From Roger Tourangeau

Research professor, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, and director, Joint Program in Survey Methodology, University of Maryland

Here are my very scattered thoughts: 

I think we've made real progress on question order and response order effects. I'd cite the following key pieces on response order: 

Knauper, B. 1998. The impact of age and education on response order effects in attitude measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly 63:347-70. 

Krosnick, J. A., and D. Alwin. 1987. An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response-order effects in survey measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly 51:201-19. 

Narayan, S., and J. Krosnick. 1996. Education moderates some response effects in attitude measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly 60:58-88. 

Schwarz, N., H. Hippler, and E. Noelle-Neumann. 1991. A cognitive model of response-order effects in survey measurement. In Context effects in social and psychological research, ed. N. Schwarz and S. Sudman. New York: Springer-Verlag, 187-201. 

And these on question order: 

Schwarz, N., and H. Bless. 1992. Constructing reality and its alternatives: Assimilation and contrasts effects in social judgment. In The Construction of Social Judgments, ed. L. L. Martin and A. Tesser. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 217-45.

Schwarz, N., and H. Bless. 1992. Scandals and public trust in politicians: Assimilation and contrast effects.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18:574-79.  

Tourangeau, R. 1999. Contexts effects on answers to attitude questions. In Cognition and Survey Research, ed. M. G. Sirken, D. J. Herrmann, S. Schechter, N. Schwarz, J. Tanur, and R. Tourangeau. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 111-31.  

Tourangeau, R., and K. Rasinski. 1988. Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement. Psychological Bulletin 103:299 314.  

I don't have a strong sense of good progress on open versus closed questions, assessing no opinion, and measuring a middle position.  

On attitudes and nonattitudes, I think there is real progress here. To the extent that most attitudes are constructed on the spot, the distinction between attitudes and nonattitudes may be overdrawn. Here are some papers I regard as important on this point: 

Schwarz, N., and H. Bless. 1992. Constructing reality and its alternatives: Assimilation and contrasts effects in social judgment. In The Construction of Social Judgments, ed. L. L. Martin and A. Tesser. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 217-45. 

Smith, T. W. 1984. Non-attitudes: A review and evaluation. In Surveying Subjective Phenomena, ed. C. F. Turner and E. Martin. New York: Russell Sage, 2:215-55.  

Tourangeau, R., L. Rips, and K. Rasinski. 2000. The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge University Press, chapter 6. 

Wilson, T. D., and S. Hodges. 1992. Attitudes as temporary constructions. In The Construction of Social Judgments, ed. L. Martin and A. Tesser. New York: Springer Verlag, 37-66. 

Regarding acquiescence and the need for balance, I'm not sure we've made much headway; I know Jon [Krosnick] thinks we have, but I haven't seen the evidence.  

I think we have made some progress on passionate attitudes and the meaning of crystallization; I'd cite: 

Petty, R. E., and J. Krosnick. 1995. Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Also, Abelson's various pieces, for example,

Abelson, R. P. 1999. Conviction. American Psychologist 43: 267-75. 

Krosnick, J. A., and R. P. Abelson. 1992. The case for measuring attitude strength in surveys. In Questions about questions: Inquiries into the cognitive bases of surveys, ed. J. Tanur. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 177-203. 

I'm not sure we've gotten very far with tone of wording. 

As for the general enterprise, Schuman and Presser remains a classic. Some of the issues seem a little dated (tone of wording is one), but many of them (acquiescence, balance, question order, and response order, among others) are just as important today as they were twenty-five years ago.

To Schuman and Presser afterword

To first page