Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

Beyond the breaking point? Survey satisficing in conjoint experiments

  • Kirk Bansak (a1), Jens Hainmueller (a2), Daniel J. Hopkins (a3) and Teppei Yamamoto (a4)

Abstract

Recent years have seen a renaissance of conjoint survey designs within social science. To date, however, researchers have lacked guidance on how many attributes they can include within conjoint profiles before survey satisficing leads to unacceptable declines in response quality. This paper addresses that question using pre-registered, two-stage experiments examining choices among hypothetical candidates for US Senate or hotel rooms. In each experiment, we use the first stage to identify attributes which are perceived to be uncorrelated with the attribute of interest, so that their effects are not masked by those of the core attributes. In the second stage, we randomly assign respondents to conjoint designs with varying numbers of those filler attributes. We report the results of these experiments implemented via Amazon's Mechanical Turk and Survey Sampling International. They demonstrate that our core quantities of interest are generally stable, with relatively modest increases in survey satisficing when respondents face large numbers of attributes.

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Corresponding author. Email: danhop@sas.upenn.edu

References

Hide All
Abrajano, MA, Elmendorf, CS and Quinn, KM (2015) Using experiments to estimate racially polarized voting'. UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper Series, No. 419.
Adamowicz, W, Boxall, P, Williams, M and Louviere, J (1998) Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80, 6475.
Bansak, K, Hainmueller, J and Hangartner, D (2016) How economic, humanitarian, and religious concerns shape European attitudes toward asylum seekers. Science 354, 217222.
Bansak, K, Hainmueller, J, Hopkins, DJ and Yamamoto, T (2018) The number of choice tasks and survey satisficing in conjoint experiments. Political Analysis 26, 112119.
Bechtel, MM, Genovese, F and Scheve, KF (2017) Interests, norms, and support for the provision of global public goods: the case of climate cooperation. British Journal of Political Science (forthcoming).
Berinsky, AJ, Huber, GA and Lenz, GS (2012) Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com's mechanical turk. Political Analysis 20, 351368.
Berinsky, AJ, Margolis, MF and Sances, MW (2014) Separating the shirkers from the workers? Making sure respondents pay attention on self-administered surveys. American Journal of Political Science 58, 739753.
Carlson, E (2015) Ethnic voting and accountability in Africa: a choice experiment in Uganda. World Politics 67, 353385.
Carnes, N and Lupu, N (2016) Do Voters Dislike Working-Class Candidates? Voter Biases and the Descriptive Underrepresentation of the Working Class. American Political Science Review 110, 832844.
Chang, L and Krosnick, JA (2009) National surveys via rdd telephone interviewing versus the internet: comparing sample representativeness and response quality. Public Opinion Quarterly 73, 641678.
Crowder-Meyer, M, Gadarian, SK, Trounstine, J and Vue, K (2015) Complex interactions: candidate race, sex, electoral institutions, and voter choice'. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 16–19.
Dafoe, A, Zhang, B and Caughey, D (2018) Information equivalence in survey experiments. Political Analysis 26, 399416.
Franchino, F and Zucchini, F (2014) Voting in a multi-dimensional space: a conjoint analysis employing valence and ideology attributes of candidates. Political Science Research and Methods 3, 121.
Goldberg, SM, Green, PE and Wind, Y (1984) Conjoint analysis of price premiums for hotel amenities. Journal of Business 57, S111S132.
Gooch, A and Vavreck, L (2015) How Face-to-Face Interviews and Cognitive Skill Affect Non-Response: A Randomized Experiment Assigning Mode of Interview. Working Paper, Los Angeles: University of California.
Green, PE and Rao, VR (1971) Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data. Journal of Marketing Research VIII, 355363.
Groves, RM, Fowler, FJ Jr, Couper, MP, Lepkowski, JM, Singer, E and Tourangeau, R (2011) Survey Methodology, vol. 561, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Hainmueller, J and Hopkins, DJ (2015) The hidden American immigration consensus: a conjoint analysis of attitudes toward immigrants. American Journal of Political Science 59, 529548.
Hainmueller, J, Hopkins, DJ and Yamamoto, T (2014) Causal inference in conjoint analysis: understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis 22, 130.
Hauser, DJ and Schwarz, N (2015) Attentive turkers: Mturk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods 48, 18.
Horiuchi, Y, Smith, DM and Yamamoto, T (2018) Measuring voters' multidimensional policy preferences with conjoint analysis: application to Japan's 2014 election. Political Analysis 26, 190209.
Huff, C and Tingley, D (2015) “Who are these people?” Evaluating the demographic characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Research & Politics 2(3), https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015604648.
Jasso, G and Rossi, PH (1977) Distributive justice and earned income. American Sociological Review 42, 639–51.
Krosnick, JA (1991) Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology 5, 213236.
Krosnick, JA (1999) Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology 50, 537567.
Loewen, PJ, Rubenson, D and Spirling, A (2012) Testing the power of arguments in referendums: a bradley—terry approach. Electoral Studies 31, 212221.
Miller, GA (1994) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 101, 343.
Mullinix, KJ, Leeper, TJ, Druckman, JN and Freese, J (2016) The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science 2, 109138.
Mummolo, J and Nall, C (2016) Why partisans don't sort: the constraints on political segregation. The Journal of Politics 79, 4559.
Mutz, DC (2011) Population-Based Survey Experiments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sudman, S, Bradburn, NM and Schwarz, N (1996) Thinking about Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wright, M, Levy, M and Citrin, J (2016) Public attitudes toward immigration policy across the legal/illegal divide: the role of categorical and attribute-based decision-making. Political Behavior 38, 229253.
Yeager, DS, Krosnick, JA, Chang, L, Javitz, HS, Levendusky, MS, Simpser, A and Wang, R (2011) Comparing the accuracy of RDD telephone surveys and internet surveys conducted with probability and non-probability samples. Public Opinion Quarterly 75, 709747.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Political Science Research and Methods
  • ISSN: 2049-8470
  • EISSN: 2049-8489
  • URL: /core/journals/political-science-research-and-methods
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Type Description Title
UNKNOWN
Supplementary materials

Bansak et al. Dataset
Dataset

 Unknown
PDF
Supplementary materials

Bansak et al. supplementary material
Bansak et al. supplementary material 1

 PDF (408 KB)
408 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed