Question-order effects refer to systematic differences in responses that can be attributed to the manner in which questions assessing attitudes and cognitions are asked. This article hypothesized that question-order effects in assessing the perceived importance of skin cancer would be moderated by the extent to which people are involved with the issue of skin cancer. A telephone survey (N = 325) was conducted by administering two versions of the same questionnaire, one in which importance of skin cancer was assessed without other contextual variables and another in which contextual variables were asked before assessing the importance of skin cancer. As hypothesized, when people were highly involved with the issue, question-order effects did not occur. When involvement was low, importance of skin cancer was greater in the absence of contextual questions than in their presence. Findings have implications for how health-related issues are communicated to the public and how formative research is conducted.
American Cancer Society. (1996). Cancer facts and figures, 1995. Atlanta, GA: Author.
2.
American Cancer Society. (2000). Cancer facts and figures, 1999. Atlanta, GA: Author.
3.
American Cancer Society. (2002). Cancer prevention and early detection—Cancer facts and figures, 2002. Atlanta, GA: Author.
4.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5.
Cacioppo, J. T., Claiborn, C. D., Petty, R. T., & Heesacker, M. (1991). General framework for the study of attitude change in psychotherapy. In C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology: The health perspective (pp. 523-539). New York: Pergamon.
6.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2002). Guidelines for school programs to prevent skin cancer. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 51(RR-4).
7.
Chaffee, S. H., & Roser, C. (1986). Involvement and the consistency of knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Communication Research, 23, 373-399.
8.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
9.
Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1976). Communication modality as a determinant of message persuasiveness and message comprehensibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 605-614.
10.
Donovan, R.J., & Jalleh, G. (2000). Positive versus negative framing of a hypothetical infant immunization: The influence of involvement. Health Education & Behavior, 27, 82-95.
11.
Fazio, R. H. (1986). How do attitudes guide behavior? In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), The handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 204-243). New York: Guilford.
12.
Fazio, R. H., Powell, M. C., & Williams, C. J. (1989). The role of attitude accessibility in the attitude-to-behavior process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 280-288.
13.
Greenlee, R. T., Murray, T., Bolden, S., & Wingo, P. A. (2000). Cancer statistics, 2000. Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 50, 7-33.
14.
Jones, S. K., Frisch, D., Yurak, T. J., & Kim, E. (1998). Choices and opportunities: Another effect of framing on decisions. Journal of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership, 11, 211-226.
15.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choice, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.
16.
Kaplan, R. (1990). Behavior as the central outcome in health care. American Psychologist, 45, 1211-1220.
17.
Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Marketing Research, 27, 361-367.
18.
McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1972). The agenda-setting function of the mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.
19.
Moore, D. W. (2002). Measuring new types of question-order effects: Additive and subtractive. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 80-91.
20.
Narayan, S., & Krosnick, J. A. (1996). Education moderates some response effects in attitude measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 58-88.
21.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
22.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., Strathman, A. J., & Priester, J. R. (1994). To think or not to think: Exploring two routes to persuasion. In S. Shavitt&T.C. Brock (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives (pp. 113-147). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
23.
Prochaska, J. O., Velicer, W. F., DiClemente, C. C., & Fava, J. (1988). Measuring processes of change: Applications to the cessation of smoking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 520-528.
24.
Protess, D., & McCombs, M. (1991). Agenda setting: Readings on media, public opinion, and policymaking. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
Rimal, R. N. (2001). Longitudinal influences of knowledge and self-efficacy on exercise behavior: Tests of a mutual reinforcement model. Journal of Health Psychology, 6, 31-46.
26.
Rimal, R. N. (2003). Intergenerational transmission of health: The role of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and communicative factors. Health Education & Behavior, 30, 10-28.
27.
Rimal, R. N., Flora, J. A., & Schooler, C. (1999). Achieving improvements in overall health orientation: Effects of campaign exposure, information seeking, and health media use. Communication Research, 26, 322-348.
28.
Rothman, A. J., Salovey, P., Antone, C., Keough, K., & Martin, C. D. (1993). The influence of message framing on intentions to perform health behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 408-433.
29.
Schuman, H., & Kalton, G. (1985). Survey methods. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., pp. 635-697). New York: Random House.
30.
Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1981). Questions and answers in the attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording, and context. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
31.
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. A. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
