The correct understanding of the content of the question depends on the form of its construction, in particular the correct usage of the particle "not". Usually formulate a sociological question in a positive tone. This comes from natural language and due to the conceptual clarity conceptual content of the matter, which is necessary to confirm or not to confirm the answer. If we give the negation in the question, in this case, the certainty is removed or it is considered through the negation of the negation, i.e. using a double negative, e.g. "not to say". A double negative gives a positive answer. This is a more complicated turn. He is to answer greater complexity in natural, spoken language, and in the sociological questionnaire. Therefore, questions are frequently used in the positive tone, although this is not quite correct, because in this case there is inspiring installation, which can lead to an increase in the share of positive answers of respondents. However, a negative tone can lead to increased negative responses. Here also is shown the effect of inspiring a build issue.
But not infrequently there are cases when there is a need to Express the content of the issue through denial. For example: "Tell me, please, whether You consider it impossible to fool people in any way?" The negative wording in this case reinforces the substantive thrust of the question, allows brighter, sharper, more definite need to emphasize Myl. Compare: "Tell me, please, if You can fool people in any way?" This in fact is another question. The first formulation emphasizes the impossibility to cheat, while the second allows for such a possibility. The first formulation is soft, the second hard; the first one is more polite, respectful, the second less correct.
Of course, it would be possible to formulate the question in a neutral form: "Some people according to subjective and objective reasons sometimes deceive, for example, promise to come or call and don't come, don't call; they promise to return the book and not return, etc. what do You do in this case?" Perhaps wording the question better, but it does not perform the tasks of the sociologist in question with negation.
In formulating the issue by a denial is necessary to consider its features:
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
But not infrequently there are cases when there is a need to Express the content of the issue through denial. For example: "Tell me, please, whether You consider it impossible to fool people in any way?" The negative wording in this case reinforces the substantive thrust of the question, allows brighter, sharper, more definite need to emphasize Myl. Compare: "Tell me, please, if You can fool people in any way?" This in fact is another question. The first formulation emphasizes the impossibility to cheat, while the second allows for such a possibility. The first formulation is soft, the second hard; the first one is more polite, respectful, the second less correct.
Of course, it would be possible to formulate the question in a neutral form: "Some people according to subjective and objective reasons sometimes deceive, for example, promise to come or call and don't come, don't call; they promise to return the book and not return, etc. what do You do in this case?" Perhaps wording the question better, but it does not perform the tasks of the sociologist in question with negation.
In formulating the issue by a denial is necessary to consider its features:
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
