IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-03162149.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Decision-Theoretic Approach to Understanding Survey Response: Likert vs. Quadratic Voting for Attitudinal Research

Author

Listed:
  • Charlotte Cavaillé

    (GU - Georgetown University [Washington])

  • Daniel L. Chen

    (TSE-R - Toulouse School of Economics - UT Capitole - Université Toulouse Capitole - UT - Université de Toulouse - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

  • Karine van Der Straeten

    (TSE-R - Toulouse School of Economics - UT Capitole - Université Toulouse Capitole - UT - Université de Toulouse - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

Abstract

"Likert scales" are the most standard and widespread instrument in survey research when measuring public opinion on political and economic issues. In this simple approach, respondents are given the opportunity to voice their agreement or disagreement on a set of issues by placing their attitudes on a scale that runs from ìstrongly disagreeîto ìstrongly agree.î One assumption commonly made by social scientists using such scales is that they provide faithful - if noisy - measures of respondentsíviews. We challenge this assumption, highlighting several reasons why respondents may be expected to sysmatically exaggerate their views in political surveys using Likert scales. We propose a simple decision-theoretic model of survey answers to discuss whether Quadratic Voting might overcome these pathologies. We provide conditions under which one might expect Quadratic Voting to outperform Likert scales.

Suggested Citation

  • Charlotte Cavaillé & Daniel L. Chen & Karine van Der Straeten, 2019. "A Decision-Theoretic Approach to Understanding Survey Response: Likert vs. Quadratic Voting for Attitudinal Research," Post-Print hal-03162149, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03162149
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-03162149
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-03162149/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Charlotte Cavaillé & Daniel L. Chen & Karine van Der Straeten, 2022. "Who cares? Measuring preference intensity in a polarized environment," Working Papers hal-03624597, HAL.
    2. Cavaillé, Charlotte & Chen, Daniel L. & Van Der Straeten, Karine, 2022. "Who Cares? Measuring Preference Intensity in a Polarized Environment," TSE Working Papers 22-1297, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    3. Cavaillé, Charlotte & Chen, Daniel L. & Van Der Straeten, Karine, 2022. "Who Cares? Measuring Preference Intensity in a Polarized Environment," IAST Working Papers 22-130, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).

    More about this item

    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:hal:journl:hal-03162149. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.