分析调查实验中的注意和绕过偏差:模拟小插图检查

IF 2.5 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Science Research and Methods Pub Date : 2023-02-03 DOI:10.1017/psrm.2023.3
John V. Kane, Yamil R. Velez, Jason Barabas
{"title":"分析调查实验中的注意和绕过偏差:模拟小插图检查","authors":"John V. Kane, Yamil R. Velez, Jason Barabas","doi":"10.1017/psrm.2023.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Respondent inattentiveness threatens to undermine causal inferences in survey-based experiments. Unfortunately, existing attention checks may induce bias while diagnosing potential problems. As an alternative, we propose “mock vignette checks” (MVCs), which are objective questions that follow short policy-related passages. Importantly, all subjects view the same vignette before the focal experiment, resulting in a common set of pre-treatment attentiveness measures. Thus, interacting MVCs with treatment indicators permits unbiased hypothesis tests despite substantial inattentiveness. In replications of several experiments with national samples, we find that MVC performance is significantly predictive of stronger treatment effects, and slightly outperforms rival measures of attentiveness, without significantly altering treatment effects. Finally, the MVCs tested here are reliable, interchangeable, and largely uncorrelated with political and socio-demographic variables.","PeriodicalId":47311,"journal":{"name":"Political Science Research and Methods","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analyze the attentive and bypass bias: mock vignette checks in survey experiments\",\"authors\":\"John V. Kane, Yamil R. Velez, Jason Barabas\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/psrm.2023.3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Respondent inattentiveness threatens to undermine causal inferences in survey-based experiments. Unfortunately, existing attention checks may induce bias while diagnosing potential problems. As an alternative, we propose “mock vignette checks” (MVCs), which are objective questions that follow short policy-related passages. Importantly, all subjects view the same vignette before the focal experiment, resulting in a common set of pre-treatment attentiveness measures. Thus, interacting MVCs with treatment indicators permits unbiased hypothesis tests despite substantial inattentiveness. In replications of several experiments with national samples, we find that MVC performance is significantly predictive of stronger treatment effects, and slightly outperforms rival measures of attentiveness, without significantly altering treatment effects. Finally, the MVCs tested here are reliable, interchangeable, and largely uncorrelated with political and socio-demographic variables.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47311,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Science Research and Methods\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Science Research and Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2023.3\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Science Research and Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2023.3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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

在基于调查的实验中,被调查者的注意力不集中可能会破坏因果推论。不幸的是,现有的注意力检查在诊断潜在问题时可能会产生偏见。作为替代方案,我们建议“模拟小插曲检查”(MVCs),这是在简短的政策相关段落之后提出的客观问题。重要的是,所有受试者在焦点实验前观看相同的小插曲,从而产生一套共同的治疗前注意力测量。因此,mvc与治疗指标的相互作用允许无偏假设检验,尽管存在大量的不注意。在几个国家样本的重复实验中,我们发现MVC性能显著预测更强的治疗效果,并且稍微优于竞争对手的注意力测量,没有显著改变治疗效果。最后,这里测试的mvc是可靠的,可互换的,并且在很大程度上与政治和社会人口变量无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Analyze the attentive and bypass bias: mock vignette checks in survey experiments
Abstract Respondent inattentiveness threatens to undermine causal inferences in survey-based experiments. Unfortunately, existing attention checks may induce bias while diagnosing potential problems. As an alternative, we propose “mock vignette checks” (MVCs), which are objective questions that follow short policy-related passages. Importantly, all subjects view the same vignette before the focal experiment, resulting in a common set of pre-treatment attentiveness measures. Thus, interacting MVCs with treatment indicators permits unbiased hypothesis tests despite substantial inattentiveness. In replications of several experiments with national samples, we find that MVC performance is significantly predictive of stronger treatment effects, and slightly outperforms rival measures of attentiveness, without significantly altering treatment effects. Finally, the MVCs tested here are reliable, interchangeable, and largely uncorrelated with political and socio-demographic variables.
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
8.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
期刊最新文献
Partisan communication in two-stage elections: the effect of primaries on intra-campaign positional shifts in congressional elections Election symbols and vote choice: evidence from India Local elections do not increase local news demand The (in)effectiveness of populist rhetoric: a conjoint experiment of campaign messaging Evaluating methods for examining the relative persuasiveness of policy arguments
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1