Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T07:48:46.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using the Predicted Responses from List Experiments as Explanatory Variables in Regression Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Kosuke Imai ,
Bethany Park  and
Kenneth F. Greene
Kosuke Imai*
Affiliation:
Department of Politics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
Bethany Park
Affiliation:
Department of Politics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544. email: [email protected]
Kenneth F. Greene
Affiliation:
Department of Government, University of Texas, Austin. email: [email protected]
*
e-mail: [email protected] (corresponding author)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The list experiment, also known as the item count technique, is becoming increasingly popular as a survey methodology for eliciting truthful responses to sensitive questions. Recently, multivariate regression techniques have been developed to predict the unobserved response to sensitive questions using respondent characteristics. Nevertheless, no method exists for using this predicted response as an explanatory variable in another regression model. We address this gap by first improving the performance of a naive two-step estimator. Despite its simplicity, this improved two-step estimator can only be applied to linear models and is statistically inefficient. We therefore develop a maximum likelihood estimator that is fully efficient and applicable to a wide range of models. We use a simulation study to evaluate the empirical performance of the proposed methods. We also apply them to the Mexico 2012 Panel Study and examine whether vote-buying is associated with increased turnout and candidate approval. The proposed methods are implemented in open-source software.

Type
Articles
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , Spring 2015 , pp. 180 - 196
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Authors' note: The proposed methods are implemented via the open-source software list: Statistical Methods for the Item Count Technique and List Experiments, which is available for download at the Comprehensive R Archive Network (http://cran.r-project.org/package=list). Supplementary materials for this article are available on the Political Analysis Web site. The replication archive is available as Imai, Park, and Greene (2014). We thank Adam Glynn and anonymous reviewers for helpful comments.

