Tourism Management 59 (2017) 376e384

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

A critique of Response Bias in the tourism, travel and hospitality

research*
Atila Yksel
Tourism Faculty, Adnan Menderes University, Turkey

h i g h l i g h t s

 We examined response bias in leading tourism, travel and hospitality journals.

 We identied that response bias was not properly acknowledged.
 We identied citer myopia with serious repercussions on scientic progress.
 We found that the issue of bias was not taken as seriously as it should be by the editors.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Measurement accuracy of respondents' opinions, perceptions, attitudes and behaviors is vital for better
Received 10 May 2016 managerial suggestions, theoretical conclusions and advancement of science. There is a growing concern,
Received in revised form voiced frequently in other disciplines that a high rate of response bias exists and this casts serious doubts
2 August 2016
on generalizability of conclusions. Based on limited research on the topic, this paper examines the extent
Accepted 5 August 2016
to which response bias is acknowledged as a limitation in tourism, travel and hospitality research.
Additional analyses were carried out to explore i) researchers' attentiveness to cautions when citing a
biased study and ii) editorial policies of journals against bias. The results revealed that i) acknowl-
Keywords:
Research limitation
edgement of response bias was low, ii) that researchers negligence to reported response bias limitations
Response behavior was high, and iii) that editorial policies of the examined journals were far from encouraging authors to
Response bias discuss and include response bias related limitations. Implications were discussed.
Citer myopia 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
There is an increasing concern that in modern research, false
ndings may be the majority (Brutus, Gill, & Duniewicz, 2013;
Ioannidis, 2005). Rossiter (2011, p. 79) alleged that that all the
ndings in the social sciences based on Likert items and Semantic Dif-
ferential items are suspectdand this means the majority of ndings! .
Likewise Kollat, Blackwell and Engel point that It would not be
surprising if 90% of the ndings and lack of ndings proved to be wrong
(1972, p. 577). Response biases (i.e., halo effects, social desirability,
acquiescence, leniency effects etc.) could be the main sources of
measurement error (Bagozzi & Yi, 1991). And they may seriously
mislead results and management policies (Arana & Leon, 2013;
Campell & Fiske, 1959). Biases spuriously increase internal consis-
tency, decrease validity and produce defective frequency distribu-
tions (Dolnicar, 2007; Dolnicar & Grn, 2009; Dolnicar, Grn & Lee,
*
This paper was selected as the best paper at the International Conference on
Tourism Dynamics and Trends, 2016, Antalya, Turkey
E-mail address: atilayuksel@gmail.com.
2008; Peer & Gamliel, 2011). Response bias related limitations are
important to understand for placing research ndings in context,
interpreting the validity of the scientic work, and ascribing a credibility
level to the conclusions of published research (Ioannidis, 2007, p. 324).
Contrary to its signicance, only a number of researchers (e.g.,
Dodd-Mccue & Tartaglia, 2010; Ioannidis, 2005, 2007; Lavrakas,
2004; Mortel, 2008; Villar, 2008) warn that response bias is prop-
erly acknowledged as a limitation. A review of research articles
published in the Journal of Pastoral Care and Counseling
(1998e2008) demonstrated that only two articles acknowledged
the potential impact of self-report response bias. Another recent
research on the leading scientic publications (e.g., Science, Nature,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science) showed that only
17% of articles in these journals included limitations including
response bias (Ioannidis, 2007). Similarly, examining 14,275
studies, Mortel (2008) found that only 0.002% (N: 31) used a social
desirability scale to detect social desirability bias.
Due to its negative implications on research ndings, reported in
other disciplines, a similar study with a specic focus on travel,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.08.003
0261-5177/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A. Yksel / Tourism Management 59 (2017) 376e384 377

Table 1
Types of response biases.

Response bias A general term that refers to conditions or factors that take place during the process of responding to surveys, affecting the way responses are
provided. Such circumstances lead to a nonrandom deviation of the answers from their true value. Because this deviation takes on average the
same direction among respondents, it creates a systematic error of the measure, or bias. The effect is analogous to that of collecting height data
with a ruler that consistently adds (or subtracts) an inch to the observed units. The nal outcome is an overestimation (or underestimation) of
the true population parameter. Unequivocally identifying whether a survey result is affected by response bias is not as straightforward as
researchers would wish. (Villar, 2008; http://srmo.sagepub.com/)
Acquiescence bias The tendency for survey respondents to agree with statements regardless of their content. Acquiescence response bias could inuence any
question in which the response options involve conrming a statement, but it may be particularly problematic with agree-disagree questions
(Holbrook, 2008a; http://srmo.sagepub.com/)
Extreme responding That drives respondents to only select the most extreme options or answers available.
Social desirability bias That drives an individual to answer in a way that makes them look more favorable to the researcher.
Non-response bias Nonresponse bias occurs when sampled elements from which data are gathered are different on the measured variables in non-negligible ways
from those that are sampled but from which data are not gathered. Essentially, all surveys are likely to have some degree of nonresponse bias
(Lavrakas, 2004; srmo.sagepub.com/)
Common method bias Variance that is attributable to the measurement method rather than to the constructs the measures are assumed to represent.
Recall bias There are two types of recall bias. One, arising from better recall of recent events than those occurring long time ago. Also, serious episodes are
easy to recall than the mild episodes (Indrayan, 2008, p.208).
Recency effect One type of response order effect, whereby the order in which response options are offered to respondents affects the distribution of responses.
Recency effects occur when response options are more likely to be chosen when presented at the end of a list of response options than when
presented at the beginning (Holbrook, 2008b; srmo.sagepub.com/)
Leniency bias The tendency for raters to rate those whom they know well, or whom they are ego involved, higher than they should.

Table 2
Research Articles mentioning response bias, common-method bias, non-response bias and social-desirability bias.

# Articles published Response bias Common method bias Non-response Social desirability bias

Tourism Management (TM) 2521 73 31 20 5

Annals of Tourism Research (ATR) 2137 27 2 11 3
Int. Journal of Hospitality Management (IJHM) 1625 75 71 31 10
Journal of Travel Research (JTR) 803 44 7 22 6
Journal of Sustainable Tourism (JST) 610 10 5 1 3
Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing (JTTM) 474 16 7 8 2
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly (CHRAQ) 968 1 2 1 e
Int. Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management (IJCHM) 455 16 18 11 2
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research (JHTR) 439 30 10 11 2
Total 10,032 292 153 116 33

Source: Scopus database (accessed on-30 December 2014e08 January 2015).

