Validating Factorial Survey Experiments: Response to Comment

IF 2.7 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY
Andrea G. Forster, Martin Neugebauer
{"title":"Validating Factorial Survey Experiments: Response to Comment","authors":"Andrea G. Forster, Martin Neugebauer","doi":"10.15195/v12.a6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Forster and Neugebauer (2024), we examine to what extent a factorial survey (FS) on invitations of fictitious applicants can replicate the findings of a nearly identical field experiment conducted with the same employers. In addition to exploring the conditions under which FSs provide valid behavioral predictions, we varied the topic sensitivity and tested whether behavioral predictions were more accurate after filtering out respondents who provided socially desirable answers or did not exert sufficient effort in responding to FS vignettes. Across these conditions, the FS results did not align well with the real-world benchmark. We conclude that researchers must exercise caution when using FSs to study (hiring) behavior. In this rejoinder, we respond to the critique of our study by Pickett (2025).","PeriodicalId":22029,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Science","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociological Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15195/v12.a6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In Forster and Neugebauer (2024), we examine to what extent a factorial survey (FS) on invitations of fictitious applicants can replicate the findings of a nearly identical field experiment conducted with the same employers. In addition to exploring the conditions under which FSs provide valid behavioral predictions, we varied the topic sensitivity and tested whether behavioral predictions were more accurate after filtering out respondents who provided socially desirable answers or did not exert sufficient effort in responding to FS vignettes. Across these conditions, the FS results did not align well with the real-world benchmark. We conclude that researchers must exercise caution when using FSs to study (hiring) behavior. In this rejoinder, we respond to the critique of our study by Pickett (2025).
验证因子调查实验:对评论的回应
在Forster和Neugebauer(2024)中,我们研究了对虚构申请人的邀请进行的因子调查(FS)在多大程度上可以复制对相同雇主进行的几乎相同的现场实验的结果。除了探索FSs提供有效行为预测的条件外,我们还改变了话题敏感性,并测试了在过滤掉提供社会期望答案或没有付出足够努力回应FS小插曲的受访者后,行为预测是否更准确。在这些条件下,FS的结果与现实世界的基准并不一致。我们的结论是,研究人员在使用金融服务系统研究(招聘)行为时必须谨慎行事。在这篇答辩中,我们回应了皮克特(2025)对我们研究的批评。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Sociological Science
Sociological Science Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
2.90%
发文量
13
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Sociological Science is an open-access, online, peer-reviewed, international journal for social scientists committed to advancing a general understanding of social processes. Sociological Science welcomes original research and commentary from all subfields of sociology, and does not privilege any particular theoretical or methodological approach.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信