DIFFERENCES IN OPINION-SURVEY RESPONSE PATTERNS AS A FUNCTION OF DIFFERENT METHODS OF SURVEY ADMINISTRATION
FOR A POPULATION OF MALE TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES IN A LARGE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION THE METHOD OF RESPONDING TO AN OPINION SURVEY MADE NO DIFFERENCE IN THE LEVEL OF RESPONSES GIVEN. HOWEVER, THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE SURVEY WAS ADMINISTERED DID HAVE AN EFFECT ON RESPONSE. WHEN EMPLOYEES WERE SURVEYED...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of applied psychology 1967-12, Vol.51 (6), p.497-502 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 502 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 497 |
| container_title | Journal of applied psychology |
| container_volume | 51 |
| creator | HINRICHS, JOHN R GATEWOOD, ROBERT D |
| description | FOR A POPULATION OF MALE TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES IN A LARGE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION THE METHOD OF RESPONDING TO AN OPINION SURVEY MADE NO DIFFERENCE IN THE LEVEL OF RESPONSES GIVEN. HOWEVER, THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE SURVEY WAS ADMINISTERED DID HAVE AN EFFECT ON RESPONSE. WHEN EMPLOYEES WERE SURVEYED ON THEIR JOB LOCATIONS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE THERE WAS A TENDENCY TO RESPOND MORE FAVORABLY TO A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF GENERAL-OPINION QUESTIONS, PARTICULARLY QUESTIONS DEALING WITH THE "COMPANY IN GENERAL," THAN WHEN THEY WERE PERMITTED TO RESPOND IN A NONOFFICE LOCATION. THE UNDERLYING DYNAMICS OF THIS RESULT ARE NOT CLEAR, BUT THE SIGNIFICANT POINT IS THAT THE METHOD OF QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTRATION CAN SERVE AS A POTENTIAL SOURCE OF DISTORTION IN EMPLOYEE-OPINION-SURVEY DATA. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1037/h0025102 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_84626423</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>84626423</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a398t-3521af0815342ee7ffbd0b9b5ccff1dc6580f47d579beaefe25268d238c391783</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10dFq2zAUBmAxVrqsG-wFBmIdpTDc6kiWLV2axG4NrR1sZ7ArIdsyS-cknhVf9O2nkHSwsYFAcM6nH8GP0AcgN0BYePudEMqB0FdoBpJJDwT3X6OZm4InCZA36K21T4SAzyQ5R-cBCUMQYoZ-LNIkiYs4m8clTjOcL9MszTOvXBVf42-4iMtlnpUxXkZVFRdZiSN3cLLK5pVjOE_wS0CFH-PqPl-Uh-HpebR4dHFlVUQH_Q6ddbq35v3pvkCrJK7m995DfpfOowdPMyn2HuMUdEcEcOZTY8Kuq1tSy5o3TddB2wRckM4PWx7K2mjTGcppIFrKRMMkhIJdoKtj7jDufk7G7tVmbRvT93prdpNVwg9o4FPm4Ke_4NNuGrfubyoAnwZSUunQ5f8QUEmYkBzAqeujasadtaPp1DCuN3p8VkDUoSL1UpGjH0-BU70x7W946sTtvxz3etBqsM-NHvfrpje2mcbRbPdKD73ioALly9Dpz__Wf7Jf13CcrQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>614269929</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>DIFFERENCES IN OPINION-SURVEY RESPONSE PATTERNS AS A FUNCTION OF DIFFERENT METHODS OF SURVEY ADMINISTRATION</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><creator>HINRICHS, JOHN R ; GATEWOOD, ROBERT D</creator><contributor>Clark, Kenneth E</contributor><creatorcontrib>HINRICHS, JOHN R ; GATEWOOD, ROBERT D ; Clark, Kenneth E</creatorcontrib><description>FOR A POPULATION OF MALE TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES IN A LARGE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION THE METHOD OF RESPONDING TO AN OPINION SURVEY MADE NO DIFFERENCE IN THE LEVEL OF RESPONSES GIVEN. HOWEVER, THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE SURVEY WAS ADMINISTERED DID HAVE AN EFFECT ON RESPONSE. WHEN EMPLOYEES WERE SURVEYED ON THEIR JOB LOCATIONS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE THERE WAS A TENDENCY TO RESPOND MORE FAVORABLY TO A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF GENERAL-OPINION QUESTIONS, PARTICULARLY QUESTIONS DEALING WITH THE "COMPANY IN GENERAL," THAN WHEN THEY WERE PERMITTED TO RESPOND IN A NONOFFICE LOCATION. THE UNDERLYING DYNAMICS OF THIS RESULT ARE NOT CLEAR, BUT THE SIGNIFICANT POINT IS THAT THE METHOD OF QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTRATION CAN SERVE AS A POTENTIAL SOURCE OF DISTORTION IN EMPLOYEE-OPINION-SURVEY DATA.