tourism and hospitality journals would be useful to understand the
extent to which response bias is acknowledged as a research limita-
tion. In order to realize this objective, accessible research articles
published in nine leading journals (e.g., Tourism Management, Journal
of Travel Research, Annals of Tourism Research, Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Manage-
ment and International Journal of Hospitality Management), archived in
general databases (e.g., Scopus) and publishers online content plat-
forms (e.g., Science Direct, Sage, Emerald and Taylor and Francis On-
line) were searched. Such terms as non-response bias, social
desirability bias, common-method bias, recall bias, memory
bias, extreme response bias, acquiescence bias, recency bias,
mid-point bias and leniency bias were sought. Then, each section
(i.e., literature, methodology, sampling and data collection,
results and discussion, and conclusion, limitations and sugges-
tions) of the most recently published articles (N: 179) in which
response bias was specically referred to were further scrutinized to
identify the exact location in which the bias was mentioned.
Considering the potential skip reading behavior common in re-
searchers, the identication of the location where bias is mentioned is
important. Hence, an additional content analysis was conducted with
a sample of articles, citing a publication with a response bias limita-
tion. This was done in order to identify the extent to which citers
attend to the already raised bias cautions and recommendations.
Finally, editorial policies (i.e., guidelines for authors and manuscript
evaluation forms) of nine journals were examined for traces of
concern about response bias. Overall, the results showed that only
0.003 percent of the published articles (N: 10,032), touched on the
subject of response bias. Only 0.012 percent of the articles seemed
to have tackled with non-response bias, 0.003 percent with social
desirability bias and 0.016 percent with common method bias. A
relatively high rate of citer myopia was traced. The majority of citers
were found to turn blind eye to bias cautions highlighted in the
quoted articles. Editorial policies of the examined journals were
found to be far from encouraging authors to discuss and include
response bias limitations in their submissions.
2. Literature review
Ioannidis (2005, p. 697) denes bias as the combination of
various subject related, as well as, design, data, analysis, and pre-
sentation factors that tend to produce research ndings when they
should not be produced. Paulhus describes it as a systematic ten-
dency to respond to a range of questionnaire items on some basis other
than the specic item content (i.e., what the items were designed to
measure) (Paulhus, 1991, p. 18). Several types of biases have been
reported (Table 1). Response bias might be more common than
thought. Existence of response bias means that even some perfectly
developed research would produce inconclusive results when re-
spondents are unmotivated bored or fatigued perceptually blinded
and when noise is added to the data as a result of meaningless
responses (Levordashka, 2006; Krosnick, 1991, 1999; Krosnick et al.,
2002). Skilled respondents with high motivation may optimize by
carefully following each step of the response process (Levordashka,
378 A. Yksel / Tourism Management 59 (2017) 376e384
2006). Other respondents with less motivation may satisce. And
they may take different shortcuts to complete the questionnaire
(Galesic, Tourangeau, Couper, & Conrad, 2008).1 In surveys, re-
spondents could adopt any of the ve visual interpretive heuristics
and the violation of these heuristics could shape the answering
process (Tourangeau, Couper & Conrad, 2004). The ve heuristics
include: 1) middle means typical; 2) left and top means rst; 3) near
means related; 4) up means good; and 5) items that are close to each
other are similar (Tourangeau et al., 2004, p. 370). Heaping, or digit
preference, is another prevalent form of survey satiscing.
Response heaping (also referred to as rounding or digit preference)
occurs when respondents show a preference for rounded numbers
(often those divisible by ve or 10) (Holbrook et al., 2014, p., 591).
Respondents are likely to attempt to make the task of reporting
their answer as easy as they can. They will use ranges or round values
to report numeric quantities To the extent that they are tired, un-
interested, or generally unable to cope with the demands of the items,
respondents will be more prone to use strategies that reduce the
burden that the questions impose (Tourangeau, Rips, & Rasinski,
2000, p. 254). The fear of appearing uninformed may also
tempt many respondents to conjure up opinions even when they
1
Survey instruments (e.g., questionnaires), generally based on previously
developed scales are increasingly being used for evidence-based decision-making,
academic scholarship, and informing public opinion (Dolnicar, 2013; Mortel, 2008;
Royal, Ellis, Ensslen, & Homan, 2010). Asking closed-format questions with
response categories is the major approach for collecting data about individuals'
beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviors (Lenzner, Kaczmirek, & Galesic, 2011).
Despite the regularity, the ability of questionnaires in producing reliable and valid
ndings has been received criticisms for two reasons: 1) questionnaires are sus-
ceptible to varied kinds of response bias and to inevitable data contamination
problems (Campell & Fiske, 1959), and 2) inferences about statistical relationships
may be exaggerated by the problem of common method variance (i.e., variance that
is caused by the measurement method) (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002). The
quality of the data acquired through questionnaires is highly contingent upon the
respondents' cognitive capacity (Tourangeau et al., 1988; 2004), as well as, their
willingness to provide accurate, sincere, reliable and valid answers (Levordhashka,
2006; Schwarz & Clore, 1983). The majority of the predetermined responses in
questionnaires are perceptual, meaning that they require respondents to make either
a subjective judgment or an estimation (Favero & Bullock, 2014, p. 286). Hence, the
accuracy, reliability and validity of a response become highly questionable if the
respondent's memory is false and there are biased-judgments, inaccurate percep-
tions, and under or over estimations as a result of respondents' psychology (e.g.,
boredom, fatigue, perceptional blindness, and lack of motivation, knowledge and
interest). Questionnaire respondents often answer questions in ways that were
unexpected by the researcher (Stern, Dillman, & Smyth, 2007). Asking people, for
example, what brands they like may not always be an accurate way of nding out
what they will buy (Prote.in, 2014). Pepsi conducted blind-taste tests to nd out
how people perceived its brand. The results showed that consumers preferred the
taste of Pepsi to that of arch-rival Coca Cola. And yet, as far as the sales numbers
were concerned, Coca Cola continued to be the avor of choice (Prote.in, 2014). In
Chabris and Simon's (2010) research, 65% of the surveyed people strongly agreed
that they could feel if someone behind them was looking at the back of their heads.
This is a questionable account of participants since one can't tell when someone
else is looking at him/her, at least not without rst looking back at them. This
statement was debunked in a series of laboratory experiments, conducted with
persons who declared themselves peculiarly susceptible to the stare. The experi-
ments have invariably given a negative result (Titchener, 1898; cf.; Gross, 1999).
Graphical and verbal manipulations in visual design of questions in self-
administered questionnaires affect respondents' behavior (Stern et al., 2007). Evi-
dence suggests that responses gathered through a questionnaire may be format-
dependent (e.g., fully labeled vs end-point labeled scales, 5-point vs 7-point
scales etc) instead of question (content)-dependent (Schwarz et al. 1991a,b; Tuten,
Galesic, & Bosnjak, 2004). Weijters, Cabooter, and Schillewaert (2010) and Hui and
Triandis (1989) conclude that irrespective of the content, respondents are likely to
show a greater tendency to agree rather than tendency to disagree with questions
and different formats could yield different response distributions. Respondents
were observed to spend more time looking at the response options in the rst half
of the vertical response list than at those in the second (Galesic et al., 2008). There
is further evidence suggesting that research ndings can be seriously confounded
by a seemingly simple misalignment of response categories (Smith, 1995, p. 1048).
Similarly, Toepoel, Das and Soest (2009) concluded that the verbal alignment of a
scale (decremental versus incremental) could alter responses.
had not given the particular issue any thought prior to the interview
(Erikson, Luttberg, & Tedin, 1988, p. 44). Under social pressures
respondents are likely to give meaningless answers (Converse,
1964, 1970)i. To explore how meaningful survey answers are,
Converse (1964) carried a series of experiments. He asked ques-
tions on ctitious issues and found that about approximately half of
the respondents (30e50%) provided an answer to issues that were
fabricated by the researcher (Converse, 1964). Similarly in Hartley's
(1946) research, the majority of subjects were found to express an
opinion about ctitious nationalities (e.g., Wallonians). In another
study respondents were willing to give directions to places that in
fact did not exist (Collett & O'Shea, 1976). Almost identically, sub-
jects were found to state views about a ctitious political gure (i.e.
Thomas Walker) (Kolson & Green, 1970). Last but not least, more
than two-thirds of subjects surveyed expressed an opinion about a
ctitious Metallic Metals Act, which in fact did not exist (Gill, 1947).
Hence, respondents' willingness to state an opinion on researcher-
fabricated matters should cast some doubt on the credibility of
their accounts in survey forms.
Presence of response bias is likely to affect statistical analysis,
and hence research results. Particularly, it would lead to biased
results in any econometric analyses based on correlations (Arana &
Leon, 2013). As satiscing becomes more pronounced, the re-
liabilities of scales increase, as do the correlations between scales
(Barge & Gelhbach, 2012). When standard deviations grow and
correlations fall, this will affect particularly factor analysis or
regression analysis for they use correlation analysis as their foun-
dation (Chun, Cambell & Yoo, 1974; Hui & Triandis, 1989; Heide &
Gronhaug, 1992). Furthermore, fatigue and boredom can increase
study abandonment (dropout) and thus lead to sampling biases
(Cook, Heath, & Thompson, 2000). This would pose serious prob-
lems for studies that rely on representative sampling (e.g., public
opinion surveys) or random assignment (e.g., experiments), espe-
cially if attrition is non-random (Levordashka, 2006). Cote and
Buckley (1987) reported that almost a quarter of the variance in a
typical research could be an artifact of common method bias. There
is also a substantial evidence that common method bias can have a
considerable inuence on observed relationships between mea-
sures of different constructs (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Podsakoff &
Lee, 2003): on average, the amount of variance accounted for
when common method variance was present was approximately
35% versus approximately 11% when it was not present (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003, p. 880). Similarly, Doty and
Glick's (1998) results indicated that common method bias was
pervasive and problematic: only 46% of the variation in measures
was attributable to the constructs, that 32% of the observed variation
in measures was attributable to common methods variance, and that
common methods variance resulted in a 26% bias in the observed re-
lationships among constructs (p. 401).
3. The study
This review paper aims to identify the extent to which response
bias is recognized as a research limitation in the selected tourism,
travel and hospitality journals. Accessible research articles pub-
lished in nine leading journals, namely Tourism Management,
Journal of Travel Research, Annals of Tourism Research, Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Research, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management and International Journal of Hospitality
Management and archived in general databases of peer-reviewed
literature (e.g., Scopus) and online content platforms of pub-
lishers' databases (e.g., Science Direct, Sage, Emerald and Taylor
Francis Online) were subjected to a content analysis in. Similar to
 A. Yksel / Tourism Management 59 (2017) 376e384 379

