Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

Comparing Incomparable Survey Responses: Evaluating and Selecting Anchoring Vignettes

  • Gary King (a1) and Jonathan Wand (a2)

Abstract

When respondents use the ordinal response categories of standard survey questions in different ways, the validity of analyses based on the resulting data can be biased. Anchoring vignettes is a survey design technique, introduced by King et al. (2004, Enhancing the validity and cross-cultural comparability of measurement in survey research. American Political Science Review 94 [February]: 191–205), intended to correct for some of these problems. We develop new methods both for evaluating and choosing anchoring vignettes and for analyzing the resulting data. With surveys on a diverse range of topics in a range of countries, we illustrate how our proposed methods can improve the ability of anchoring vignettes to extract information from survey data, as well as saving in survey administration costs.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Comparing Incomparable Survey Responses: Evaluating and Selecting Anchoring Vignettes
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Comparing Incomparable Survey Responses: Evaluating and Selecting Anchoring Vignettes
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Comparing Incomparable Survey Responses: Evaluating and Selecting Anchoring Vignettes
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

References

Hide All
Golan, Amos, Judge, George, and Miller, Doug. 1996. Maximum entropy econometrics: Robust estimation with limited data. London: John Wiley and Sons.
Grendar, M. Jr., and Grendar, M. 2003. Maximum probability/entropy translating of contiguous categorical observations into frequencies. Working paper, Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science, Mathematical Institute of Slovak Academy of Sciences, Banska Bystrica.
Heitjan, Daniel F., and Rubin, Donald. 1990. Inference from coarse data via multiple imputation with application to age heaping. Journal of the American Statistical Association 85: 304–14.
King, Gary. 1997. A solution to the ecological inference problem: Reconstructing individual behavior from aggregate data. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
King, Gary, Honaker, James, Joseph, Anne, and Scheve, Kenneth. 2001. Analyzing incomplete political science data: An alternative algorithm for multiple imputation. American Political Science Review 95 (March): 4969. http://gking.harvard.edu/files/abs/evil-abs.shtml.
King, Gary, Murray, Christopher J. L., Salomon, Joshua A., and Tandon, Ajay. 2004. Enhancing the validity and cross-cultural comparability of measurement in survey research. American Political Science Review 98 (February): 191205. http://gking.harvard.edu/files/abs/vign-abs.shtml.
King, Gary, Tomz, Michael, and Wittenberg, Jason. 2000. Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science 44 (April): 341–55. http://gking.harvard.edu/files/abs/making-abs.shtml.
Kullback, S., and Leibler, R. A. 1951. On information and sufficiency. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 22 (March): 7986.
Lin, Shin, Cutler, David L., Zwick, Michael E., and Chakravarti, Aravinda. 2002. Haplotype inference in random population samples. American Journal of Human Genetics 71: 1129–37.
Schwarz, Norbert. 1999. Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist 54: 93105.
Sekhon, Jasjeet Singh, and Mebane, Walter R. Jr. 1998. Genetic optimization using derivatives: Theory and application to nonlinear model. Political Analysis 7: 187210.
Shannon, Claude E. 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Wand, Jonathan, King, Gary, and Lau, Olivia. Forthcoming. Anchors: Software for anchoring vignettes data. Journal of Statistical Software.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Political Analysis
  • ISSN: 1047-1987
  • EISSN: 1476-4989
  • URL: /core/journals/political-analysis
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×
MathJax

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed