What was I thinking? A theoretical framework for analysing panel conditioning in attitudes and (response) behaviour

Bergmann, Michael; Barth, Alice

doi:10.1080/13645579.2017.1399622

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, we find no such effects using independent samples of provincial respondents across the survey's first four waves (Supplementary Section 20). Accordingly, response consistency in panel surveys is unlikely to account for weak rebate effects 47 .…”

Section: Limited Impacts Of Carbon Tax Rebate Programmes On Public Su...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Limited impacts of carbon tax rebate programmes on public support for carbon pricing

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Limited Impacts Of Carbon Tax Rebate Programmes On Public Su...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Limited impacts of carbon tax rebate programmes on public support for carbon pricing

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The second mechanismsurvey satisficing (Krosnick, 1991) describes a change that results from increasingly applying response strategies which aim to reduce survey burden by taking shortcuts during the response process. The third mechanismsocial desirability biascomprises changes in survey responses which are based on the need to provide answers that are in line with presumed social norms (Bergmann & Barth, 2018;Struminskaya, 2016).…”

Section: Mechanisms Of Panel Conditioning and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Panel Conditioning in a German Probability-Based Longitudinal Study: A Comparison of Respondents with Different Levels of Survey Experience

Kraemer¹,

Silber²,

Struminskaya³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Learning effects due to repeated interviewing, which are referred to as panel conditioning, are a major threat to response quality in later waves of a panel study. Up to date, research has not provided a clear picture regarding the circumstances, mechanisms, and dimensions of potential panel conditioning effects. Especially the effects of conditioning frequency, that is, different levels of experience within a panel, on response quality are underexplored. Against this background, we investigated the effects of panel conditioning by using data from the GESIS Panel, a German mixed-mode probability-based panel study. Using two refreshment samples, we compared three panel cohorts with differing levels of experience with respect to several response quality indicators related to the mechanisms of reflection, satisficing, and social desirability. Overall, we find evidence for both negative (i.e., disadvantageous for response quality) as well as positive (i.e., advantageous for response quality) panel conditioning. Highly experienced respondents were more likely to satisfice by selecting mid-point responses or by speeding through the questionnaire. They also had a higher probability of refusing to answer sensitive questions than less experienced panel members. However, more experienced respondents were also more likely to optimize the response processes by needing less time compared to panelists with lower experience levels (when controlling for speeding). In contrast, we did not find significant differences with respect to the number of “don’t know” responses, non-differentiation, the selection of first response categories, and the number of non-triggered filter questions. Of the observed differences, speeding showed the highest magnitude with an average increase of 5.9 percentage points for highly experienced panel members compared to low experienced panelists.

show abstract

“…Previous research indicates that the presence and magnitude of survey participation effects depend, among other factors, on (a) individuals’ levels of practice in thinking about and responding to survey items, (b) their trust in the interview process, and (c) their motivation to participate in the interview and provide accurate responses (Cantor, 2007; Bergmann & Barth, 2018; Warren & Halpern-Manners, 2012). Our main arguments presented below rely on the assumption that first-time interviewees in conflict zones display – on average – particularly little practice, high levels of distrust in the interview process, and relatively high expectations and motivation to participate.…”

Section: Multiple Survey Participation In Conflict Zonesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Multiple survey participation can reduce this motivation (Bergmann & Barth, 2018; Warren & Halpern-Manners, 2012). Respondents may feel disillusioned as they realize that their expectations have not materialized in the aftermath of their previous survey participation.…”

Section: Multiple Survey Participation In Conflict Zonesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A large body of research in marketing, cognitive psychology, and survey methodology has investigated the potential effects of repeated survey participation -focusing almost exclusively on participation in panel surveys in Western states (see comprehensive reviews and discussions in Cantor, 2007;Warren & Halpern-Manners, 2012). Several studies find evidence of 'panel conditioning' effects as outlined above, albeit of different types and in different directions (Bergmann & Barth, 2018;Warren & Halpern-Manners, 2012). At the same time, a substantial number of studies have found no or only very small effects (Smith, Gerber & Orlich, 2003;Bartels, 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Survey participation effects in conflict research

Juan¹,

Koos

2021

Journal of Peace Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do survey participants in conflict zones respond differently if they have been interviewed before? Academic and policy interest in postwar political opinion has increased tremendously. One unexpected consequence of this surge of survey research is a growing probability that individuals will be interviewed multiple times. However, if participating in one survey causes respondents to change their attitudes or behavior, their subsequent survey responses may be biased in comparison to the rest of the sample population. Our article aims to investigate such ‘survey participation effects’ in conflict contexts. We draw on original survey data collected in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). In our representative sample, 18% of respondents report that they have been interviewed before. Multivariate analyses demonstrate that their stated attitudes on social relations, political institutions, gender norms, and wartime victimization differ substantively from the responses of first-time interviewees. Moreover, our analyses indicate that experienced respondents have specific response styles – in particular, a tendency to support extreme response options. While substantive bias in multivariate analyses seems to be rather rare, our findings indicate that researchers should be aware of the footprints of data collection efforts in areas frequently targeted by household and opinion surveys.

show abstract

What was I thinking? A theoretical framework for analysing panel conditioning in attitudes and (response) behaviour

Cited by 9 publications

References 52 publications

Limited impacts of carbon tax rebate programmes on public support for carbon pricing

Limited impacts of carbon tax rebate programmes on public support for carbon pricing

Panel Conditioning in a German Probability-Based Longitudinal Study: A Comparison of Respondents with Different Levels of Survey Experience

Survey participation effects in conflict research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About