Mortels (2008) approach, the author searched the published arti- Online), subscribed by the author's institution, publishing articles
cles by selecting the specic journal from the source title menu of in English were covered in the study. The search was conducted
the general database rst. The ltering menu in Scopus was used to with accessible full-text articles between the 30th December 2014
choose the document type (articles, conference papers, book re- and 8th of January 2015.
views etc.). Only research articles (N: 10,032) were included. Then,
a keyword search (e.g., research limitation, response bias, non-
4. Findings and discussion
response bias, common method bias, social desirability bias,
etc.) was carried out. A similar analysis, with an extended keyword
The results of an examination of 10,032 research articles pub-
search (e.g., response bias, non-response bias, common
lished in nine leading journals, reveals that only a few published
method bias, social desirability bias, leniency bias, mid-point
study have acknowledged response-bias as a limitation (Table 2).
bias, recall bias, acquiescence bias etc.) was carried out in
According to the search of archived articles in Scopus, only 0.0029
publishers' databases. We referred to Science Direct for the content
percent of the examined articles (N: 10,032) touched on the issue of
analysis of Tourism Management, Annals of Tourism Research and
response bias anywhere in an article. More specically, only
International Journal of Hospitality Management, to Sage for the
0.0011 percent of the articles tackled with non-response bias,
analysis of Journal of Travel Research, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
0.003 percent with social desirability bias and 0.0015 percent
Administration Quarterly and JHTR, to Emerald for the analysis of
with common method bias. Only 27 articles out of 2137 published
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management and
in Annals of Tourism Research, only 70 articles out of 2521 in Tourism
to Taylor Francis Online for the analysis of Journal of Sustainable
Management, only 10 out of 610 published in the Journal of Sus-
Tourism and Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing. A total of
tainable Tourism, only 1 out of 968 in the Cornell Hotel and
26,259 articles were found to be published. Only accessible ones
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, only 75 out of 1625 research
were included in the study.
articles published in the International Journal of Hospitality Man-
Next, a sample of most recently published articles, reporting
agement, only 44 out of 803 research articles published in Journal of
response bias, (N: 179) were downloaded and subjected to a further
Travel Research, only 16 out of 474 in the Journal of Travel and
content analysis in order locate the section in which the response
Tourism Marketing, and only 30 out of 439 research articles pub-
bias was referred to. Super Text Search program was used. Simple
lished in the Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research specically
search for words and phrases (e.g., response bias, non-response
referred to response bias in the main body of the text. This low
bias, common method bias, social desirability bias, leniency
rate of response bias acknowledgement is consistent with similar
bias, mid-point bias, recall bias, acquiescence bias etc.) were
previous studies (Ioannidis, 2007; Mortel, 208).
carried out separately by two coders. The results were then
In order to cross-validate these ndings, additional word checks
compared. Since the second objective of this research was to
through Boolean system was undertaken separately for available
explore researchers' attendance to response bias cautions, an
articles archived in the online content platforms of Science Direct,
additional analysis was conducted. Thus, ve articles out of 29
Sage Publication, Emerald and Taylor and Francis Online. In this
mentioning response bias in the limitations section were
case, articles were checked for an extended range of bias terms (e.g.,
randomly selected. They were then entered into the Google search
response bias, non ( ) response bias, social desirability bias,
to identify the number of citations they had received. This has
common ( ) method bias, recall bias, memory bias, recency bias
produced a total of 102 citing articles. Super Text Search program
(effect), acquiescence bias, leniency bias and mid ( ) point bias)
was then used to examine these articles. This analysis was done to
(Table 3). Out of 26,259 articles, a total of 1206 articles were found
identify the extent to which citers of an article, already acknowl-
to mention about any kind of biases (0.004 percent) (Table 3).
edging a response bias limitation, attend to the raised response bias
Among the acknowledging articles (N: 1206), the majority seems to
cautions and recommendations. As in the previous case, two re-
have concerned with response bias (0.38 percent) and non-
searchers carried out simple search for words and phrases (e.g.,
response bias (0.34 percent), followed by common method bias,
response bias, non-response bias, common method bias,
social desirability bias, recall bias, and memory bias. Interestingly,
social desirability bias, leniency bias, mid-point bias, recall
none of these articles referred to extreme response bias and only
bias, acquiescence bias etc.). The results were then compared. A
one referred to leniency bias.
nal analysis was conducted to identify whether editorial policies
Following this analysis, a sample of the most recently published
of these nine journals encourage authors to discuss and include
articles (N: 179), reporting response bias were subjected to a
response bias limitations. It should be noted that only ve data-
content analysis (Tourism Management (N: 52), Annals of Tourism
bases (Scopus, Science Direct, Sage, Emerald and Taylor and Francis
Research (N: 31), IJHM (N: 62), Journal of Travel Research (N: 34)).