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-9010</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-1854</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/h0025102</identifier><identifier>PMID: 6077188</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Psychological Association</publisher><subject>Attitude Measures ; Attitudes ; Business and Industrial Personnel ; Human ; Humans ; Interest Inventories ; Methodology ; Methods ; Personality Measures ; Preference Measures ; Psychology, Applied ; Public Opinion ; Responses ; Surveys ; Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><ispartof>Journal of applied psychology, 1967-12, Vol.51 (6), p.497-502</ispartof><rights>1967 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>1967, American Psychological Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a398t-3521af0815342ee7ffbd0b9b5ccff1dc6580f47d579beaefe25268d238c391783</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,27852,27907,27908</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6077188$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Clark, Kenneth E</contributor><creatorcontrib>HINRICHS, JOHN R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GATEWOOD, ROBERT D</creatorcontrib><title>DIFFERENCES IN OPINION-SURVEY RESPONSE PATTERNS AS A FUNCTION OF DIFFERENT METHODS OF SURVEY ADMINISTRATION</title><title>Journal of applied psychology</title><addtitle>J Appl Psychol</addtitle><description>FOR A POPULATION OF MALE TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES IN A LARGE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION THE METHOD OF RESPONDING TO AN OPINION SURVEY MADE NO DIFFERENCE IN THE LEVEL OF RESPONSES GIVEN. HOWEVER, THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE SURVEY WAS ADMINISTERED DID HAVE AN EFFECT ON RESPONSE. WHEN EMPLOYEES WERE SURVEYED ON THEIR JOB LOCATIONS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE THERE WAS A TENDENCY TO RESPOND MORE FAVORABLY TO A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF GENERAL-OPINION QUESTIONS, PARTICULARLY QUESTIONS DEALING WITH THE "COMPANY IN GENERAL," THAN WHEN THEY WERE PERMITTED TO RESPOND IN A NONOFFICE LOCATION. THE UNDERLYING DYNAMICS OF THIS RESULT ARE NOT CLEAR, BUT THE SIGNIFICANT POINT IS THAT THE METHOD OF QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTRATION CAN SERVE AS A POTENTIAL SOURCE OF DISTORTION IN EMPLOYEE-OPINION-SURVEY DATA.</description><subject>Attitude Measures</subject><subject>Attitudes</subject><subject>Business and Industrial Personnel</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Interest Inventories</subject><subject>Methodology</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Personality Measures</subject><subject>Preference Measures</subject><subject>Psychology, Applied</subject><subject>Public Opinion</subject><subject>Responses</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><issn>0021-9010</issn><issn>1939-1854</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1967</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>K30</sourceid><recordid>eNp10dFq2zAUBmAxVrqsG-wFBmIdpTDc6kiWLV2axG4NrR1sZ7ArIdsyS-cknhVf9O2nkHSwsYFAcM6nH8GP0AcgN0BYePudEMqB0FdoBpJJDwT3X6OZm4InCZA36K21T4SAzyQ5R-cBCUMQYoZ-LNIkiYs4m8clTjOcL9MszTOvXBVf42-4iMtlnpUxXkZVFRdZiSN3cLLK5pVjOE_wS0CFH-PqPl-Uh-HpebR4dHFlVUQH_Q6ddbq35v3pvkCrJK7m995DfpfOowdPMyn2HuMUdEcEcOZTY8Kuq1tSy5o3TddB2wRckM4PWx7K2mjTGcppIFrKRMMkhIJdoKtj7jDufk7G7tVmbRvT93prdpNVwg9o4FPm4Ke_4NNuGrfubyoAnwZSUunQ5f8QUEmYkBzAqeujasadtaPp1DCuN3p8VkDUoSL1UpGjH0-BU70x7W946sTtvxz3etBqsM-NHvfrpje2mcbRbPdKD73ioALly9Dpz__Wf7Jf13CcrQ</recordid><startdate>196712</startdate><enddate>196712</enddate><creator>HINRICHS, JOHN R</creator><creator>GATEWOOD, ROBERT D</creator><general>American Psychological Association</general><general>American Psychological Association, etc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>EOLOZ</scope><scope>FKUCP</scope><scope>IOIBA</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>196712</creationdate><title>DIFFERENCES IN OPINION-SURVEY RESPONSE PATTERNS AS A FUNCTION OF DIFFERENT METHODS OF SURVEY ADMINISTRATION</title><author>HINRICHS, JOHN