Moderator Placement in Survey Experiments: Racial Resentment and the “Welfare” versus “Assistance to the Poor” Question Wording Experiment

IF 3.2 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Journal of Experimental Political Science Pub Date : 2022-08-18 DOI:10.1017/XPS.2022.18

B. Albertson, S. Jessee

引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract Researchers face difficult decisions about whether to ask potential moderators before or after a survey experiment. Competing concerns exist about priming respondents before the experiment and about introducing post-treatment bias. We replicate the classic “welfare” versus “assistance to the poor” survey experiment, randomly assigning respondents to be asked a battery of racial resentment questions either before or after the question wording experiment. We find little evidence that the question wording effect is different between those who are asked about racial resentment before versus after the experiment. Furthermore, we find little evidence that measured racial resentment is affected by this ordering or by the question wording treatment itself.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

调查实验中的主持人安置:种族怨恨与“福利”与“扶贫”问题措辞实验

摘要研究人员面临着在调查实验之前还是之后询问潜在调节者的艰难决定。关于在实验前启动受访者和引入治疗后偏见，存在着相互竞争的担忧。我们复制了经典的“福利”与“援助穷人”调查实验，随机分配受访者在问题措辞实验之前或之后被问到一系列种族怨恨问题。我们几乎没有发现证据表明，在实验前后被问及种族仇恨的人之间，问题措辞的效果是不同的。此外，我们几乎没有发现任何证据表明，衡量种族仇恨受到这种命令或问题措辞处理本身的影响。

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分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Experimental Political Science Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science

CiteScore

5.10

自引率

8.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Experimental Political Science (JEPS) features cutting-edge research that utilizes experimental methods or experimental reasoning based on naturally occurring data. We define experimental methods broadly: research featuring random (or quasi-random) assignment of subjects to different treatments in an effort to isolate causal relationships in the sphere of politics. JEPS embraces all of the different types of experiments carried out as part of political science research, including survey experiments, laboratory experiments, field experiments, lab experiments in the field, natural and neurological experiments. We invite authors to submit concise articles (around 4000 words or fewer) that immediately address the subject of the research. We do not require lengthy explanations regarding and justifications of the experimental method. Nor do we expect extensive literature reviews of pros and cons of the methodological approaches involved in the experiment unless the goal of the article is to explore these methodological issues. We expect readers to be familiar with experimental methods and therefore to not need pages of literature reviews to be convinced that experimental methods are a legitimate methodological approach. We will consider longer articles in rare, but appropriate cases, as in the following examples: when a new experimental method or approach is being introduced and discussed or when novel theoretical results are being evaluated through experimentation. Finally, we strongly encourage authors to submit manuscripts that showcase informative null findings or inconsistent results from well-designed, executed, and analyzed experiments.