Table 3
Research articles reporting any kind of response bias.

Response Non-response Extreme Social Common Recall Memory Recency Acquiescence Mid-point Leniency
bias bias response desirability method bias bias bias bias Bias bias
bias bias bias

TM* (3983)t 76 51 e 13 32 9 4 e 5 e 1
ATR* (4742)t 40 54 e 8 2 8 2 e e 8 e
IJHM* (2263)t 89 74 e 17 77 4 7 e 1 e e
JST**** (789)t 15 8 e 9 1 e e e e e e
JTTM**** (923)t 37 37 e 1 7 2 4 2 1 e e
IJCHM *** (1181)t 34 24 e 5 26 e 1 e e e e
JHTR** (1193)t 32 41 e 2 7 e 1 e e e e
JTR** (6645)t 113 104 e 8 5 28 2 e 1 e e
CHRAQ** (4540) 27 19 e 4 13 2 e 1 e e e
Total mention of bias:1206 463 412 e 67 170 53 21 3 8 8 1

Source: *Science Direct, **Sage publication, ***Emerald, **** Taylor and Francis Online (accessed between 30.12.2014/08.01.2015).
t
Total number of publications, including, articles, conference reviews, editorial letters, and book reviews is 26,259.
380 A. Yksel / Tourism Management 59 (2017) 376e384
Table 4
Location where response bias was referred to in articles.
# Surveyed
articlesa
International Journal of Hospitality Management 62
Tourism Management 52
Journal of Travel Research 34
Annals of Tourism Research 31
Total 179
The list of these articles can be obtained from the author upon request.
a
Since few articles were found to refer to response bias in more than one location (e.g., methodology and limitation), the number of articles may not match with the line
totals.
This was done to identify the section in which response bias was
referred to. Hence, locations of references to bias related words in
articles were checked through Super Text Search program. Re-
searchers appear to prefer different locations of an article for
mentioning bias. The majority of researchers (0.69 percent)
preferred the Research methodology, Sampling and Data Collec-
tion section (Table 4). For example, 38 articles in the Journal of
Tourism Management discussed response bias within the
Research Methodology, Sampling and Data Collection section,
whereas only 10 articles preferred to mention about bias in their
Conclusion, Limitation and Suggestions sections. Interestingly,
among the 179 examined articles, only 29 (0.16 percent) were
found to caution fellow researchers that their ndings and con-
clusions might not be generalizable due to a response bias limita-
tion (Table 4).
The non-response bias appears to be the main concern among
tourism researchers publishing in TM (36 of 52 studies). This was
followed by only three articles referring to the complications
arising from social desirability. A similar analysis was conducted
with 62 articles published in the International Journal of Hospitality
Management. 44 articles referred to response bias in the Research
Methodology, Sampling and Data collection section, whereas 13
placed in within the Conclusion, Limitations and Suggestions, six
within the results and three within the literature review sec-
tion. Consistent with researchers publishing in Tourism Manage-
ment, authors in the IJHM appear to concern more with non-
response bias than social desirability bias, common method bias
(37, 5 and 5 articles respectively). Likewise, an analysis of 31 articles
published in the Annals of Tourism Research suggests that the ma-
jority of the researchers mentioned about response bias in the
section of Research Methodology, sampling and data collection
(27). Only 2 acknowledged its existence in the limitations section,
one covered it in the literature and another one discussed it in the
Results section. Concern with non-response bias was the main issue
for researchers in the ATM29 articles out of 31). Only four cautioned
following researchers in the Conclusion, limitations and sugges-
tion section, whereas 15 mentioned in the Research Methodol-
ogy, sample and data collection section, 11 in Literature and ve
in Findings and Discussion sections. Considering the skip and/or
partial reading, common among researchers, this nding in relation
to varying places of bias mentioned in articles needs attention.
Researchers may miss out the bias warnings depending on the
section they prefer to read most.
4.1. Citing behaviors
Once a research limitation is reported, the following researchers
are expected to take necessary measures either to eliminate the
limitation or treat ndings of the quoted study cautiously. Hence an
additional analysis was undertaken to scrutinize whether citers of a
previously published study pay attention to the raised concerns
about response bias limitations. In order to realize this research
Literature review Research methodology, Discussion Conclusion, limitations
sampling and data collection and suggestions
3 44 6 13
3 38 4 10
11 15 5 4
1 27 1 2
18 124 16 29
objective, we have randomly sampled articles which have
mentioned response bias in their limitation sections (Table 5).
Google search were then used to check-out the number of citations
that these studies have received. There is strong evidence sug-
gesting the existence of citer myopia in the sampled articles. The
ndings suggest that there may be a common negligence in citing
behaviors in which the citers utilize the limited study as it is,
although the study suffers from a pronounced response bias. Sev-
enty eight percent of citers were found to be unconcerned with the
response bias limitation pronounced in the study they quoted.
More specically, we have randomly selected ve research ar-
ticles from Table 5, which have acknowledged response bias as a
limitation. We then searched for subsequent published articles
citing these studies in order to examine whether citers attend to
response bias cautions and recommendations. An examination of
102 citing articles showed that while quoted studies warn that
their study has a certain limitation and their ndings should be
treated cautiously, the majority of citers were found to turn a blind
eye to these cautions (Table 6). Researchers were found not only
largely myopic to response bias limitations but also to recom-
mendations about how to avoid research bias problems in future
studies. For example, Lee and Ok (2014, p. 185) caution that The
second limitation concerns the cross-sectional design of the study. As
data for this study were collected from individual respondents at a
single point in time, inferences about the causal nature of the rela-
tionship examined are prone to biases (Bobko and Stone-Romero,
1998). In future research they recommend, using longitudinal
designs and other methods to reduce such biases to further validate the
relationships found in this study; such longitudinal studies would
allow a stronger causal inference to be established (p. 185). Ac-
cording to the search on Google, seven studies were found to cite
Lee and Ok's study on emotional labor. Surprisingly, none of these
citing studies have attended to Lee and Ok's overt caution about the
common method bias. Instead of undertaking a longitudinal study,
these seven studies were found to continue using single data
collection method, identical to the already criticized method used
by Lee and Ok (2014). Likewise, Xie and Heung (2012) warn that in
order to avoid response bias found in their study future research is
also encouraged to employ longitudinal measures in a real-life setting
(p. 742). None of the following ten studies, which cited Xie and
Heung's concerning article, seems to have taken their caution
seriously. They did not employ longitudinal measures to avoid this
chronic response bias problem, although it has been repeatedly
suggested to eliminate this problem (see http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0278431914001650Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Similarly, Nunkoo and Ramkissoon (2012) warned that There
may be nonresponse bias in the data and this may limit the extent to
which the ndings can be generalized. Therefore, researchers should
evaluate the results of the study cautiously (p. 1016). According to
Google search, 38 studies have referred to Nunkoo and Ramkissoon
study (2012). We were able to examine only 18 of the citing articles
due to access limitations to the full text articles and language
 A. Yksel / Tourism Management 59 (2017) 376e384 381

Table 5
Samples of response bias acknowledgments in limitation sections.

Statement of authors about bias Cited

The role of affective factors on perceived cruise vacation value (Teoman
Duman & Anna S. Mattila)
Price fairness and its asymmetric effects on overall price, quality and value
judgments: the case of an upscale hotel (Haemoon Oh)
Gender and community Tourism dependence level (M. Jeannie Harvey, John
Hunt, & Charles C. Harris, Jr.)
Residents' support for tourism An identity perspective (Robin Nunkoo &
Dogan Gursoy)
Power, trust, social exchange And community support (Robin Nunkoo &
Haywantee Ramkissoon)
Luxury marketing: The inuences of psychological and demographic
characteristics on attitudes toward luxury restaurants (Jee Hye Leea &
Johye Hwang)
The Place Identity e Performance relationship among tourism
entrepreneurs: A structural equation modeling analysis (Hallak, Brown
and Lindsay)
Consumer value and self-image congruency at different stages of timeshare
ownership (Beverley Sparks, Graham Bradley & Gayle Jennings)
The effects of brand relationship quality on responses to service failure of
hotel consumers (Danhong Xie & Vincent C.S. Heung)
Resident perceptions of a contentious tourism event (David B. Weaver &
Laura J. Lawton)
Understanding hotel employees' service sabotage: Emotional labor
perspective based on conservation of resources theory (JungHoon (Jay)
Lee & Chihyung Michael Ok)
Guest-to-guest interaction on board cruise ships: Exploring social dynamics
and the role of situational factors (Alexis Papathanassis)
Psychographic insights from a South Carolina protected area (David B.
Weaver)
Due to our sample constraints, we could not measure non-response bias, a 244
potential threat to the validity of our results.
Readers are also cautioned against several design related limitations of this 153
study. A within-subject derivation of asymmetric effects may be more desirable,
if related response bias and design complexity can be overcome.
No effort was made to check for non-response bias. In a similar project, 62
conducted non-response surveys and found little to no non-response bias.
However, since non-response bias cannot be determined for this project, the
results reported in this paper should be considered tentative and not
generalized to represent the characteristics, perceptions, or attitudes of the total
population.
Issues relating to potential non-response bias should also be considered given 54
the small sample size of the study. Non-response bias means that results of this
study may not be fully representative of everyone in the population of the study.
These sampling issues may limit the generalizability of the ndings. Therefore,
ndings of this study may not be generalized beyond the sample examined.
Future studies with larger samples in different locations are needed to validate
the ndings of this study.
There may be nonresponse bias in the data and this may limit the extent to 38
which the ndings can be generalized. Therefore, researchers should evaluate
the results of the study cautiously.
A self-administered survey by paper-and-pencil may create bias problems. 26
Moreover, although we examined the differences of respondents on two key 26
variables, business type and location, and found no apparent evidence of non-
response bias, we could not test for non-response bias on the survey items
themselves (Lambert & Harrington, 1990).
It is also possible that the responses given by our participants were inuenced 11
by social desirability, leniency, and other response biases
The advantages of the scenario method are that it eliminates practical 11
difculties through observation or enactment of service failure incidents in the
eld and avoids participants' response bias (Mattila, 2004; Smith, Jarman, &
Osborn, 1999). Future research is also encouraged to employ longitudinal
measures in a real-life setting.
Of concern is the very low response rate and concomitant response bias which 7
may implicate the overrepresentation of females and older residents.
The second limitation concerns the cross-sectional design of the study. As data 7
for this study were collected from individual respondents at a single point in
time, inferences about the causal nature of the relationship examined are prone
to biases (Bobko and Stone-Romero, 1998). Therefore, in future research, we
recommend using longitudinal designs and other methods to reduce such biases
to further validate the relationships found in this study; such longitudinal
studies would allow a stronger causal inference to be established.
Apart from limitations in the chosen research design (i.e. number of remarks as 6
measurement of importance, potential response bias), this also demonstrates
the risks involved in conducting and interpreting survey research in the cruise
context; or any social context for that matter. Opinions, preferences and beliefs
are implicit and personal in nature and hence their quantication (e.g. Likert
scales, remark classication and counting) is subjected to the subjective
interpretation of both the researchers and respondents.
Study limitations that qualify the theoretical and practical implications include 5
possible non-response bias associated with the 20% participation rate, and the
restriction of the study to walkins, who account for only about one-half of all
visitors.

Table 6
Rate of citers attentiveness to response-bias warning.

# Studies Concerned with bias Unconcerned with bias

Duman & Mattila 29 10 19

Jeannie Harvey, John Hunt, Charles C. Harris, Jr. 25 5 20
Nunkoo & Ramkissoon 18 5 13
Jee Hye Lee &, Johye Hwang 13 4 9
Xie & Heung 10 e 10
Lee & Ok 7 e 7
Total 102 24 78

