IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2405.06779.html

A Formal Theory of Survey Experiment Generalizability: Attention and Salience

Author

Listed:
  • Jiawei Fu
  • Xiaojun Li

Abstract

Survey experiments are widely used to identify causal effects in political science and the social sciences. Yet researchers are typically interested in more than the internal validity of an experimentally induced contrast. They also want to know whether the estimated effect corresponds to the effect in the real world. We develop a formal theory of survey experiment generalizability grounded in behavioral microfoundations. The theory highlights two mechanisms. First, the survey environment shapes attention: it determines which considerations enter the respondent's active consideration set. Second, it shapes salience: conditional on consideration, it influences the relative weight assigned to those considerations. This framework yields two main results. Consideration-set compression generates amplification: survey-experimental effects can be larger in magnitude than their real-world counterparts, even for the same individuals, treatment content, and outcome. Context-dependent salience generates sign instability: the direction of the survey effect need not coincide with the direction of the corresponding real-world effect. The theory clarifies what survey experiments identify, when those effects are likely to generalize, and how survey designs can be modified to improve decision-environment transportability.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiawei Fu & Xiaojun Li, 2024. "A Formal Theory of Survey Experiment Generalizability: Attention and Salience," Papers 2405.06779, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2026.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2405.06779
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.06779
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barabas, Jason & Jerit, Jennifer, 2010. "Are Survey Experiments Externally Valid?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 104(2), pages 226-242, May.
    2. Horiuchi, Yusaku & Markovich, Zachary & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2022. "Does Conjoint Analysis Mitigate Social Desirability Bias?," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 535-549, October.
    3. Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2014. "Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-30, January.
    4. Bueno De Mesquita, Ethan & Tyson, Scott A., 2020. "The Commensurability Problem: Conceptual Difficulties in Estimating the Effect of Behavior on Behavior," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 114(2), pages 375-391, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Okada, Isamu, 2024. "What procedures matter to social acceptance of mining? A conjoint experiment in Peru," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    2. Fumiya Uchikoshi & Hirofumi Miwa & Yoshikuni Ono, 2025. "Gendered Expectations for College Applications: Experimental Evidence from a Gender Inegalitarian Education Context," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 66(5), pages 1-27, August.
    3. Montfort Simon, 2023. "Key predictors for climate policy support and political mobilization: The role of beliefs and preferences," PLOS Climate, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(8), pages 1-21, August.
    4. Kim, Sung Eun & Park, Jong Hee & Rhee, Inbok & Yang, Joonseok, 2025. "What do aid recipients want? Public attitudes toward foreign aid in developing countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    5. Kantorowicz, Jaroslaw & Kantorowicz-Reznichenko, Elena, 2023. "Enhancing Public Support for International Sanctions," OSF Preprints a2dyq, Center for Open Science.
    6. Burak Sonmez & Kirils Makarovs & Nick Allum, 2023. "Public perception of scientists: Experimental evidence on the role of sociodemographic, partisan, and professional characteristics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-20, July.
    7. Sam Sims & Clare Routledge, 2025. "Understanding the decision (not) to become a teacher: evidence from survey experiments with undergraduates in the UK and US," CEPEO Working Paper Series 25-15, UCL Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities, revised Nov 2025.
    8. Lala Muradova & Ross James Gildea, 2021. "Oil wealth and US public support for war," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(1), pages 3-19, January.
    9. Janne Tukiainen & Ilona Lahdelma & Mika Maliranta & Risto Rönkkö & Juho Saari, 2024. "The TikTok factor: Young voters and the support for the populist right," Working Papers 351, Työn ja talouden tutkimus LABORE, The Labour Institute for Economic Research LABORE.
    10. Joop Adema & Lasha Chargaziia & Yvonne Giesing & Sarah Necker & Panu Poutvaara, 2025. "What Drives Refugees’ Return After Conflict?," RFBerlin Discussion Paper Series 2565, ROCKWOOL Foundation Berlin (RFBerlin).
    11. Sung Eun Kim & Seung Yeob Kim & Junwoo Suh, 2024. "Public support for carbon tax in South Korea: The role of tax design and revenue recycling," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(2), May.
    12. Ari Hyytinen & Jan Jääskeläinen & Antti Sieppi & Vesa-Heikki Soini & Janne Tukiainen, 2026. "Entry barriers in public procurement: Evidence from conjoint survey experiment," Discussion Papers 176, Aboa Centre for Economics.
    13. Lukas Rudolph & Fabian Haggerty & Paul W. Thurner, 2026. "Examining public support for Ukraine’s defense against autocratic aggression," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 17(1), pages 1-20, December.
    14. Justesen, Mogens K. & Koob, Sigrid & Smid, Sina, 2025. "Clientelism and programmatic redistribution: Evidence from a conjoint survey experiment in Brazil," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    15. repec:osf:osfxxx:a2dyq_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Lisanne de Blok & Max Heermann & Julian Schuessler & Dirk Leuffen & Catherine E. de Vries, 2024. "All on board? The role of institutional design for public support for differentiated integration," European Union Politics, , vol. 25(3), pages 593-604, September.
    17. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    18. Hicken, Allen & Leider, Stephen & Ravanilla, Nico & Yang, Dean, 2018. "Temptation in vote-selling: Evidence from a field experiment in the Philippines," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 1-14.
    19. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    20. Wietzke, Frank-Borge, 2024. "Perceptions of social class in Africa. Results from a conjoint experiment," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    21. Robert Kubinec, 2018. "Patrons or Clients? Measuring and Experimentally Evaluating Political Connections of Firms in Morocco and Jordan," Working Papers 1280, Economic Research Forum, revised 26 Dec 2018.

    More about this item

    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:arx:papers:2405.06779. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.