The present research contributed to a better understanding of how check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions work by examining the relationship between likelihood of selecting a term and perceived attribute intensity. Seven consumer studies were conducted (147–157 people per study) using within-subjects experimental designs where participants twice evaluated the same set of stimuli on the same set of terms (or attributes), respectively with CATA questions and intensity scaling (7-point category scale; 1 = “not at all,” 7 = “extremely”). As a function of perceived intensity, the average CATA citation frequency tended to follow a sigmoidal-like relationship where likelihood of selecting a CATA term increased more slowly at the extreme ends of the intensity scale (1–2 and 6–7) and linearly otherwise. This illuminates why for a given term, CATA questions are less suited for discriminating between samples that are of similar “low” or “high” intensity.