Note: Due to access limitations to full text and language barriers of publications other than English, only 102 articles were examined. The list of these articles can be obtained
from the author upon request.
382 A. Yksel / Tourism Management 59 (2017) 376e384
Table 7
Editorial policies regarding research limitations.
Impact factor
ATR 2.79
JST 2.392
TM 2.377
JTR 1.884
IJHM 1.837
IJCHM 1.623
CHRAQ 1.165
JHTR 1.125
JTTM 0.695
a
Due to access problems, review criteria sheet sent to the reviewers of these Journals was not assessed.
barrier of publications other than English. Remarkably, 13 of the 18
studies did not attend to non-response bias caution in their new
studies. Only ve of these articles concerned with different forms
response biases. Identically, Duman and Mattila (2005, p. 979)
concluded that Due to our sample constraints, we could not mea-
sure non-response bias, a potential threat to the validity of our re-
sults. Due to time and resource constraints, we limited
examination to articles cited Duman and Mattila's work in 2014
only. An analysis of 27 articles revealed that the majority over-
looked this caution: only 3 out of 27 tackled with non-response
bias, 2 with common method bias. Two studies further acknowl-
edged the impact of conformation bias and memory bias. Inter-
estingly, instead of tackling with the raised problem of non-
response bias, one of the citing research used a statement almost
identically to that of Duman and Mattila: A possibility of bias of
non-respondents existed, and thus, the results cannot be used to
generalize for the population of the study (2005, p.979). In their
research, Harvey, Hunt, and Harris (1995) warned that No effort
was made to check for non-response bias However, since non-
response bias cannot be determined for this project, the results re-
ported in this paper should be considered tentative and not general-
ized to represent the characteristics, perceptions, or attitudes of the
total population (p.354). Despite the overt caution, we identied
that in 25 studies that cited Harvey et al.s initial study for hy-
pothesis building, none had attended to this caution. Only ve
mentioned about other types of response biases. Similarly, nine of
the 13 citers of Lee and Hwang (2012) study did not attend to the
response bias caution raised by Lee and Hwang.
4.2. Editorial policies
A nal examination was carried out to identify editorial policies
of these leading journals regarding discussion/inclusion of research
limitations in general and response bias in particular. Information
given in guidelines for authors and evaluation criteria sheets send
to the reviewers was examined (Table 7). Intriguingly, among the
above nine top-cited journals, none of the editorial policies, except
the IJCHM, encourages discussion and inclusion of research limi-
tations in general and response-bias related limitations in partic-
ular. Similar to Ioannidis ndings (2007), importance, novelty,
originality, signicance, relevance, and even payment procedures
appear frequently in journal guidelines for authors.
5. Conclusion, limitations and suggestions
Based on concerns raised in other disciplines, this review paper
focused on response bias, a potential source of validity problem in
tourism research. Existence of bias casts doubts on generalizability
of conclusions. A content analysis of research articles published in
leading tourism, travel and hospitality journals showed that i)
Limitation section
Author guidelines Reviewer score sheet
None None
None None
None None
None None
a
None
Research limitations/implications (in abstract) Research Limitations
a
None
None None
None None
acknowledgement of response bias was very low, ii) the majority of
the sampled citers were found to remain negligent to response bias
warnings in the quoted articles, and iii) editorial policies of exam-
ined journals were far from encouraging authors to discuss and
include response bias limitations in their manuscripts.
Several procedural remedies (e.g., careful construction of survey
instrumentii, changing question and response formats, labeling
every point on a response scale, careful wording, balancing posi-
tively and negatively worded items, collecting data for each
construct through a different method etc.) (Dolnicar, 2013; Dunn
and Wickham, 2012; Indrayan, 2008; Kalton & Schuman, 1982),
as well as, statistical remedies (e.g., unmeasured latent method
factor technique, correlation-based marker variable technique,
regression-based marker variable technique, etc.) can be suggested
as a way to mitigate the effects of response bias (Podsakof ,
MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). However, effectiveness of these
remedies on respondents' memory, perceptional blindness, ability
and motivational factors that may cause biased responses is still
debatable. There is growing evidence suggesting that respondents
may frequently process information with limited cognitive pro-
cessing (Chartrand, 2005; Zaltman, 2003). They may use various
shortcuts and give ctitious answers (Schwarz, 1999), and self-
reports may not correctly depict people's voluntary responses
(Kardes, Posavac, & Cronley, 2004; Micu & Plummer, 2010). This
means that a considerable portion of identied relationships be-
tween studied constructs in tourism, travel and hospitality research
could be false positives (Type1 error) and false negatives (Type2
error). In other words, due to the negligence of response bias,
generalizability claims in the majority of tourism, travel and
hospitality research appears highly disputable.
There exists a high risk of subjectivity and data contamination
due to psychological, contextual and/or graphical factors, inu-
encing response behaviors. Despite the meticulous research efforts,
the analyses, based on contaminated data by response bias, may
mislead decision. And misinformed decisions can mean higher
operational inefciencies, and increased costs and risks. In short,
current overreliance on respondents probably debatable memory,
judgments and/or perceptions in tourism studies brings in more
questions than answers. Some of these questions include:
 How condent are we that respondents participating in ques-
tionnaires use a process of interpreting and reaching conclu-
sions about phenomenon under question without resorting to
subconscious thought? What happens if scores, statements,
reports, etc. are driven by respondents' false beliefs, supersti-
tions, intuitions which have been rooted in popular sub-
consciousness?
 Could respondents give ctitious answers? If yes, what happens
then?
 A. Yksel / Tourism Management 59 (2017) 376e384
 Do respondents follow an (un)conscious pattern when
answering? Does human brain likes thinking in a linear and
patterned fashion? What is wrong with these patterns? Can the
instinctive rush by the respondent to apply a pattern to a phe-
nomenon during a survey narrow his/her thinking?
 Could the language (words) used in questionnaires alter mem-
ory, perceptions and judgments and that language distort re-
spondents' interpretations?
 Would respondents just see the words that are there on a
questionnaire or they see words that are not there? If they see
words that there are not there and answer accordingly, what
happens then?
 How accurate respondents are in remembering and reporting
their cognitive and emotional states which happened in the past
or which will be happening in the future? Could people
remember and report events, behaviors differently from the way
they have happened? Could they even remember and report
events, behaviors never happened at all?
 Does the chosen number/category reect the truthful opinion/
perception/attitude of the respondent or is it just a digit of
preference?
 Unless intruded by a question, would respondents always think
of such issues as how loyal, satised they are, or what kind of
effect their mood has on their emotions during an ordinary
course of, say, a dining experience? Is question and/or ques-
tioning by an outsider an inseparable component of ordinary
consumption and consumer behavior?
While this research sheds some light on the presence of bias
negligence, we should note that this study is not free of limitations.
A simple numeric presentation of what percentage of the sampled
articles actually reported response bias-related limitations and
where the reported response bias was presented may represent a
limitation. Finding out a very similar tendency which has already
