Previous research has shown that check-all-that-apply (CATA) and forced-choice (FC) question formats do not produce comparable results. The cognitive processes underlying respondents’ answers to both types of formats still require clarification. This study contributes to filling this gap by using eye-tracking data. Both formats are compared by analyzing attention processes and the cognitive effort respondents spend while answering one factual and one opinion question, respectively. No difference in cognitive effort spent on the factual question was found, whereas for the opinion question, respondents invested more cognitive effort in the FC than in the CATA condition. The findings indicate that higher endorsement in FC questions cannot only be explained by question format. Other possible causes are discussed.

Cornelia E. Neuert

Field Methods

Field Methods (formerly Cultural Anthropology Methods) is devoted to articles about the methods used by field wzorkers in the social and behavioral sciences and humanities for the collection, management, and analysis data about human thought and/or human behavior in the natural world. Articles should focus on innovations and issues in the methods used, rather than on the reporting of research or theoretical/epistemological questions about research. High-quality articles using qualitative and quantitative methods-- from scientific or interpretative traditions-- dealing with data collection and analysis in applied and scholarly research from writers in the social sciences, humanities, and related professions are all welcome in the pages of the journal.

Field Methods (formerly Cultural Anthropology Methods) is dedicated to articles about the methods used by field workers in the social and behavioral sciences and humanities for collecting, managing, and analyzing data about human thought and behavior in the natural world. Articles should focus on innovations and issues in the methods used, rather than on reporting research or theoretical/epistemological questions about research. We welcome high-quality articles using qualitative and quantitative methods—from scientific or interpretative traditions—dealing with data collection and analysis in applied and scholarly research from writers in the social sciences, humanities, and related professions.

《Field Methods》（前称《文化人类学方法》）专注于社会科学、行为科学和人文学科领域的田野工作者所使用的方法，旨在收集、管理和分析关于人类思想和行为的数据。文章应着重于方法的创新和相关问题，而非研究结果或理论/认识论问题的报告。我们欢迎来自社会科学、人文学科及相关专业的作者提交高质量的文章，这些文章可以采用定性或定量方法，涉及应用和学术研究中的数据收集与分析。

Category	Quartile
社会学	3
社会学, 人类学	3
社会学, 社会科学跨领域	4

Processing Forced-choice versus Check-all-that-apply Question Formats

ivySCI AI Smartly Parses PDF, Answers Researchers' Questions, and Helps You Understand Papers in Seconds

Journal Info

Category	Quartile
SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY	2