Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 112, Issue 8, 2015, Pages 2395-2400

  Hainmueller, Jens ^a   Hangartner, Dominik ^b,c   Yamamoto, Teppei ^d  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^d MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Conjoint; Public opinion; Stated preferences; Survey methodology; Vignette

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA; CITIZENSHIP; CONTINGENT VALUATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; EDUCATION; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; FEMALE; FORCED CHOICE METHOD; HUMAN; IMMIGRANT; MALE; NATURALIZATION; NETHERLANDS; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOCIAL DESIRABILITY; SWITZERLAND; VALIDATION PROCESS; VALIDATION STUDY; VIGNETTE; YUGOSLAVIA; DECISION MAKING; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MIGRATION; REPRODUCIBILITY;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DATA COLLECTION; EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION; HUMANS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SWITZERLAND;

EID: 84923552574     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1416587112     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Green PE, Rao VR (1971) Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data. J Mark Res 8(3):355-363.
2. Hainmueller J, Hopkins DJ, Yamamoto T (2014) Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Polit Anal 22(1):1-30.
3. Rossi PH, Anderson AB (1982) The Factorial Survey Approach: An Introduction (Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA), pp 15-67.
4. Wallander L (2009) 25 years of factorial surveys in sociology: A review. Soc Sci Res 38(3):505-520.
5. Alexander CS, Becker HJ (1978) The use of vignettes in survey research. Public Opin Q 42(1):93-104.
6. Arnold HJ, Feldman DC (1981) Social desirability response bias in self-report choice situations. Acad Manage J 24(2):377-385.
7. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom).
8. Schwarz N (1999) Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. Am Psychol 54(2):93-105.
9. Krosnick JA, Judd CM, Wittenbrink B (2014) The Handbook of Attitudes, eds Albarracin D, Johnson BT, Zanna MP (Psychology Press, New York), pp 21-76.
10. Bertrand M, Mullainathan S (2001) Do people mean what they say? implications for subjective survey data. Am Econ Rev 91(2):67-72.
11. Neill HR, Cummings RG, Ganderton PT, Harrison GW, McGuckin T (1994) Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments. Land Econ 70(2):145-154.
12. Bernstein R, Chadha A, Montjoy R (2001) Overreporting voting: Why it happens and why it matters. Public Opin Q 65(1):22-44.
13. Benítez-Silva H, Buchinsky M, Man Chan H, Cheidvasser S, Rust J (2004) How large is the bias in self-reported disability? J Appl Econ 19(6):649-670.
14. Louviere JJ (1988) Conjoint analysis modelling of stated preferences: A review of theory, methods, recent developments and external validity. J Transp Econ Policy 22(1):93-119.
15. Natter M, Feurstein M (2002) Real world performance of choice-based conjoint models. Eur J Oper Res 137(2):448-458.
16. Hainmueller J, Hangartner D (2013) Who gets a swiss passport? a natural experiment in immigrant discrimination. Am Polit Sci Rev 107(1):159-187.
17. Tourangeau R, Yan T (2007) Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychol Bull 133(5):859-883.
18. Green PE, Krieger AM, Wind Y (2001) Thirty years of conjoint analysis: Reflections and prospects. Interfaces 31(3 Suppl):S56-S73.
19. Berinsky AJ, Huber GA, Lenz GS (2012) Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon. com's mechanical turk. Polit Anal 20(1):25-46.
20. Hainmueller J (2011) Entropy balancing for causal effects: A multivariate reweighting method to produce balanced samples in observational studies. Polit Anal 20(1):25-46.
21. Diamond PA, Hausman JA (1994) Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number? J Econ Perspect 8(4):45-64.
22. Anderson BA, Silver BD (1986) Measurement and mismeasurement of the validity of the self-reported vote. Am J Pol Sci 30(4):771-785.
23. Gelman A, King G (1993) Why are american presidential election campaign polls so variable when votes are so predictable? Br J Polit Sci 23(4):409-451.
24. Holbrook AL, Green MC, Krosnick JA (2003) Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing of national probability samples with long questionnaires: Comparisons of respondent satisficing and social desirability response bias. Public Opin Q 67(1):79-125.