IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/29549.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Selection in Surveys: Using Randomized Incentives to Detect and Account for Nonresponse Bias

Author

Listed:
  • Deniz Dutz
  • Ingrid Huitfeldt
  • Santiago Lacouture
  • Magne Mogstad
  • Alexander Torgovitsky
  • Winnie van Dijk

Abstract

We show how to use randomized participation incentives to test and account for nonresponse bias in surveys. We first use data from a survey about labor market conditions, linked to full-population administrative data, to provide evidence of large differences in labor market outcomes between participants and nonparticipants, differences which would not be observable to an analyst who only has access to the survey data. These differences persist even after correcting for observable characteristics, raising concerns about nonresponse bias in survey responses. We then use the randomized incentives in our survey to directly test for nonresponse bias, and find strong evidence that the bias is substantial. Next, we apply a range of existing methods that account for nonresponse bias and find they produce bounds (or point estimates) that are either wide or far from the ground truth. We investigate the failure of these methods by taking a closer look at the determinants of participation, finding that the composition of participants changes in opposite directions in response to incentives and reminder emails. We develop a model of participation that allows for two dimensions of unobserved heterogeneity in the participation decision. Applying the model to our data produces bounds (or point estimates) that are narrower and closer to the ground truth than the other methods. Our results highlight the benefits of including randomized participation incentives in surveys. Both the testing procedure and the methods for bias adjustment may be attractive tools for researchers who are able to embed randomized incentives into their survey.

