Lacy: A theory of nonseparable preferences in survey responsesFrom WikiSummary, the Free Social Science Summary Database Lacy. 2001. A theory of nonseparable preferences in survey responses. AJPS 45 (2).
[edit] PuzzleThough Lacy credits Zaller and Feldman's (1992) effort to explain question-order effects and response instability, he criticizes their inability to predict which subjects will have the strongest question-order effects. (The closest Z&F come is an argument that those with more information about politics will have less instability.) [edit] Solution and Example[edit] GenerallyOn some pairs of issues, a segment of the population may have "nonseparable" preferences: preferences on A depend on the outcome of B. Question order effects occur when you ask about these issue A, then issue B, as if preferences between A and B were independent, not interactive. [edit] Examples
[edit] PredictionThe larger the portion of the population that has nonseparable preferences on issues A and B, the larger the question-order effects of questions about A and B on the same survey. (To the extent that our memories are not perfect, these effects depend on how far apart the questions about A and B are on the survey.) [edit] Empirics[edit] Design
[edit] Findings
[edit] Competing HypothesesLacy tests his idea against Zaller and Feldman's suggestion that information matters, but his Lacy's measure of information is too civics-based. There are only three questions: what is Al Gore's current job, which party controls the House, and which party is more liberal. Lame. No wonder Table 3 doesn't find that information matters much. |
– Toolbox Ads by Google Please report inappropriate ads. We do not endorse services that facilitate plagiarism. |