IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tse/iastwp/33162.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Towards a General Theory of Survey Response: Likert Scales Vs. Quadratic Voting for Attitudinal Research

Author

Listed:
  • Cavaillé, Charlotte
  • Chen, Daniel L.
  • Van Der Straeten, Karine

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

  • Cavaillé, Charlotte & Chen, Daniel L. & Van Der Straeten, Karine, 2018. "Towards a General Theory of Survey Response: Likert Scales Vs. Quadratic Voting for Attitudinal Research," IAST Working Papers 18-93, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST), revised Jan 2019.
    • Handle: RePEc:tse:iastwp:33162
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://iast.fr/pub/33162
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3307327
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/TSE/documents/doc/by/van_der_straeten/chen_cavaille_kvds.pdf
    File Function: Full Text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. E. Glen Weyl, 2017. "The robustness of quadratic voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 172(1), pages 75-107, July.
    2. Carlos Berdejó & Daniel L. Chen, 2017. "Electoral Cycles among US Courts of Appeals Judges," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60(3), pages 479-496.
    3. Bullock, John G. & Gerber, Alan S. & Hill, Seth J. & Huber, Gregory A., 2015. "Partisan Bias in Factual Beliefs about Politics," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 10(4), pages 519-578, December.
    4. Achen, Christopher H., 1975. "Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 69(4), pages 1218-1231, December.
    5. Ansolabehere, Stephen & Rodden, Jonathan & Snyder, James M., 2008. "The Strength of Issues: Using Multiple Measures to Gauge Preference Stability, Ideological Constraint, and Issue Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(2), pages 215-232, 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. 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).
    2. HeeMin Kim & Hyeyoung Yoo & Jungho Roh, 2015. "A re-examination of the effects of the economy, government spending, and incumbent ideology on national policy mood," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 18(4), pages 329-344, December.
    3. Liza G. Steele & Nate Breznau, 2019. "Attitudes toward Redistributive Policy: An Introduction," Societies, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-12, June.
    4. 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).
    5. Bon Sang Koo, 2023. "When legislators responded to news media surveys: unstable responses, missing not at random responses, and self-censorship," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(2), pages 1821-1843, April.
    6. Nicholas Haas & Rebecca B. Morton, 2018. "Saying versus doing: a new donation method for measuring ideal points," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 79-106, July.
    7. Low, Nicholas Kah Yean & Melatos, Andrew, 2022. "Vacillating about media bias: Changing one’s mind intermittently within a network of political allies and opponents," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 604(C).
    8. Christopher Hare & Tzu-Ping Liu & Robert N. Lupton, 2018. "What Ordered Optimal Classification reveals about ideological structure, cleavages, and polarization in the American mass public," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 57-78, July.
    9. Charlotte Cavaillé & Daniel L. Chen & Karine van Der Straeten, 2022. "Who cares? Measuring preference intensity in a polarized environment," Working Papers hal-03624597, HAL.
    10. Hank C. Jenkins-Smith & Neil J. Mitchell & Kerry G. Herron, 2004. "Foreign and Domestic Policy Belief Structures in the U.S. and British Publics," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(3), pages 287-309, June.
    11. Chen, Daniel L. & Philippe, Arnaud, 2023. "Clash of norms judicial leniency on defendant birthdays," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 324-344.
    12. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    13. Duane Alwin, 1989. "Problems in the estimation and interpretation of the reliability of survey data," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 277-331, September.
    14. Matthew Blackwell & James Honaker & Gary King, 2017. "A Unified Approach to Measurement Error and Missing Data: Overview and Applications," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 46(3), pages 303-341, August.
    15. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2023. "Designing Information Provision Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 3-40, March.
    16. Augenblick, Ned & Cunha, Jesse M. & Dal Bó, Ernesto & Rao, Justin M., 2016. "The economics of faith: using an apocalyptic prophecy to elicit religious beliefs in the field," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 38-49.
    17. Saarimaa, Tuukka & Tukiainen, Janne, 2016. "Local representation and strategic voting: Evidence from electoral boundary reforms," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 31-45.
    18. Granja, Cintia & Visentin, Fabiana & Carneiro, Ana Maria, 2023. "Can international mobility shape students' attitudes toward inequality?," MERIT Working Papers 2023-001, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    19. Adam Lovett, 2023. "The ethics of asymmetric politics," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 22(1), pages 3-30, February.
    20. Grewenig, Elisabeth & Lergetporer, Philipp & Werner, Katharina & Woessmann, Ludger, 2022. "Incentives, search engines, and the elicitation of subjective beliefs: Evidence from representative online survey experiments," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 231(1), pages 304-326.

    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:tse:iastwp:33162. 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/iasttfr.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.