Could survey technique or other research conditions “change” our ecological behaviour? – testing response bias in consumer research

• Autorzy: Matel Anna , Poskrobko Tomasz

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.34659/2019/4/46

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Based on concerns raised in other disciplines, the presented study aimed to investigate whether response bias affects the results of declarative research on ecological behaviour. The study was conducted in order to determine how the design and execution of declarative tests influenced the obtained results. A series of experiments was conducted in which the research techniques, persons delivering the surveys, or order of questions were changed or modified, or where little incentives were used. The tests showed that the results of declarative research on ecological behaviour is subject to response bias. The respondents declared rarer non-ecological behaviour in face-to-face interviews than in surveys, when the study was conducted by a lecturer, and when they were first asked to express their opinion on this type of behaviour. This effect weakened as the respondents answered further questions in the survey.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

responce bias; ecological behaviour; sustainable consumption; survey technique; consumer research

PL

efekt respondencki; zachowanie ekologiczne; konsumpcja zrównoważona; technika ankietowa; badania konsumenckie

• Wydawca: Polskie Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistów Środowiska i Zasobów Naturalnych
• Czasopismo: Ekonomia i Środowisko
• Rocznik: 2019
• Tom: nr 4
• Strony: 21--36
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 38 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Matel Anna

• University of Bialystok Faculty of Economics and Finance, Warszawska Street 63, 15-062, Białystok, Poland

autor

Poskrobko Tomasz

• University of Bialystok Faculty of Economics and Finance, Warszawska Street 63, 15-062, Białystok, Poland

