IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/upf/upfgen/1863.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The rationalizability of survey responses

Author

Listed:

Abstract

We propose and study the concept of survey rationalizability. In the simplest scenario of dichotomous attitudinal surveys, survey rationalizability means that both questions and individuals'views can be positioned on the real line in such a way that individuals endorse only the questions that closely align with their views. We demonstrate how the relative positioning of questions can be learned through a revelation mechanism involving pairs of individuals and triplets of questions. We also establish that the acyclicity of these revelations is necessary and sufficient for rationalizability. Additionally, we show that our analysis readily extends to polytomous surveys and probabilistic data. Furthermore, we investigate the identification of the parameters in these models and prove that even the cardinal locations can be fully determined in an exponential version of the probabilistic model. Finally, we conclude by examining an alternative model of survey responses for aptitudes.

Suggested Citation

  • Jose Apesteguia & Miguel A. Ballester, 2023. "The rationalizability of survey responses," Economics Working Papers 1863, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    • Handle: RePEc:upf:upfgen:1863
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econ-papers.upf.edu/papers/1863.pdf
    File Function: Whole Paper
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefanie Stantcheva, 2022. "How to Run Surveys: A Guide to Creating Your Own Identifying Variation and Revealing the Invisible," NBER Working Papers 30527, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Jean-François Laslier, 2009. "The Leader rule: a model of strategic approval voting in a large electorate," Post-Print hal-00363218, HAL.
    3. Armin Falk & Thomas Neuber & Philipp Strack, 2021. "Limited Self-Knowledge and Survey Response Behavior," CESifo Working Paper Series 9179, CESifo.
    4. Núñez, Matías & Xefteris, Dimitrios, 2017. "Implementation via approval mechanisms," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 169-181.
    5. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Buckenmaier, Johannes, 2019. "Strongly sincere best responses under approval voting and arbitrary preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 388-401.
    6. Sendhil Mullainathan & Marianne Bertrand, 2001. "Do People Mean What They Say? Implications for Subjective Survey Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 67-72, May.
    7. Daron Acemoglu & Ali Makhdoumi & Azarakhsh Malekian & Asuman Ozdaglar, 2022. "Learning From Reviews: The Selection Effect and the Speed of Learning," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(6), pages 2857-2899, November.
    8. Jean-François Laslier, 2009. "The Leader Rule," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 21(1), pages 113-136, January.
    9. Herbert Hoijtink, 1990. "A latent trait model for dichotomous choice data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 55(4), pages 641-656, December.
    10. Andrew Caplin, 2021. "Data Engineering for Cognitive Economics," NBER Working Papers 29378, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Greene,William H. & Hensher,David A., 2010. "Modeling Ordered Choices," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521142373.
    12. Greene,William H. & Hensher,David A., 2010. "Modeling Ordered Choices," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521194204.
    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. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ángel Ballester, 2023. "The Rationalizability of Survey Responses," Working Papers 1393, Barcelona School of Economics.
    2. Kaiser, Caspar, 2022. "Using memories to assess the intrapersonal comparability of wellbeing reports," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 410-442.
    3. Su, Francis Edward & Zerbib, Shira, 2019. "Piercing numbers in approval voting," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 65-71.
    4. William H. Greene & Mark N. Harris & Rachel J. Knott & Nigel Rice, 2021. "Specification and testing of hierarchical ordered response models with anchoring vignettes," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(1), pages 31-64, January.
    5. Hanna Dudek & Joanna Landmesser, 2012. "Income satisfaction and relative deprivation," Statistics in Transition new series, Główny Urząd Statystyczny (Polska), vol. 13(2), pages 321-334, June.
    6. Andrew Powell & Pilar Tavella, 2012. "Capital Inflow Surges in Emerging Economies: How Worried Should LAC Be?," Research Department Publications 4782, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    7. Chappell, Henry W. & McGregor, Rob Roy, 2018. "Committee decision-making at Sweden's Riksbank," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 120-133.
    8. Charlie Tchinda & Marcus Dejardin, 2021. "Are Business Policy Measures in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic to Be Equally Valued? An Exploration According to SMEs Owners’ Business Expectations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-42, October.
    9. Patricia Cubí‐Mollá & Mireia Jofre‐Bonet & Victoria Serra‐Sastre, 2017. "Adaptation to health states: Sick yet better off?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1826-1843, December.
    10. Ahmad Adeel & Bruno Notteboom & Ansar Yasar & Kris Scheerlinck & Jeroen Stevens, 2021. "Sustainable Streetscape and Built Environment Designs around BRT Stations: A Stated Choice Experiment Using 3D Visualizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-21, June.
    11. Jeffrey A. Edwards & Tara R. Wade & Mark L. Burkey & R. Gary Pumphrey, 2014. "Forecasting the Public's Acceptability of Municipal Water Regulation and Price Rationing for Communities on the Ogallala Aquifer," Journal of Economic Insight, Missouri Valley Economic Association, vol. 40(1), pages 1-30.
    12. Simona Iammarino & Elisabetta Marinelli & Elisabetta Marinelli, 2011. "Is the Grass Greener on the other Side of the Fence? Graduate Mobility and Job Satisfaction in Italy," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(11), pages 2761-2777, November.
    13. Benoît R. Kloeckner, 2022. "Cycles in synchronous iterative voting: general robustness and examples in Approval Voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(2), pages 423-466, August.
    14. Ermagun, Alireza & Stathopoulos, Amanda, 2018. "To bid or not to bid: An empirical study of the supply determinants of crowd-shipping," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 468-483.
    15. Mohit Batham & Soudeh Mirghasemi & Mohammad Arshad Rahman & Manini Ojha, 2021. "Modeling and Analysis of Discrete Response Data: Applications to Public Opinion on Marijuana Legalization in the United States," Papers 2109.10122, arXiv.org, revised May 2023.
    16. Mahdi Rezapour & F. Richard Ferraro, 2021. "The impact of commuters’ psychological feelings due to delay on perceived quality of a rail transport," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, December.
    17. Laurent Bouton & Micael Castanheira, 2012. "One Person, Many Votes: Divided Majority and Information Aggregation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(1), pages 43-87, January.
    18. Migliardo, Carlo, 2012. "Heterogeneity in price setting behavior, spatial disparities and sectoral diversity: Evidence from a panel of Italian firms," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 1106-1118.
    19. Evans, Keith S. & Teisl, Mario F. & Lando, Amy. M. & Liu, Sherry T., 2020. "Risk perceptions and food-handling practices in the home," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    20. Vivek, Adheesh Kumar & Mohapatra, Smruti Sourava & Jena, Suprava, 2022. "Evaluation of user perception to define level of service criteria of rail road grade crossing: An exploratory statistical approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 64-76.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    surveys; Rationalizability; attitudes; aptitudes;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C02 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - General - - - Mathematical Economics
    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods
    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles

    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:upf:upfgen:1863. 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: http://www.econ.upf.edu/ .

    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.