列表实验中测量误差的处理:选择正确的控制列表设计

IF 2 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Mattias Agerberg, Marcus Tannenberg
{"title":"列表实验中测量误差的处理:选择正确的控制列表设计","authors":"Mattias Agerberg, Marcus Tannenberg","doi":"10.1177/20531680211013154","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"List experiments are widely used in the social sciences to elicit truthful responses to sensitive questions. Yet, the research design commonly suffers from the problem of measurement error in the form of non-strategic respondent error, where some inattentive participants might provide random responses. This type of error can result in severely biased estimates. A recently proposed solution is the use of a necessarily false placebo item to equalize the length of the treatment and control lists in order to alleviate concerns about respondent error. In this paper we show theoretically that placebo items do not in general eliminate bias caused by non-strategic respondent error. We introduce a new option, the mixed control list, and show how researchers can choose between different control list designs to minimize the problems caused by inattentive respondents. We provide researchers with practical guidance to think carefully about the bias that inattentive respondents might cause in a given application of the list experiment. We also report results from a large novel list experiment fielded to over 4900 respondents, specifically designed to illustrate our theoretical argument and recommendations.","PeriodicalId":37327,"journal":{"name":"Research and Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/20531680211013154","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dealing with measurement error in list experiments: Choosing the right control list design\",\"authors\":\"Mattias Agerberg, Marcus Tannenberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20531680211013154\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"List experiments are widely used in the social sciences to elicit truthful responses to sensitive questions. Yet, the research design commonly suffers from the problem of measurement error in the form of non-strategic respondent error, where some inattentive participants might provide random responses. This type of error can result in severely biased estimates. A recently proposed solution is the use of a necessarily false placebo item to equalize the length of the treatment and control lists in order to alleviate concerns about respondent error. In this paper we show theoretically that placebo items do not in general eliminate bias caused by non-strategic respondent error. We introduce a new option, the mixed control list, and show how researchers can choose between different control list designs to minimize the problems caused by inattentive respondents. We provide researchers with practical guidance to think carefully about the bias that inattentive respondents might cause in a given application of the list experiment. We also report results from a large novel list experiment fielded to over 4900 respondents, specifically designed to illustrate our theoretical argument and recommendations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37327,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research and Politics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/20531680211013154\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research and Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680211013154\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680211013154","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

列表实验在社会科学中被广泛用于引出对敏感问题的真实回答。然而,研究设计通常存在非策略性回答错误形式的测量错误问题,一些注意力不集中的参与者可能会提供随机回答。这种类型的误差可能导致严重的偏差估计。最近提出的一个解决方案是使用一个必然错误的安慰剂项目来均衡治疗和对照列表的长度,以减轻对受访者错误的担忧。在这篇论文中,我们从理论上证明,安慰剂项目通常不会消除非策略性回答错误引起的偏见。我们引入了一种新的选择,混合控制列表,并展示了研究人员如何在不同的控制列表设计之间进行选择,以最大限度地减少由注意力不集中的受访者造成的问题。我们为研究人员提供了实用的指导,让他们仔细思考在列表实验的特定应用中,注意力不集中的受访者可能造成的偏见。我们还报告了一项针对4900多名受访者的大型新颖列表实验的结果,该实验专门用于说明我们的理论论点和建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Dealing with measurement error in list experiments: Choosing the right control list design
List experiments are widely used in the social sciences to elicit truthful responses to sensitive questions. Yet, the research design commonly suffers from the problem of measurement error in the form of non-strategic respondent error, where some inattentive participants might provide random responses. This type of error can result in severely biased estimates. A recently proposed solution is the use of a necessarily false placebo item to equalize the length of the treatment and control lists in order to alleviate concerns about respondent error. In this paper we show theoretically that placebo items do not in general eliminate bias caused by non-strategic respondent error. We introduce a new option, the mixed control list, and show how researchers can choose between different control list designs to minimize the problems caused by inattentive respondents. We provide researchers with practical guidance to think carefully about the bias that inattentive respondents might cause in a given application of the list experiment. We also report results from a large novel list experiment fielded to over 4900 respondents, specifically designed to illustrate our theoretical argument and recommendations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Research and Politics
Research and Politics Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
3.70%
发文量
34
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Research & Politics aims to advance systematic peer-reviewed research in political science and related fields through the open access publication of the very best cutting-edge research and policy analysis. The journal provides a venue for scholars to communicate rapidly and succinctly important new insights to the broadest possible audience while maintaining the highest standards of quality control.
×
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