In this case, the set of alternatives clearly defines the content of the question, although it has a negation and built is quite difficult.
Why do you need such questions and whether it is possible to manage without them? In principle, of course, you can do by building a question without negation. But humanity in the practice of speaking is not accidental has developed a form of communication as a denial, which is not always a denial. This in some cases allows to solve some specific tasks, which are impossible or very difficult to solve through education any other form of matter. I think that in the sociological language is not necessary to avoid issues with denial. For example, as already mentioned, questions with negation give a higher percentage of negative responses. But this fact can be used if we need to check the stability of the positions of respondents on a particular phenomenon. So, we know or can assume that the question of whether he's someone to cheat, not all people wish to be sincere. May affect the influence of conventional rules, for example, that cheating is not good, shame, etc., the Respondent in this case, I prefer the answer that he was never deceived, and cannot deceive. In any case, the control question: "have You ever someone cheated?" more than half of respondents answered "no", although it is clear that each of us, at least once in life, at least in detail, but deceived. This question is specially built to falsity. But, setting himself the task to determine if he is sincere in his positive response, you can ask the question in the negative form and thus introduce some amendment to the embellishment. Such cases are not uncommon and they should make use of.
![]()
Why do you need such questions and whether it is possible to manage without them? In principle, of course, you can do by building a question without negation. But humanity in the practice of speaking is not accidental has developed a form of communication as a denial, which is not always a denial. This in some cases allows to solve some specific tasks, which are impossible or very difficult to solve through education any other form of matter. I think that in the sociological language is not necessary to avoid issues with denial. For example, as already mentioned, questions with negation give a higher percentage of negative responses. But this fact can be used if we need to check the stability of the positions of respondents on a particular phenomenon. So, we know or can assume that the question of whether he's someone to cheat, not all people wish to be sincere. May affect the influence of conventional rules, for example, that cheating is not good, shame, etc., the Respondent in this case, I prefer the answer that he was never deceived, and cannot deceive. In any case, the control question: "have You ever someone cheated?" more than half of respondents answered "no", although it is clear that each of us, at least once in life, at least in detail, but deceived. This question is specially built to falsity. But, setting himself the task to determine if he is sincere in his positive response, you can ask the question in the negative form and thus introduce some amendment to the embellishment. Such cases are not uncommon and they should make use of.