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 295-308.
2.
Borgers, N., de Leeuw, E., & Hox, J. (2000). Children as respondents in survey research: Cognitive development and response quality. Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique (BMS), 66, 60-75.
3.
Christian, L.M., & Dillman, D.A. (2004). The influence of graphical and symbolic language manipulations on responses to self-administered questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 57-80.
4.
Christian, L.M., Dillman, D.A., & Smyth, J.D. (2005). Instructing Web and telephone respondents to report date answers in format desired by the surveyor. Technical report 05-067. Pullman: University of Washington, Social and Economic Sciences Research Center.
5.
Christian, L.M., Dillman, D.A., & Smyth, J.D. (2007). Helping the respondents get it right the first time: The influence of words, symbols, and graphics in web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(1), 113-125.
6.
Couper, M., Tourangeau, R., & Conrad, F.G. (2007, September 17-19). How the shape and format of input fields affect answers. Paper presented at the 2007 Workshop on Internet Survey Methodology, Lillehammer, Norway.
7.
Couper, M.P., Traugott, M.W., & Lamias, M.J. (2001). Web survey design and administration. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 230-253.
8.
Dillman, D.A., Gertseva, A., & Mahon-Haft, T. (2005). Achieving usability in establishment surveys through the application of visual design principles . Journal of Official Statistics, 21, 183-214.
9.
Fuchs, M. (2002). Comparing internet and paper and pencil surveys. Question order effects and response order effects as indicators for differences of data collection techniques. Egyptian Journal of Public Opinion Research, 3(1), 21-43.
10.
Fuchs, M. (2003). Kognitive Prozesse und Antwortverhalten in einer Internet-Befragung [Cognitive processes and response behavior in a web survey] . Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 28(4), 19-45.
11.
Fuchs, M. (2005). Children and adolescents as respondents. Experiments on question order, response order, scale effects and the effect of numeric values associated with response options. Journal of Official Statistics, 21, 701-725.
12.
Fuchs, M. (2007a, May 16-20). Asking for numbers and quantities: Visual design effects in web surveys. Paper presented at the AAPOR Annual Conference, Anaheim, CA.
13.
Fuchs, M. (2007b, July 29-August 2). Face-to-face interviews with children. Question difficulty and the impact of cognitive resources on response quality. Paper presented at the Joint Statistical Meetings, Salt Lake City, UT.
14.
Fuchs, M., Lamnek, S., & Wiederer, R. (2003). Querschläger. Jugendliche zwischen rechter Ideologie und Gewalt [Ricochets. Juveniles amongst right wing ideology and violence] . Opladen, Cologne, Germany: Leske + Budrich.
15.
Hershey, M.R., & Hill, D.B. (1976). Positional response set in pre-adult socialization surveys. Social Science Quarterly, 56, 707-714.
16.
Jobe, J.B., Pratt, W.F., Tourangeau, R., Baldwin, A.K., & Rasinski, K.A. (1997). Effects of interview mode on sensitive questions in a fertility survey. In L. Lyberg, P. Biemer, M. Collins, E. deLeeuw, C. Dippo, N. Schwarz , & D. Trewin (Eds.), Survey Measurement and Process Quality (pp. 311-329). New York: Wiley.
17.
Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports. How the questions shape the answers . American Psychologist, 54(2), 93-105.
18.
Smyth, J.D., Dillman, D.A., & Christian, L.M. (2007, May 16-21). Improving response quality in list-style open-ended questions in web and telephone surveys. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Anaheim, CA.
19.
Smyth, J.D., Dillman, D.A., Christian, L.M., & Stern, M.J. (2006). Effects of using visual design principles to group response options in web surveys. International Journal of Internet Science, 1(1), 6-16.
20.
Spörrle, M., Gerber-Braun, B., & Försterling, F. (2007). The influence of response lines on response behavior in the context of open-question formats. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 66(2), 103-107.
21.
Sudman, S., Bradburn, N., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Thinking about answers. The application of cognitive processes to survey methodology, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22.
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Tourangeau, R., & Smith, T. (1996). Asking sensitive questions. The impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 275-304.
