getCITED   
  Home     Search     Add Content     Reports     Help  
Edit Publication | Edit Contributors | Delete Publication | Edit References | Edit Citations
Add to Bookstack | Show Bookstack | Change Bookstack

Cueing as a method effect in studies on recreation choice

Post a Comment
CONTRIBUTORS:
  Author Barro, S. C. (USDA Forest Service)
  Author Manfredo, M. J. (Colorado State University)
  Author Wells, M.
JOURNAL:
  Leisure Sciences, 16(1), 61 - 71.
YEAR: 1994
PUB TYPE: Journal Article
SUBJECT(S): recreation; selection; research; method
DISCIPLINE: No discipline assigned
HTTP: https://secure.sportquest.com/su.cfm?articleno=353554&title=353554
LANGUAGE: English
PUB ID: 103-339-296 (Last edited on 2002/04/21 11:00:33 GMT-6)
SPONSOR(S):
 
ABSTRACT:
Multiattribute theory is an important conceptual framework for assessing recreation choice. Methods of assessing attribute importance, varying in the amount of cueing they provide, can affect study results through context effects, attribute omission-inclusion effects, and group rating effects. Attribute omission-inclusion effects occur when important attributes are omitted or unimportant attributes are included on a list. Context effects may result when attributes are evaluated in the context of different sets. Group rating effects occur when respondents rate attributes that may or may not be salient to their decision. Three commonly used strategies of generating attributes - labeled the researcher-generated, the modal salient beliefs, and the idiographic methods, differing in their level of cueing, were compared. Results suggest that when different attribute sets are generated, omission-inclusion effects can dramatically affect interpretation of findings. Context effects did not apepar to influence attribute ratings. Group rating effects led to differences in valence ratings of some attributes. Use of different data collection strategies, varying in their level of cueing, would lead researchers to different conclusions about what was important to recreationists in their site choices.
STATISTICS
Click on # to view
 Citations  
 References  
 Comments  
 Quality      0/0.00 
 Interest      0/0.00 
 View(er)s   4/526 
Quality
  N/A
High
  7
  6
  5
  4
  3
  2
  1
Low
Interest
  N/A
High
  7
  6
  5
  4
  3
  2
  1
Low
Prev | Next

    ABOUT getCITED   |    CONTACT US   |    USER INFO   |    PREFERENCES   |    PRIVACY   |    LOG IN   
Comments? Suggestions? Send them to feedback@getCITED.org.

Copyright © 2000-2013 getCITED Inc. All Rights Reserved.