been reported in other disciplines may sound as a very little original
contribution. Nevertheless this paper draws attention to the
concept of response bias and promotes discussions on its potential
impacts on research ndings. Accessibility of articles was another
limitation. We were unable to scan full-text articles published in
English particularly before the mid-1990s due to our institution's
license agreement. This may have implications on ndings
regarding acknowledgement ratio and locations in which response
bias was referred to. Limited mention of bias in research limitation
sections does not necessarily mean that it is regarded unimportant
by researchers at any stages of the research. We have limited our
search terms containing the word of bias and hence other words
conveying bias were excluded.
Response behavior and citation behavior could be interesting
areas for further research. The psychological, contextual, and/or
graphical factors, which may inuence subjects decisions to
respond, deserve much scholar attention than current efforts being
put in achieving high response rate (Yuksel & Yuksel, 2011).
Furthermore, the editorial polices may benet from shifting focus
from solely on complex analysis to the root of genuine research,
with sound approaches to detect and if possible eliminate bias
problems, emanating from both the respondents and the re-
searchers. Effects of response bias on conclusions about hypothesis
tests should be carefully analyzed. This is because biased responses
may give rise to inaccurate estimates of effects and associations
between variables. In addition to response bias, evidence from
other disciplines (e.g., education, psychology, medicine, biology
etc.) suggests that the travel, tourism and hospitality research may
also suffer from publication bias (Emerson et al., 2010). Thus further
research is needed to examine whether studies with a favorable or
statistically signicant outcome are published more than are
383
studies of similar quality that show unfavorable or no-difference
results.
References
Aran~ a, J., & Leo
n, C. (2013). Correcting for scale perception bias in tourist satisfaction
surveys. Journal of Travel Research, 52(6), 772e788.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1991). Multitraitemultimethod matrices in consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 426e439.
Barge, S., & Gehlbach, H. (2012). Using the theory of satiscing to evaluate the
quality of survey data. Research in Higher Education, 53(2), 182e200.
Bobko, P., & Stone-Romero, E. (1998). Meta-analysis is another useful research tool
but it is not a panacea. In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human re-
sources management (Vol. 16, pp. 359e397). , Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Brutus, S., Gill, H., & Duniewicz, K. (2013). State-of-Science in industrial and orga-
nizational psychology: A review of self-reported limitations. Journal of Man-
agement, 39(1), 48e75.
Campell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the
multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81e105.
Chabris, C., & Simon, D. (2010). The invisible gorilla and other ways our intuitions
deceive us. New York: Crown.
Chartrand, T. L. (2005). The role of conscious awareness in consumer behavior.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(3), 203e210.
Chun, K., Campbell, J. B., & Yoo, J. H. (1974). Extreme response style in cross-cultural
research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 5(4), 465e480.
Collet, P., & O'Shea, G. (1976). Pointing the way to a ctional place: A study of di-
rection giving in Iran and england. European Journal of Social Psychology, 6(4),
447e458.
Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass politics. In D. Apter (Ed.),
Ideology and discontent (pp. 238e245). New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
Converse, P. E. (1970). Attitudes and non-attitudes: Continuation of a dialogue. In
E. R. Tufte (Ed.), The quantitative analysis of social problems (pp. 188e189).
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, B. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in
web- or internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60,
821.
Cote, J., & Buckley, M. R. (1987). Estimating trait, method, and error Variance:
Generalizing across 70 construct Validation Studies. Journal of Marketing
Research, 24(3), 315e318.
Dodd-McCue, D., & Tartaglia, D. (2010). Self-report response Bias: Learning how to
live with its diagnosis in chaplaincy research. Chaplaincy Today, 26(1), 2e8.
Dolnicar, S. (2007). Accepted Standards Undermining the Validity of Tourism
Research. In A. Woodside (Ed.), Advances in culture, tourism and hospitality
research (1) (pp. 131e182). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Dolnicar, S. (2013). Asking good survey questions. Journal of Travel Research, 1e24.
XX(X).
Dolnicar, S., & Grun, B. (2009). Response style contamination of student evaluation
data. Journal of Marketing Education, 31(2), 160e172.
Dolnicar, S., Grn, B., & Le, H. (2008). Cross-cultural comparisons of tourist Satis-
faction: Assessing analytical robustness. In A. Yuksel (Ed.), Tourist satisfaction
and complaining Behaviour: Measurement & management issues in the tourism
and hospitality Industry (pp. 137e150). New York: Nova Publishing Sciences.
Donaldson, S., & Grant-Vallone, S. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in orga-
nizational behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(2), 2.
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998). Common methods bias: Does common methods
variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods, 1, 374e406.
Duman, T., & Mattila, A. (2005). The role of affective factors on perceived cruise
vacation value. Tourism Management, 26(3), 311e323.
Dunn, A., & Wickham, M. (2012). The mix of research methods in the leading
tourism journals: 2000-2009. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 10(1),
8e16.
Emerson, G. B., Winston, M. D., Warme, W. J., Wolf, F. M., Heckman, J. D., Brand, R. A.,
et al. (2010). Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review.
Archives of Internal Medicine, 170, 1934e1939.
Erikson, R. S., Luttberg, N. R., & Tedin, K. T. (1988). American public opinion (3rd ed.).
New York: Macmillan.
Favero, N., & Bullock, B. J. (2014). An evaluation of scholarly responses to common
source bias. Journal of Public Administration Research, 25, 285e308.
Galesic, M., Tourangeau, R., Couper, M., & Conrad, F. (2008). Eye-tracking data new
insights on response order effects and other cognitive shortcuts in survey
responding. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 892e913.
Gill, S. N. (1947). How do you stand on sin? tide 72 (March 14).
Gross, G. H. (1999). History of neuroscience: The Fire That Comes from the Eye. The
Neuroscientist, 5(1), 58e64.
Hartley, E. L. (1946). Problems in prejudice. New York: Octagon Press.
Harvey, M., Hunt, J., & Harris, C. C. (1995). Gender and community tourism
dependence level. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(3), 349e366.
Heide, M., & Gronhaug, K. (1992). The impact of response styles in surveys: A
simulation study. Journal of the Market Research Society, 34(3), 215e223.
Holbrook, A. (2008a). Acquiescence bias. In P. J. Lavrakas (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
survey research methods. http://srmo.sagepub.com/view/encyclopedia-of-
survey-research-methods/n3.xml.
Holbrook, A. (2008b). Recency effect. In P. J. Lavrakas (Ed.), Encyclopedia of survey
384 A. Yksel / Tourism Management 59 (2017) 376e384
research methods. http://www.srmo.sagepub.com/view/encyclopedia-of-
survey-research-methods/n449.xml.
vez, N., et al. (2014).
Holbrook, A. L., Anand, S., Johnson, T. P., Cho, Y. I., Shavitt, S., Cha
Response heaping in interviewer-administered surveys: Is it really a form of
satiscing? Public Opinion Quarterly, 78(3), 591e633.
Hui, H. C., & Triandis, H. C. (1989). Effects of culture and response format on extreme
response style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20(3), 296e309.
Indrayan, A. (2008). Basic methods of medical research (2nd edition: 2008). Indian
Journal of Community Medicine, 33(3), 208.
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research ndings are false. August,
2(8), 124.
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2007). Limitations are not properly acknowledged in the scientic
literature. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 324e329.
