不断变化的政治背景下问题顺序偏见的一致性——关于流行病治理有效性的信任和认知的六项大规模调查

IF 4.3 2区 管理学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Wouter Van Dooren, Morten Hjortskov, Steven F. De Vadder, K. Verhoest
{"title":"不断变化的政治背景下问题顺序偏见的一致性——关于流行病治理有效性的信任和认知的六项大规模调查","authors":"Wouter Van Dooren, Morten Hjortskov, Steven F. De Vadder, K. Verhoest","doi":"10.1111/padm.12919","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Question-order bias is a well-known weakness of surveys commonly used in public administration research. However, most research on question-order bias uses question-order experiments that are relatively small, performed in one context, and rarely replicated. We carry out six question-order experiments in six large-scale Belgian surveys conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. All experiments vary whether the respondents see questions regarding the effectiveness of pandemic governance or trust in different actors first. Results show that question-order effects are real and reasonably consistent across the high-powered replications, despite the changing political context of the pandemic. However, the direction of the effects largely changes when we flip the order of the trust outcome questions in the last three experiments, which sheds light on an underappreciated point: question-order bias also seems to exist within batteries of seemingly similar outcome questions. © 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.","PeriodicalId":48284,"journal":{"name":"Public Administration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Consistency of Question‐order Bias in a Changing Political Context Six Large‐scale Surveys on Trust and Perceptions of Pandemic Governance Effectiveness\",\"authors\":\"Wouter Van Dooren, Morten Hjortskov, Steven F. De Vadder, K. Verhoest\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/padm.12919\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Question-order bias is a well-known weakness of surveys commonly used in public administration research. However, most research on question-order bias uses question-order experiments that are relatively small, performed in one context, and rarely replicated. We carry out six question-order experiments in six large-scale Belgian surveys conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. All experiments vary whether the respondents see questions regarding the effectiveness of pandemic governance or trust in different actors first. Results show that question-order effects are real and reasonably consistent across the high-powered replications, despite the changing political context of the pandemic. However, the direction of the effects largely changes when we flip the order of the trust outcome questions in the last three experiments, which sheds light on an underappreciated point: question-order bias also seems to exist within batteries of seemingly similar outcome questions. © 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48284,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Administration\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Administration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12919\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12919","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

问题顺序偏见是公共行政研究中常用的调查的一个众所周知的弱点。然而,大多数关于问题顺序偏差的研究都使用相对较小的问题顺序实验,在一个上下文中进行,很少重复。我们在新冠肺炎大流行期间进行的六次比利时大规模调查中进行了六次问答实验。无论受访者首先看到的是有关疫情治理有效性的问题,还是对不同行为者的信任,所有实验都各不相同。结果表明,尽管疫情的政治背景不断变化,但问题顺序效应在高功率复制中是真实且合理一致的。然而,在最后三个实验中,当我们改变信任结果问题的顺序时,影响的方向会发生很大变化,这揭示了一个未被充分重视的点:问题顺序偏差似乎也存在于看似相似的结果问题中。©2023 John Wiley&Sons有限公司。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Consistency of Question‐order Bias in a Changing Political Context Six Large‐scale Surveys on Trust and Perceptions of Pandemic Governance Effectiveness
Question-order bias is a well-known weakness of surveys commonly used in public administration research. However, most research on question-order bias uses question-order experiments that are relatively small, performed in one context, and rarely replicated. We carry out six question-order experiments in six large-scale Belgian surveys conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. All experiments vary whether the respondents see questions regarding the effectiveness of pandemic governance or trust in different actors first. Results show that question-order effects are real and reasonably consistent across the high-powered replications, despite the changing political context of the pandemic. However, the direction of the effects largely changes when we flip the order of the trust outcome questions in the last three experiments, which sheds light on an underappreciated point: question-order bias also seems to exist within batteries of seemingly similar outcome questions. © 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
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
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
17.10%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Public Administration is a major refereed journal with global circulation and global coverage. The journal publishes articles on public administration, public policy and public management. The journal"s reach is both inclusive and international and much of the work published is comparative in nature. A high percentage of articles are sourced from the enlarging Europe and cover all aspects of West and East European public administration.
×
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