Experimental Tests of Survey Responses to Expenditure Questions
This paper tests for a number of survey effects in the elicitation of expenditure items. In particular we examine the extent to which individuals use features of the expenditure question to construct their answers. We test whether respondents interpret question wording as researchers intend and examine the extent to which prompts, clarifications and seemingly arbitrary features of survey design influence expenditure reports. We find that over one quarter of respondents have difficulty distinguishing between "you" and "your household" when making expenditure reports; that respondents report higher pro-rata expenditure when asked to give responses on a weekly as opposed to monthly or annual time scale; that respondents give higher estimates when using a scale with a higher mid-point; and that respondents give higher aggregated expenditure when categories are presented in a disaggregated form. In summary, expenditure reports are constructed using convenient rules of thumb and available information, which will depend on the characteristics of the respondent, the expenditure domain and features of the survey question. It is crucial to further account for these features in ongoing surveys.
|Date of creation:||10 Aug 2009|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Arts Annexe, Belfield, Dublin 4|
Phone: +353 1 7164615
Fax: +353 1 7161108
Web page: http://www.ucd.ie/geary/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Martin Browning & Thomas F. Crossley & Guglielmo Weber, 2003.
"Asking consumption questions in general purpose surveys,"
Royal Economic Society, vol. 113(491), pages 540-567, November.
- Martin Browning & Thomas F. Crossley & Gugliemo Weber, 2002. "Asking Consumption Questions in General Purpose Surveys," CAM Working Papers 2002-05, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. Centre for Applied Microeconometrics.
- Martin Browning & Thomas F. Crossley & Guglielmo Weber, 2002. "Asking Consumption Questions in General Purpose Surveys," Social and Economic Dimensions of an Aging Population Research Papers 77, McMaster University.
- Emily Haisley & Romel Mostafa & George Loewenstein, 2008. "Myopic risk-seeking: The impact of narrow decision bracketing on lottery play," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 57-75, August.
- Menon, Geeta & Raghubir, Priya & Schwarz, Norbert, 1995. " Behavioral Frequency Judgments: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Framework," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(2), pages 212-228, September.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Ritov, Ilana & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Economic Preferences or Attitude Expressions?: An Analysis of Dollar Responses to Public Issues," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 203-235, December.
- Dan Ariely & George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 2003. ""Coherent Arbitrariness": Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 118(1), pages 73-106.
- Oswald, Andrew J., 2008. "On the curvature of the reporting function from objective reality to subjective feelings," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 100(3), pages 369-372, September.
- Oswald, Andrew J, 2008. "On the Curvature of the Reporting Function from Objective Reality to Subjective Feelings," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 839, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
- Oswald, Andrew J., 2008. "On the Curvature of the Reporting Function from Objective Reality to Subjective Feelings," IZA Discussion Papers 3344, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Weber, Bethany J. & Chapman, Gretchen B., 2005. "Playing for peanuts: Why is risk seeking more common for low-stakes gambles?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 31-46, May.
- Delaney, Liam & O'Toole, Francis, 2008. "Individual, household and gender preferences for social transfers," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 348-359, June.
- Liam Delaney & Francis O'Toole, 2007. "Individual, Household and Gender Preferences for Social Transfers," Working Papers 200703, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
- Francis O'Toole & Liam Delaney, 2008. "Individual, household and gender preferences for social transfers," Open Access publications 10197/595, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
- Drazen Prelec & George Loewenstein, 1991. "Decision Making Over Time and Under Uncertainty: A Common Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(7), pages 770-786, July.
- Schkade David A. & Payne John W., 1994. "How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of Willingness to Pay for an Environmental Regulation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 88-109, January.
- Liam Delaney & Francis O’Toole, 2006. "Willingness to pay: individual or household?," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 30(4), pages 305-309, December.
- Winter, Joachim, 0000. "Bracketing effects in categorized survey questions and the measurement of economic quantities," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 02-35, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
- Winter, Joachim, 2002. "Bracketing effects in categorized survey questions and the measurement of economic quantities," Papers 02-35, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
- Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2008. "Asking for Individual or Household Willingness to Pay for Environmental Goods? Implication for aggregate welfare measures," MPRA Paper 11469, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Joachim Winter, 2004. "Response bias in survey-based measures of household consumption," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(9), pages 1-12.
- Winter, Joachim, 2003. "Response bias in survey-based measures of household consumption," Munich Reprints in Economics 19725, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
- repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2004:i:9:p:1-12 is not listed on IDEAS
- Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
- Loomis John & Lockwood Michael & DeLacy Terry, 1993. "Some Empirical Evidence on Embedding Effects in Contingent Valuation of Forest Protection," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 45-55, July.
- Hurd, Michael D, 1999. "Anchoring and Acquiescence Bias in Measuring Assets in Household Surveys," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 111-136, December.
- Michael D. Hurd, 1999. "Anchoring and Acquiescence Bias in Measuring Assets in Households Surveys," Working Papers 99-02, RAND Corporation.
- Hurd, M., 1999. "Anchoring and Acquiescence Bias in Measuring Assets in Households Surveys," Papers 99-02, RAND - Labor and Population Program.
- Menon, Geeta, 1993. " The Effects of Accessibility of Information in Memory on Judgments of Behavioral Frequency," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 431-440, December. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)