R ; GATEWOOD, ROBERT D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a398t-3521af0815342ee7ffbd0b9b5ccff1dc6580f47d579beaefe25268d238c391783</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1967</creationdate><topic>Attitude Measures</topic><topic>Attitudes</topic><topic>Business and Industrial Personnel</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Interest Inventories</topic><topic>Methodology</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Personality Measures</topic><topic>Preference Measures</topic><topic>Psychology, Applied</topic><topic>Public Opinion</topic><topic>Responses</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>HINRICHS, JOHN R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GATEWOOD, ROBERT D</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 01</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 04</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 29</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>APA PsycArticles®</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of applied psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>HINRICHS, JOHN R</au><au>GATEWOOD, ROBERT D</au><au>Clark, Kenneth E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>DIFFERENCES IN OPINION-SURVEY RESPONSE PATTERNS AS A FUNCTION OF DIFFERENT METHODS OF SURVEY ADMINISTRATION</atitle><jtitle>Journal of applied psychology</jtitle><addtitle>J Appl Psychol</addtitle><date>1967-12</date><risdate>1967</risdate><volume>51</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>497</spage><epage>502</epage><pages>497-502</pages><issn>0021-9010</issn><eissn>1939-1854</eissn><abstract>FOR A POPULATION OF MALE TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES IN A LARGE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION THE METHOD OF RESPONDING TO AN OPINION SURVEY MADE NO DIFFERENCE IN THE LEVEL OF RESPONSES GIVEN. HOWEVER, THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE SURVEY WAS ADMINISTERED DID HAVE AN EFFECT ON RESPONSE. WHEN EMPLOYEES WERE SURVEYED ON THEIR JOB LOCATIONS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE THERE WAS A TENDENCY TO RESPOND MORE FAVORABLY TO A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF GENERAL-OPINION QUESTIONS, PARTICULARLY QUESTIONS DEALING WITH THE "COMPANY IN GENERAL," THAN WHEN THEY WERE PERMITTED TO RESPOND IN A NONOFFICE LOCATION. THE UNDERLYING DYNAMICS OF THIS RESULT ARE NOT CLEAR, BUT THE SIGNIFICANT POINT IS THAT THE METHOD OF QUESTIONNAIRE ADMINISTRATION CAN SERVE AS A POTENTIAL SOURCE OF DISTORTION IN EMPLOYEE-OPINION-SURVEY DATA.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Psychological Association</pub><pmid>6077188</pmid><doi>10.1037/h0025102</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0021-9010 |
| ispartof | Journal of applied psychology, 1967-12, Vol.51 (6), p.497-502 |
| issn | 0021-9010 1939-1854 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_84626423 |
| source | MEDLINE; EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES; Periodicals Index Online |
| subjects | Attitude Measures Attitudes Business and Industrial Personnel Human Humans Interest Inventories Methodology Methods Personality Measures Preference Measures Psychology, Applied Public Opinion Responses Surveys Surveys and Questionnaires |
| title | DIFFERENCES IN OPINION-SURVEY RESPONSE PATTERNS AS A FUNCTION OF DIFFERENT METHODS OF SURVEY ADMINISTRATION |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T20%3A38%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=DIFFERENCES%20IN%20OPINION-SURVEY%20RESPONSE%20PATTERNS%20AS%20A%20FUNCTION%20OF%20DIFFERENT%20METHODS%20OF%20SURVEY%20ADMINISTRATION&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20applied%20psychology&rft.au=HINRICHS,%20JOHN%20R&rft.date=1967-12&rft.volume=51&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=497&rft.epage=502&rft.pages=497-502&rft.issn=0021-9010&rft.eissn=1939-1854&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/h0025102&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E84626423%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=614269929&rft_id=info:pmid/6077188&rfr_iscdi=true |