I am disappointed in myself that I am even wasting the time to respond to such vacuous criticisms.
All survey methods involve a trade-off and costs and benefits. It is very difficult to design a survey to be tailored to everyone's individual needs. I have weighed the cost/benefit ratio of not including a "neutral" or "i don't know" option. If I could depend on those surveyed to take a stance on difficult issues and only to choose an "i dont know" option exclusively in the case when they honestly didn't know, I would have provided one. But often is the case, an "i dont know" option is simply an easy way out of answering a difficult question. My method seeks to avoid the 'zero-effect', when your audience is prone to be attracted to the "neutral category". Of course, JWs and their fascination with erroneously using with the term neutral, would hide in such category for almost every question I asked if such a category was provided. Acquiescence is also greatly found in agree/disagree formats which include the neutral category. Acquiescence can be avoided by using a force-choice response method, thus eliminating the neutral category. I'd rather have good but imperfect data than no data at all.
Again, trade-offs.
A self-administered survey (like the method I have elected to go with) offers the greatest privacy. There is no possibility of interviewer bias influencing the participants responses. Privacy is increased and bias is eliminated even further by the fact all responses are anonymous and are taken from the comfort of your own home and within your own time-table. The participant neither feels rushed, nor compelled to answer a difficult question with a socially correct answer. In addition, due to a self-administered survey answers will not be modified when the observable traits of an interviewer are are related to the question.
i.e.
Women and men are more likely to express feminist-liberal positions when interviewed by a women
White respondents are less likely to express negative sentiments to Black interviewers (and vice versa)
This reduces any effects of social desirability bias.
And finally, please reread my final statement from my previous post. You can continue to insult my school, my intelligence and the mindfulness of my professor all you want. But it will not get you anywhere. If you are so educated, shouldn't you realize that personal attacks are not going to render you privy to confidential information. Simply because I won't reveal sensitive information to a petulant blogger who wants her stubborn way, doesn't mean I am not who I claim to be. Anyone here can take my word for it, or not. It is inconsequential to me.
Again, if you do not want to participate in my survey, then don't! If your own outlandish paranoia haunts you, then your participation would not be "voluntary", and I encourage then NOT to take my survey. I am looking for cooperative, interested individuals who simply wish to opine what they think concerning issues of the day
***concerning the word "defected" <---I do not even see how this an issue.
I think many of you are confusing the term "defected" for "defective"...which is entirely different. This is not my mistake, it is yours.
Merriam-Webster: Defect: to forsake one cause, party, or nation for another often because of a change in ideology
In conclusion, this is the last time I am repeating myself and entertaining any of these frivolous and baseless accusations. If you have lost interest in my topic, I thank you for contribution and good day.
