Confronta i metodi
Esamina i metodi selezionati fianco a fianco; le righe che differiscono sono evidenziate.
| Survey Experiment× | List Experiment× | |
|---|---|---|
| Campo | Political Science | Political Science |
| Famiglia | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Anno di origine | 2011 | 2011 |
| Ideatore≠ | Experimental political science; synthesized by Diana Mutz | Survey methodology; modern estimators by Kosuke Imai, Graeme Blair, Adam Glynn |
| Tipo≠ | Randomized experiment embedded in a survey | Sensitive-question survey experiment |
| Fonte seminale≠ | Mutz, D. C. (2011). Population-Based Survey Experiments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN: 9780691144528 | Imai, K. (2011). Multivariate Regression Analysis for the Item Count Technique. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 106(494), 407–416. DOI ↗ |
| Alias | Population-based survey experiment, Survey-embedded experiment, Question-wording experiment, Framing experiment | Item count technique, Unmatched count technique, Item count method, List randomization |
| Correlati≠ | 4 | 3 |
| Sintesi≠ | A survey experiment embeds a randomized experiment inside a survey: respondents are randomly assigned to different versions of a question, frame, or stimulus, and their answers are compared to estimate a causal effect. By combining the internal validity of randomization with the representative samples and rich measurement of survey research, survey experiments — especially population-based ones — let political scientists draw causal inferences about how information, framing, or message attributes shape public attitudes and behavior. | The list experiment, also called the item count technique, is a survey design that measures the prevalence of a sensitive attitude or behavior without ever requiring any respondent to directly disclose it. Respondents are randomly split into two groups: a control group sees a list of innocuous items and reports only how many apply to them, while a treatment group sees the same list plus one sensitive item. Because respondents report only a count, no individual answer reveals their stance on the sensitive item, and the difference in average counts between the groups estimates the proportion holding the sensitive trait. |
| ScholarGateInsieme di dati ↗ |
|
|