在0到100之间选择一个数字:百分制量表的检验

Jared Eutsler
{"title":"在0到100之间选择一个数字:百分制量表的检验","authors":"Jared Eutsler","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3665726","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study provides evidence on the relationship between scale characteristics and participant responses for percentage-based scales (i.e., 101 points) in accounting research. A 4×1 between-subjects experiment examines how common labeling designs affect various statistical properties, including means, variance, normality of the distribution, and frequency of responses. The results indicate that labels on percentage-based scales have a significant impact on the distribution of participants’ responses. Labeling only the endpoints is the lone condition that results in normally distributed data. Additional analyses suggest that labels on percentage-based scales influence participant responses in multiple ways. First, as the number of labels increases, participants may not adequately consider, and thus ultimately select, unlabeled points. Second, while participants seem to inherently interpret percentage-based scales in quartiles and deciles, labeling as such exacerbates this tendency. Finally, when more labels are present, participants seem to engage an anchoring heuristic when selecting their response. Taken as a whole, the results suggest that accounting researchers may benefit from labeling only the endpoints of percentage-based scales.","PeriodicalId":8737,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral & Experimental Accounting eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pick a Number between 0 and 100: An Examination of Percentage-Based Scales\",\"authors\":\"Jared Eutsler\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3665726\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study provides evidence on the relationship between scale characteristics and participant responses for percentage-based scales (i.e., 101 points) in accounting research. A 4×1 between-subjects experiment examines how common labeling designs affect various statistical properties, including means, variance, normality of the distribution, and frequency of responses. The results indicate that labels on percentage-based scales have a significant impact on the distribution of participants’ responses. Labeling only the endpoints is the lone condition that results in normally distributed data. Additional analyses suggest that labels on percentage-based scales influence participant responses in multiple ways. First, as the number of labels increases, participants may not adequately consider, and thus ultimately select, unlabeled points. Second, while participants seem to inherently interpret percentage-based scales in quartiles and deciles, labeling as such exacerbates this tendency. Finally, when more labels are present, participants seem to engage an anchoring heuristic when selecting their response. Taken as a whole, the results suggest that accounting researchers may benefit from labeling only the endpoints of percentage-based scales.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8737,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavioral & Experimental Accounting eJournal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavioral & Experimental Accounting eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3665726\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral & Experimental Accounting eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3665726","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

本研究为会计研究中基于百分比的量表(即101分)的规模特征与参与者反应之间的关系提供了证据。4×1受试者之间的实验检验了常见的标签设计如何影响各种统计特性,包括均值、方差、分布的正态性和响应频率。结果表明,基于百分比的标签对参与者的反应分布有显著影响。只标记端点是导致数据正态分布的唯一条件。其他分析表明,基于百分比的量表上的标签以多种方式影响参与者的反应。首先,随着标签数量的增加,参与者可能没有充分考虑,从而最终选择未标记的点。其次,虽然参与者似乎天生就用四分位数和十分位数来解释基于百分比的量表,但这样的标签加剧了这种趋势。最后,当更多的标签出现时,参与者在选择他们的回答时似乎采用了锚定启发式。作为一个整体,结果表明,会计研究人员可能受益于标记仅基于百分比的尺度的端点。
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
Pick a Number between 0 and 100: An Examination of Percentage-Based Scales
This study provides evidence on the relationship between scale characteristics and participant responses for percentage-based scales (i.e., 101 points) in accounting research. A 4×1 between-subjects experiment examines how common labeling designs affect various statistical properties, including means, variance, normality of the distribution, and frequency of responses. The results indicate that labels on percentage-based scales have a significant impact on the distribution of participants’ responses. Labeling only the endpoints is the lone condition that results in normally distributed data. Additional analyses suggest that labels on percentage-based scales influence participant responses in multiple ways. First, as the number of labels increases, participants may not adequately consider, and thus ultimately select, unlabeled points. Second, while participants seem to inherently interpret percentage-based scales in quartiles and deciles, labeling as such exacerbates this tendency. Finally, when more labels are present, participants seem to engage an anchoring heuristic when selecting their response. Taken as a whole, the results suggest that accounting researchers may benefit from labeling only the endpoints of percentage-based scales.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Don’t shoot yourself in the foot! A (real-effort task) experiment on income redistribution and voting. Causal Attribution, Benefits Sharing, and Earnings Management Sleep Debt and Information Processing in Financial Markets Game Changer: Can Modifications to Audit Firm Communication Improve Auditors’ Actions in Response to Heightened Fraud Risk? Retail Bond Investors and Credit Ratings
×
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