识别自我报告的环保行为中的偏见

Katharina Koller , Paulina K. Pankowska , Cameron Brick
{"title":"识别自我报告的环保行为中的偏见","authors":"Katharina Koller ,&nbsp;Paulina K. Pankowska ,&nbsp;Cameron Brick","doi":"10.1016/j.cresp.2022.100087","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Research on pro-environmental behavior (PEB) informs social policies and interventions, so the quality of PEB measurement is critical. Self-reported PEB measures in surveys often contain non-negligible measurement error that can bias estimates and lead to incorrect findings. Given the potential presence of error, we hypothesize that changes to the way self-reported PEB is measured might lead to systematic measurement errors that affect the validity of results. Study 1 (<em>N</em> = 951) showed that priming participants with related scales like environmentalist identity did not substantively change reported behavior (all <em>d</em>s ≤ 0.12). To investigate the possibility of overreporting without priming, Study 2 (<em>N</em> = 385) measured littering prevention behavior using the Unmatched Count Technique. A standard questionnaire format led to much higher reported behavior compared to the more anonymous covert condition, <em>d</em> = 0.53, and this effect appeared driven by participants who reported a stronger environmentalist identity. These results may help to explain some of the observed error in PEB measures. We suggest that researchers could reduce measurement bias with indirect questioning techniques.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72748,"journal":{"name":"Current research in ecological and social psychology","volume":"4 ","pages":"Article 100087"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying bias in self-reported pro-environmental behavior\",\"authors\":\"Katharina Koller ,&nbsp;Paulina K. Pankowska ,&nbsp;Cameron Brick\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cresp.2022.100087\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Research on pro-environmental behavior (PEB) informs social policies and interventions, so the quality of PEB measurement is critical. Self-reported PEB measures in surveys often contain non-negligible measurement error that can bias estimates and lead to incorrect findings. Given the potential presence of error, we hypothesize that changes to the way self-reported PEB is measured might lead to systematic measurement errors that affect the validity of results. Study 1 (<em>N</em> = 951) showed that priming participants with related scales like environmentalist identity did not substantively change reported behavior (all <em>d</em>s ≤ 0.12). To investigate the possibility of overreporting without priming, Study 2 (<em>N</em> = 385) measured littering prevention behavior using the Unmatched Count Technique. A standard questionnaire format led to much higher reported behavior compared to the more anonymous covert condition, <em>d</em> = 0.53, and this effect appeared driven by participants who reported a stronger environmentalist identity. These results may help to explain some of the observed error in PEB measures. We suggest that researchers could reduce measurement bias with indirect questioning techniques.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72748,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current research in ecological and social psychology\",\"volume\":\"4 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100087\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current research in ecological and social psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666622722000545\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current research in ecological and social psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666622722000545","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对环保行为(PEB)的研究为社会政策和干预提供了信息,因此PEB测量的质量至关重要。调查中自我报告的PEB测量通常包含不可忽略的测量误差,这些误差可能会使估计产生偏差,并导致不正确的结果。考虑到潜在的误差,我们假设自我报告的PEB测量方式的变化可能会导致系统的测量误差,从而影响结果的有效性。研究1(N=951)表明,具有环保主义身份等相关量表的启动参与者并没有实质性地改变报告的行为(所有ds≤0.12)。为了调查在没有启动的情况下过度报告的可能性,研究2(N=385)使用不匹配计数技术测量了乱扔垃圾的预防行为。与更匿名的隐蔽条件(d=0.53)相比,标准问卷格式导致了更高的报告行为,这种影响似乎是由报告更强环保主义身份的参与者驱动的。这些结果可能有助于解释PEB测量中观察到的一些误差。我们建议研究人员可以通过间接提问技术来减少测量偏差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Identifying bias in self-reported pro-environmental behavior

Identifying bias in self-reported pro-environmental behavior

Research on pro-environmental behavior (PEB) informs social policies and interventions, so the quality of PEB measurement is critical. Self-reported PEB measures in surveys often contain non-negligible measurement error that can bias estimates and lead to incorrect findings. Given the potential presence of error, we hypothesize that changes to the way self-reported PEB is measured might lead to systematic measurement errors that affect the validity of results. Study 1 (N = 951) showed that priming participants with related scales like environmentalist identity did not substantively change reported behavior (all ds ≤ 0.12). To investigate the possibility of overreporting without priming, Study 2 (N = 385) measured littering prevention behavior using the Unmatched Count Technique. A standard questionnaire format led to much higher reported behavior compared to the more anonymous covert condition, d = 0.53, and this effect appeared driven by participants who reported a stronger environmentalist identity. These results may help to explain some of the observed error in PEB measures. We suggest that researchers could reduce measurement bias with indirect questioning techniques.

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
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
140 days
×
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