Kalton, G., & Schuman, H. (1982). The effect of the question on survey response rates:
A review. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 145(part 1), 44e45.
Kardes, F. R., Posavac, S. S., & Cronley, M. L. (2004). Consumer inference: A review of
processes, bases, and judgment contexts. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(3),
230e256.
Kollat, D. T., Blackwell, R. D., & Engel, J. E. (1972). The current status of consumer
Behaviour Research: Development during the 1968-1972 period. In
M. Venkatesan (Ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd annual conference of the association
of consumer research (pp. 576e584).
Kolson, K. L., & Green, J. J. (1970). Response style and political socialization research.
Social Science Quarterly, 51, 527e538.
Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of
attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 213e236.
Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual review of psychology, 50, 537e567.
Krosnick, J. A., Holbrook, A. L., Berent, M. K., Carson, R. T., Hanemann, M., Kopp, R. J.,
et al. (2002). The impact of No opinion response options on data quality: Non-
attitude reduction or an invitation to satisce? Public Opinion Quarterly, 66,
371e403.
Lambert, D. M., & Harrington, T. C. (1990). Measuring nonresponse bias in customer
service mail surveys. Journal of Business Logistics, 11(2), 5e25.
Lavrakas, P. (2004). Non-response bias. In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. F. Liao
(Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods. http://srmo.
sagepub.com/view/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-social-science-research-methods/
n635.xml.
Lee, & Ok. (2014). Understanding hotel employees' service sabotage: Emotional
labor perspective based on conservation of resources theory. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 36, 176e187.
Lee, J., & Hwang, J. (2012). Luxury marketing: The inuences of psychological and
demographic characteristics on attitudes toward luxury restaurants. Interna-
tional Journal of Hospitality Management, 30, 658e669.
Lenzner, T., Kaczmirek, L., & Galesic, M. (2011). Seeing through the eyes of the
Respondent: An eye-tracking study on survey question comprehension. Inter-
national Journal of Public Opinion Research, 23(3).
Levordashka, A. (2006). Effects of questionnaire design on respondent experience and
data quality (Unpublished Master Thesis).
Mattila, A. (2004). The impact of service failures on customer loyalty: The moder-
ating role of affective commitment,. International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 15(2), 134e149.
Micu, A. C., & Plummer, J. T. (2010). Measurable emotions: How television ads really
work : Patterns of reactions to commercials can demonstrate advertising
effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, 50(2), 137e153.
Mortel, F. (2008). Faking it: Social desirability response bias in self report research.
Australian journal of advanced. Nursing, 25(4), 40e48.
Nunkoo, R., & Ramkissoon, H. (2012). Power, trust, social exchange and community
support. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 997e1023.
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson,
P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psy-
chological attitudes (pp. 17e59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Peer, E., & Gamliel, E. (2011). Too reliable to be true? Response bias as a potential
source of ination in paper-and-pencil questionnaire reliability. Practical
Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 16(9), 1e8.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. M., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
variance in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recom-
mended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879e903.
Podsakof, P., MacKenzie, S., & Podsakoff, N. (2012). Sources of method bias in social
science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of
Psychology, 63, 539e569.
Prote.in. (2014). Retrieved from https://www.prote.in/en/briengs/neuromarketing
(30.th 12. 2014).
Rossiter, J. R. (2011). Measurement for the Social Sciences: The C-OAR-SE Method and
Why It Must Replace Psychometrics. New York: Springer.
Royal, K. D., Ellis, A., Ensslen, A., & Homan, A. (2010). Rating scale optimization in
survey research: An application of the rasch rating scale model. Journal of
Applied Quantitative Methods, 5(4), 607e617.
Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American
Psychologist, 54, 93e105.
Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatke, H., & Simons, A.
(1991a). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heu-
ristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 195e202.
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-
being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 45, 513e523.
Schwarz, R., Knauper, B., Hippler, H., Neumann, E., & Clark, L. (1991b). Rating Scales:
Numeric values may change the meaning of scale labels. The Public Opinion
Quarterly, 55(4), 570e582.
Smith, T. (1995). little things matter: A sampler of how differences in questionnaire
format can affect survey responses. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.
GSS Methodological Report. No. 78.
Smith, J. A., Jarman, M., & Osborn, M. (1999). Doing interpretative phenomeno-
logical analysis. In M. Murray, & K. Chamberlain (Eds.), Qualitative health psy-
chology: Theories and methods (pp. 218e240). London: Sage Publications.
Stern, M., Dillman, D., & Smyth, J. (2007). Visual design, order effects, and respon-
dent. Survey Research Methods, 1(3), 121e138.
Titchener, E. B. (1898). The feeling of being stared at. Science, 8, 895e897.
Toepoel, V., Das, M., & Van Soest, A. (2009). Design of Web Questionnaires: The
Effects of the Number of Items per Screen. Field Methods, 21, 200e213.
Tourangeau, R., Couper, M. P., & Conrad, F. (2004). Spacing, position, and Order:
Interpretive heuristics for visual features of survey questions. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 68(3), 368e393.
Tourangeau, R., Rasinski, K. A., Abelson, R., Bradburn, N., Campbell, S., & An, R. D.
(1988). Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement.
Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 299e314.
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tuten, T. L., Galesic, M., & Bosnjak, M. (2004). Effects of immediate versus delayed
notication of prize draw results on response behavior in web surveys e an
experiment. Social Science Computer Review, 22, 377e384.
Villar, A. (2008). Response bias. In P. J. Lavrakas (Ed.), Encyclopedia of survey research
methods. http://srmo.sagepub.com/view/encyclopedia-of-survey-research-
methods/n486.xml.
Weijters, B., Cabooter, E., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). The effect of rating scale format
on response styles: The number of response categories and response category
labels. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27, 236e247.
Xie, D., & Heung, V. C. S. (2012). The effects of brand relationship quality on re-
sponses to service failure of hotel consumers. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 31, 735e744.
Yksel, A., & Yksel, F. (2011). Response psychology: Questioning and responding in
social sciences. Yantlama psikolojisi: Arastrmada soru sormak ve yant almak
zerine. Seyahat ve Otel Is_ letmecilig
i Dergisi, 6(1). www.soiddergi.com.
Zaltman, G. (2003). How Customers Think: Essential Insights into the Mind of the
Market. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.
Atila Yksel is Professor of Marketing at the University of
Adnan Menderes, Turkey. He is currently the Dean of
Faculty of Communications. Dr. Yksel has published in
the Annals of Tourism Research, Journal of Tourism Man-
agement, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Jour-
nal of Sustainable Tourism, Journal of Travel and Tourism
Marketing, Cornell Quarterly, Journal of Quality Assurance in
Tourism and Hospitality, and Journal of Vacation Marketing.
Dr Yksel is the editor of the book Tourist Satisfaction and
Complaining Behavior: Measurement and Management
Issues in the Tourism and Hospitality Industry (Nova
Publications) and he has co-authored books on tourism
management and research methodology. He acts as an
editorial board member in several tourism and hospitality
journals and he is currently the editor of the Journal of
Travel and Tourism Research.