IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedbwp/13-15.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Modeling anchoring effects in sequential Likert scale questions

Author

Listed:
  • Marcin Hitczenko

Abstract

Surveys in many different research fields rely on sequences of Likert scale questions to assess individuals' general attitudes toward a set of related topics. Most analyses of responses to such a series do not take into account the potential measurement error introduced by the context effect we dub \"sequential anchoring,\" which occurs when the rating for one question influences the rating given to the following question by favoring similar ratings. The presence of sequential anchoring can cause systematic bias in the study of relative ratings. We develop a latent-variable framework for question responses that capitalizes on different question orderings in the survey to identify the presence of sequential anchoring. We propose a parameter estimation algorithm and run simulations to test its effectiveness for different data-generating processes, sample sizes, and orderings. Finally, the model is applied to data in which eight payment instruments are rated on a five-point scale for each of six payment characteristics in the 2012 Survey of Consumer Payment Choice. We find consistent evidence of sequential anchoring, resulting in sizable differences in properties of relative ratings for certain instruments.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcin Hitczenko, 2013. "Modeling anchoring effects in sequential Likert scale questions," Working Papers 13-15, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    • Handle: RePEc:fip:fedbwp:13-15
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/wp/wp2013/wp1315.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. G. Booth & J. P. Hobert, 1999. "Maximizing generalized linear mixed model likelihoods with an automated Monte Carlo EM algorithm," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 61(1), pages 265-285.
    2. Schuh, Scott & Stavins, Joanna, 2010. "Why are (some) consumers (finally) writing fewer checks? The role of payment characteristics," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 1745-1758, August.
    3. Jianhua Z. Huang & Naiping Liu & Mohsen Pourahmadi & Linxu Liu, 2006. "Covariance matrix selection and estimation via penalised normal likelihood," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 93(1), pages 85-98, 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. Marco Angrisani & Kevin Foster & Marcin Hitczenko, 2013. "The 2010 Survey of Consumer Payment Choice: technical appendix," Research Data Report 13-3, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    2. Marco Angrisani & Kevin Foster & Marcin Hitczenko, 2015. "The 2013 Survey of Consumer Payment Choice: technical appendix," Research Data Report 15-5, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    3. Marco Angrisani & Kevin Foster & Marcin Hitczenko, 2017. "The 2015 Survey of Consumer Payment Choice: technical appendix," Research Data Report 17-4, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    4. Marco Angrisani & Kevin Foster & Marcin Hitczenko, 2014. "The 2011 and 2012 Surveys of Consumer Payment Choice: technical appendix," Research Data Report 14-2, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    5. Marco Angrisani & Kevin Foster & Marcin Hitczenko, 2020. "The 2016 and 2017 Surveys of Consumer Payment Choice: Technical Appendix," Consumer Payments Research Data Reports 2018-4, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
    6. Marco Angrisani & Kevin Foster & Marcin Hitczenko, 2016. "The 2014 survey of consumer payment choice: technical appendix," Research Data Report 16-4, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.

    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. Shu Yang & Jae Kwang Kim, 2016. "Likelihood-based Inference with Missing Data Under Missing-at-Random," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 43(2), pages 436-454, June.
    2. Bruno Karoubi & Régis Chenavaz & Corina Paraschiv, 2016. "Consumers’ perceived risk and hold and use of payment instruments," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(14), pages 1317-1329, March.
    3. Hemant Kulkarni & Jayabrata Biswas & Kiranmoy Das, 2019. "A joint quantile regression model for multiple longitudinal outcomes," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 103(4), pages 453-473, December.
    4. Greene, Claire & Prescott, Brian & Shy, Oz, 2022. "How people pay each other: Data, theory, and calibrations," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    5. Tatiyana V. Apanasovich & David Ruppert & Joanne R. Lupton & Natasa Popovic & Nancy D. Turner & Robert S. Chapkin & Raymond J. Carroll, 2008. "Aberrant Crypt Foci and Semiparametric Modeling of Correlated Binary Data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 64(2), pages 490-500, June.
    6. Lam, Clifford, 2008. "Estimation of large precision matrices through block penalization," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 31543, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Giraud Christophe & Huet Sylvie & Verzelen Nicolas, 2012. "Graph Selection with GGMselect," Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 11(3), pages 1-52, February.
    8. Ricardo Smith Ramírez, 2007. "FIML estimation of treatment effect models with endogenous selection and multiple censored responses via a Monte Carlo EM Algorithm," Working papers DTE 403, CIDE, División de Economía.
    9. Lola Hernandez & Nicole Jonker & Anneke Kosse, 2017. "Cash versus Debit Card: The Role of Budget Control," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 91-112, March.
    10. Sergei Koulayev & Marc Rysman & Scott Schuh & Joanna Stavins, 2016. "Explaining adoption and use of payment instruments by US consumers," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 47(2), pages 293-325, May.
    11. Brent A. Coull & Alan Agresti, 2000. "Random Effects Modeling of Multiple Binomial Responses Using the Multivariate Binomial Logit-Normal Distribution," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 56(1), pages 73-80, March.
    12. Jonker, Nicole & van der Cruijsen, Carin & Bijlsma, Michiel & Bolt, Wilko, 2022. "Pandemic payment patterns," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    13. Joanna Stavins & Huijia Wu, 2017. "Payment discounts and surcharges: the role of consumer preferences," Working Papers 17-4, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    14. Benjamin Poignard & Manabu Asai, 2023. "Estimation of high-dimensional vector autoregression via sparse precision matrix," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 26(2), pages 307-326.
    15. Pesaran, M. Hashem & Yamagata, Takashi, 2012. "Testing CAPM with a Large Number of Assets," IZA Discussion Papers 6469, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Choi, Hyung Sun, 2013. "Money and risk of loss in an asset market segmentation model," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 146-155.
    17. J. E. Mills & C. A. Field & D. J. Dupuis, 2002. "Marginally Specified Generalized Linear Mixed Models: A Robust Approach," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 58(4), pages 727-734, December.
    18. Vânia G. Silva & Esmeralda A. Ramalho & Carlos R. Vieira, 2017. "The Use of Cheques in the European Union: A Cross-Country Analysis," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 581-602, July.
    19. Shy Oz, 2012. "Account-to-Account Electronic Money Transfers: Recent Developments in the United States," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-25, March.
    20. Ulf Von Kalckreuth & Tobias Schmidt & Helmut Stix, 2014. "Using Cash to Monitor Liquidity: Implications for Payments, Currency Demand, and Withdrawal Behavior," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 46(8), pages 1753-1786, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    survey bias; latent variable models; EM algorithm; Survey of Consumer Payment Choice;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods

    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:fip:fedbwp:13-15. 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: Catherine Spozio (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/frbbous.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.