Suggested Citation

  • Deniz Dutz & Ingrid Huitfeldt & Santiago Lacouture & Magne Mogstad & Alexander Torgovitsky & Winnie van Dijk, 2021. "Selection in Surveys: Using Randomized Incentives to Detect and Account for Nonresponse Bias," NBER Working Papers 29549, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:29549
    Note: LS PE
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w29549.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Julio J. Elías & Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis, 2019. "Paying for Kidneys? A Randomized Survey and Choice Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(8), pages 2855-2888, August.
    2. Imbens, Guido W & Angrist, Joshua D, 1994. "Identification and Estimation of Local Average Treatment Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(2), pages 467-475, March.
    3. Mara P. Squicciarini & Nico Voigtländer, 2015. "Human Capital and Industrialization: Evidence from the Age of Enlightenment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(4), pages 1825-1883.
    4. Franco, Annie & Malhotra, Neil & Simonovits, Gabor & Zigerell, L. J., 2017. "Developing Standards for Post-Hoc Weighting in Population-Based Survey Experiments," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 161-172, July.
    5. David S. Lee, 2009. "Training, Wages, and Sample Selection: Estimating Sharp Bounds on Treatment Effects," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(3), pages 1071-1102.
    6. David J. Deming, 2017. "The Growing Importance of Social Skills in the Labor Market," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 132(4), pages 1593-1640.
    7. David Card & Stefano DellaVigna, 2013. "Nine Facts about Top Journals in Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 51(1), pages 144-161, March.
    8. Janet Currie & Henrik Kleven & Esmée Zwiers, 2020. "Technology and Big Data Are Changing Economics: Mining Text to Track Methods," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 110, pages 42-48, May.
    9. Bruce D. Meyer & Wallace K. C. Mok & James X. Sullivan, 2015. "Household Surveys in Crisis," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 29(4), pages 199-226, Fall.
    10. Leandro S. Carvalho & Stephan Meier & Stephanie W. Wang, 2016. "Poverty and Economic Decision-Making: Evidence from Changes in Financial Resources at Payday," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(2), pages 260-284, February.
    11. Paul Ehling & Alessandro Graniero & Christian Heyerdahl-Larsen, 2018. "Asset Prices and Portfolio Choice with Learning from Experience," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 85(3), pages 1752-1780.
    12. Magne Mogstad & Andres Santos & Alexander Torgovitsky, 2018. "Using Instrumental Variables for Inference About Policy Relevant Treatment Parameters," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1589-1619, September.
    13. Joshua Shea & Alexander Torgovitsky, 2020. "ivmte: An R Package for Implementing Marginal Treatment Effect Methods," Working Papers 2020-01, Becker Friedman Institute for Research In Economics.
    14. Matthew J Page & Joanne E McKenzie & Patrick M Bossuyt & Isabelle Boutron & Tammy C Hoffmann & Cynthia D Mulrow & Larissa Shamseer & Jennifer M Tetzlaff & Elie A Akl & Sue E Brennan & Roger Chou & Jul, 2021. "The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(3), pages 1-15, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xiaozi Liu & Henrik Lindhjem & Kristine Grimsrud & Einar Leknes & Endre Tvinnereim, 2023. "Is there a generational shift in preferences for forest carbon sequestration vs. preservation of agricultural landscapes?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(9), pages 1-22, September.
    2. Manu Navjeevan & Rodrigo Pinto & Andres Santos, 2023. "Identification and Estimation in a Class of Potential Outcomes Models," Papers 2310.05311, arXiv.org.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Deniz Dutz & Ingrid Huitfeldt & Santiago Lacouture & Magne Mogstad & Alexander Torgovitsky & Winnie van Dijk, 2021. "Selection in Surveys," NBER Working Papers 29549, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
      • Deniz Dutz & Ingrid Huitfeldt & Santiago Lacouture & Magne Mogstad & Alexander Torgovitsky & Winnie van Dijk, 2021. "Selection in Surveys," Discussion Papers 971, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    2. Luther Yap, 2022. "Sensitivity of Policy Relevant Treatment Parameters to Violations of Monotonicity," Working Papers 655, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    3. Francesca Molinari, 2020. "Microeconometrics with Partial Identification," Papers 2004.11751, arXiv.org.
    4. Bartalotti, Otávio & Kédagni, Désiré & Possebom, Vitor, 2023. "Identifying marginal treatment effects in the presence of sample selection," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 234(2), pages 565-584.
    5. Tarek Azzam & Michael Bates & David Fairris, 2019. "Do Learning Communities Increase First Year College Retention? Testing Sample Selection and External Validity of Randomized Control Trials," Working Papers 202002, University of California at Riverside, Department of Economics.
    6. Vitor Possebom, 2021. "Crime and Mismeasured Punishment: Marginal Treatment Effect with Misclassification," Papers 2106.00536, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.
    7. Francesca Molinari, 2019. "Econometrics with Partial Identification," CeMMAP working papers CWP25/19, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    8. Konstantinos Metaxoglou, 2021. "Canadian Journal of Economics: A historic overview," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 1418-1453, November.
    9. María laura Alzúa & Guillermo Cruces & Carolina Lopez, 2016. "Long-Run Effects Of Youth Training Programs: Experimental Evidence From Argentina," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(4), pages 1839-1859, October.
    10. Fabian Kosse & Thomas Deckers & Pia Pinger & Hannah Schildberg-Hörisch & Armin Falk, 2020. "The Formation of Prosociality: Causal Evidence on the Role of Social Environment," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(2), pages 434-467.
    11. Timothy B. Armstrong & Michal Kolesár, 2021. "Sensitivity analysis using approximate moment condition models," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), pages 77-108, January.
    12. Joshua D. Angrist & Sarah R. Cohodes & Susan M. Dynarski & Parag A. Pathak & Christopher R. Walters, 2016. "Stand and Deliver: Effects of Boston's Charter High Schools on College Preparation, Entry, and Choice," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(2), pages 275-318.
    13. Robert A. Moffitt & Matthew V. Zahn, 2019. "The Marginal Labor Supply Disincentives of Welfare: Evidence from Administrative Barriers to Participation," NBER Working Papers 26028, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Pereda-Fernández, Santiago, 2023. "Identification and estimation of triangular models with a binary treatment," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 234(2), pages 585-623.
    15. Higuchi, Yuki & Nam, Vu Hoang & Sonobe, Tetsushi, 2015. "Sustained impacts of Kaizen training," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 189-206.
    16. Depew, Briggs & Eren, Ozkan, 2016. "Born on the wrong day? School entry age and juvenile crime," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 73-90.
    17. Humlum, Anders & Munch, Jakob R. & Rasmussen, Mette, 2023. "What Works for the Unemployed? Evidence from Quasi-Random Caseworker Assignments," IZA Discussion Papers 16033, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Peter Hull & Michal Kolesár & Christopher Walters, 2022. "Labor by design: contributions of David Card, Joshua Angrist, and Guido Imbens," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 124(3), pages 603-645, July.
    19. Winnie van Dijk & Robert Collinson & John Eric Humphries & Nicholas Mader & Davin Reed & Daniel Tannenbaum, 2022. "Eviction and Poverty in American Cities," Working Papers 2022-24, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    20. Hoshino Tadao & Yanagi Takahide, 2022. "Estimating marginal treatment effects under unobserved group heterogeneity," Journal of Causal Inference, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 197-216, January.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C0 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - General
    • C01 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - General - - - Econometrics
    • C1 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General
    • C36 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Instrumental Variables (IV) Estimation
    • C42 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Survey Methods
    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods
    • H0 - Public Economics - - General
    • J0 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:29549. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.