Bibliografia

• Booker C.L., Harding S., Benzeval M. (2011), A systematic review of the effect of retention methods in population-based cohort studies, “BMC Public Health” No. 11, p. 249, DOI:10.1186/1471-2458-11-249
• Bruce A.S., Desmond S.A. (1997), Limitations of Self-Report Delinquency Surveys: A “Hands-on” Approach, “Teaching Sociology” No. 25, p. 315-321, DOI:10.2307/1319300
• Brutus S., Gill H., Duniewicz K. (2010), State of Science in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: A Review of Self-Reported Limitations, “Personnel Psychology” No. 63, p. 907-936, DOI:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01192
• Burkill S. et al. (2016), Using the Web to Collect Data on Sensitive Behaviours: A Study Looking at Mode Effects on the British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles, “PLOS ONE” No. 11, p. 1-12, DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0147983
• Cannell C.F., Miller P.V., Oksenberg L. (1981), Research on Interviewing Techniques, “Sociological Methodology” No. 12, p. 389-437, DOI:10.2307/270748
• Caputo A. (2017), Social desirability bias in self-reported well-being measures: Evidence from an online survey, “Universitas Psychologica” No. 16(2), DOI:https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy16-2.sdsw
• Castiglioni L., Pforr K., Krieger U. (2008), The Effect of Incentives on Response Rates and Panel Attrition: Results of a Controlled Experiment, “Survey Research Method” No. 2(3), p. 151-158, DOI:10.18148/srm/2008.v2i3.599
• Chan K.S. et al. (2004), The interview mode effect on the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D) scale: an item response theory analysis, “Medical Care” No. 42, p. 281-289
• Doušak M. (2017), Survey Mode as a Moderator of Context Effects, “Advances in Methodology & Statistics” No. 14, p. 1-17
• Fleming P., Zizzo D.J. (2013), Experimenter Demand Effects and Altruism Towards the Experimenter by Piers Fleming, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2248639 [15-07-2019]
• Holbrook A.L., Green M.C., Krosnick J.A. (2003), Telephone versus Face-to-Face Interviewing of National Probability Samples with Long Questionnaires: Comparisons of Respondent Satisficing and Social Desirability Response Bias, “Public Opinion Quarterly” No. 67, p. 79-125, DOI:10.1086/346010
• Ioannidis J.P.A. (2007), Limitations are not properly acknowledged in the scientific literature, “Journal of Clinical Epidemiology” No. 60, p. 324-329, DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.09.011
• Kahneman D. (2011), Thinking, fast and slow, New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux
• Kreuter F., Presser S., Tourangeau R. (2008), Social Desirability Bias in CATI, IVR, and Web Surveys The Effects of Mode and Question Sensitivity, “Public Opinion Quarterly” No. 72, p. 847-865, DOI:10.1093/poq/nfn063
• Krosnick J.A. (1999), Survey Research, “Annual Review of Psychology” No. 50, p. 537- 567, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.537
• Krosnick J.A. (1991), Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys, “Applied Cognitive Psychology“ No. 5, p. 213-236, DOI:10.1002/acp.2350050305
• Krosnick J.A., Alwin D.F. (1987), An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response – order effects in survey measurement, “Public Opinion Quarterly” No. 51, p. 201-219, DOI:10.1086/269029
• Krosnick J.A. et al. (2002), The Impact of No Opinion Response Options on Data Quality: Non-Attitude Reduction or an Invitation to Satisfice?, “Public Opinion Quarterly” No. 66, p. 371-403, DOI:10.1086/341394
• Lasorsa D.L. (2003), Question-Order Effects in Surveys: The Case of Political Interest, News Attention, and Knowledge, “Journalism&Mass Communication Quarterly” No. 80(3), p. 499-512
• Latkin C.A. et al. (2017), The relationship between social desirability bias and self-reports of health, substance use, and social network factors among urban substance users in Baltimore, Maryland, “Addictive Behaviours” No. 73, p. 133-13, DOI:10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.05.005
• Lenzner T., Kaczmirek L., Galesic M. (2011), Seeing Through the Eyes of the Respondent: An Eye-tracking Study on Survey Question Comprehension, “International Journal of Public Opinion Research” No. 23, p. 361-373, DOI:10.1093/ijpor/edq053
• Louviere J.J. (2000), Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications, University Press, Cambridge
• Marta-Pedroso C., Freitas H., Domingos T. (2007), Testing for the survey mode effect on contingent valuation data quality: A case study of web based versus in-person interviews, “Ecological Economics” No. 62, p. 388-398, DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.005
• McFarland S.G. (1981), Effects of Question Order on Survey Responses, “Public Opinion Quarterly” No. 45, p. 208-215, DOI:10.1086/268651
• McGrath R.E. et al. (2010), Evidence for response bias as a source of error variance in applied assessment, “Psychological Bulletin” No. 136, p. 450-470, DOI:10.1037/ a0019216
• Mutti S. et al. (2014), Prepaid monetary incentives-Predictors of taking the money and completing the survey: Results from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey, “Sociological Methods & Research” No. 43, p. 338-355, https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113506406
• Paulhus D.L. (1991), Measurement and control of response bias, in: Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes, in: J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver, L.S. Wrightsman (eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes, Academic Press, San Diego, p. 17-59
• Paulhus D.L. (1984), Two-component models of socially desirable responding, “Journal of Personality and Social Psychology” No. 46, p. 598-609, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598
• Podsakoff P.M., MacKenzie S.B., Podsakoff N.P. (2011), Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control It, “Annual Review of Psychology” No. 63, p. 539-569, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
• Rossiter J.R. (2011), Measurement for the Social Sciences: The C-OAR-SE Method and Why It Must Replace Psychometrics, Springer-Verlag, New York
• Rousu M.C., O’Connor R., Bansal-Travers M. (2017), Smokers’ BMI and perceived health: Does the order of questions matter?, “Preventive Medicine Raport” No. 5, p. 140-143
• Simmons E., Wilmot A. (2004), Contents Incentive Payments on Social Surveys: a Literature Review, “Social Survey Methodology Bulletin” No. 53, p. 1-11
• Singer E., Ye C. (2013), The Use and Effects of Incentives in Surveys, “Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science” No. 645, p. 112-141
• Tourangeau R., Rasinski K. (1988), Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement, “Psychological Bulletin” No. 103, p. 299-314
• Tourangeau R., Rips L.J., Rasinski K. (2000), The Psychology of Survey Response by Roger Tourangeau, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, DOI:10.1017/ CBO9780511819322
• Triki A., Cook G.L., Bay D. (2017), Machiavellianism, Moral Orientation, Social Desirability Response Bias, and Anti-intellectualism: A Profile of Canadian Accountants, “Journal of Business Ethics” No. 144, p. 623-635
• Vanderhoven E. et al. (2012), Face-to-Face Peer Assessment in Secondary Education: Does Anonymity Matter, “Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, International Conference on Education & Educational Psychology” (ICEEPSY 2012) No. 69, p. 1340-1347, DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.071
• Yang J. et al. (2017), Are Sex Effects on Ethical Decision-Making Fake or Real? A Meta -Analysis on the Contaminating Role of Social Desirability Response Bias, “Psychological Reports” No. 120, p. 25-48, DOI:10.1177/0033294116682945

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa Nr 461252 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2020).