References

Ahlquist, J., Mayer, K., and Jackman, S. 2013. Alien abduction and voter impersonation in the 2012 US general election: Evidence from a survey list experiment. Technical report, University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
Biemer, P., and Brown, G. 2005. Model-based estimation of drug-use prevalence using item count data. Journal of Official Statistics 21(2): 287–308.Google Scholar
Blair, G., and Imai, K. 2012. Statistical analysis of list experiments. Political Analysis 20(1): 47–77.Google Scholar
Blair, G., Imai, K., and Lyall, J. 2014. Comparing and combining list and endorsement experiments: Evidence from Afghanistan. American Journal of Political Science 58(4): 1043–63.Google Scholar
Blair, G., Imai, K., and Park, B. 2014. List: Statistical methods for the item count technique and list experiment. Available at the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN). http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=list (accessed June 1, 2014).Google Scholar
Blair, G., Imai, K., and Zhou, Y.-Y. 2014. Design and analysis of randomized response technique. Technical report, Pittsburgh, PA: Princeton University.Google Scholar
Blais, A. 2000. To vote or not to vote: The merits and limits of rational choice theory. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Brusco, V., Nazareno, M., and Stokes, S. 2004. Vote buying in Argentina. Latin American Research Review 39(2): 66–88.Google Scholar
Bullock, W., Imai, K., and Shapiro, J. N. 2011. Statistical analysis of endorsement experiments: Measuring support for militant groups in Pakistan. Political Analysis 19(4): 363–84.Google Scholar
Burden, B. C. 2000. Voter turnout and the National Election Studies. Political Analysis 8(4): 389–98.Google Scholar
Calvo, E., and Murillo, M. 2004. Who delivers? Partisan clients in the Argentine electoral market. American Journal of Political Science 48(4): 742–57.Google Scholar
Carreras, M., and İrepoğlu, Y. 2013. Electoral studies. Electoral Studies 32(4): 609–19.Google Scholar
Cornelius, W. 2004. Mobilized voting in the 2000 elections: The changing efficacy of vote buying and coercion in Mexican electoral politics. In Mexico's Pivotal Democratic Election, eds. Dominguez, J. I. and Lawson, C., 47–65. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Cornelius, W., and Craig, A. 1991. The Mexican political system in transition. Monograph Series. La Jolla, CA: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies.Google Scholar
Corstange, D. 2009. Sensitive questions, truthful answers? Modeling the list experiment with LISTIT. Political Analysis 17(1): 45–63.Google Scholar
Corstange, D. 2012a. Religion, pluralism, and iconography in the public sphere: Theory and evidence from Lebanon. World Politics 64(1): 116–60.Google Scholar
Corstange, D. 2012b. Vote-trafficking in Lebanon. International Journal of Middle East Studies 44:483–505.Google Scholar
Cox, G. W., and Kousser, J. M. 1981. Turnout and rural corruption: New York as a test case. American Journal of Political Science 25(4): 646–63.Google Scholar
Cox, G. W., and McCubbins, M. D. 1986. Electoral politics as a redistributive game. Journal of Politics 48(2): 370–89.Google Scholar
Diaz-Cayeros, A., Estévez, F., and Magaloni, B. 2009. Welfare benefits, canvassing, and campaign handouts. In Consolidating Mexico's democracy: The 2006 presidential campaign in comparative perspective, eds. Domínguez, J., Lawson, C., and Moreno, A., 229–45. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Dixit, A., and Londregan, J. 1996. The determinants of success of special interests in redistributive politics. Journal of Politics 58:1132–55.Google Scholar
Domínguez, J., and McCann, J. 1995. Shaping Mexico's electoral arena: The construction of partisan cleavages in the 1988 and 1991 national elections. American Political Science Review 89(1): 34–48.Google Scholar
Droitcour, J., Caspar, R. A., Hubbard, M. L., and Ezzati, T. M. 1991. The item count technique as a method of indirect questioning: A review of its development and a case study application. In Measurement errors in surveys, eds. Biemer, P. P., Groves, R. M., Lyberg, L. E., Mathiowetz, N. A., and Sudman, S., 185–210. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Gans-Morse, J., Mazzuca, S., and Nichter, S. 2014. Varieties of clientelism: Machine politics during elections. American Journal of Political Science 58(2): 415–32.Google Scholar
Glynn, A. N. 2013. What can we learn with statistical truth serum? Design and analysis of the list experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly 77:159–72.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Ocantos, E., de Jonge, C. K., Meléndez, C., Osorio, J., and Nickerson, D. W. 2012. Vote buying and social desirability bias: Experimental evidence from Nicaragua. American Journal of Political Science 56(1): 202–17.Google Scholar
Greene, K. F. 2007. Why dominant parties lose: Mexico's democratization in comparative perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Greene, K. F. 2014. Back from the dead: Vote-selling zombies and the return of Mexico's PRI. Paper presented at the Latin American Studies Association Congress, Chicago.Google Scholar
Greene, K. F., Domínguez, J., Lawson, C., and Moreno, A. 2012. The Mexico 2012 Panel Study. Wave 2. Original public opinion survey, available at http://kgreene.webhost.utexas.edu.Google Scholar
Holbrook, A. L., and Krosnick, J. A. 2010. Social desirability bias in voter turnout reports: Tests using the item count technique. Public Opinion Quarterly 74(1): 37–67.Google Scholar
Imai, K. 2011. Multivariate regression analysis for the item count technique. Journal of the American Statistical Association 106(494): 407–16.Google Scholar
Imai, K., Park, B., and Greene, K. F. 2014. Replication data for: Using the predicted responses from list experiments as explanatory variables in regression models. The Dataverse Network. http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/27083 (accessed June 1, 2014).Google Scholar
Kane, J. G., Craig, S. C., and Wald, K. D. 2004. Religion and presidential politics in Florida: A list experiment. Social Science Quarterly 85(2): 281–93.Google Scholar
Kramon, E. 2009. Vote-buying and political behavior: Estimating and explaining vote-buying's effect on turnout in Kenya. Afrobarometer Working Papers 1–31.Google Scholar
Kuklinski, J. H., Cobb, M. D., and Gilens, M. 1997. Racial attitudes and the “New South.” Journal of Politics 59(2): 323–49.Google Scholar
Lindbeck, A., and Weibull, J. W. 1987. Balanced-budget redistribution as the outcome of political competition. Public Choice 52(3): 273–97.Google Scholar
Magaloni, B., Diaz-Cayeros, A., and Estévez, F. 2007. Clientelistm and portfolio diversification. Patrons, Clients, and Policies: Patterns of Democratic Accountability and Political Competition, 182–204. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nichter, S. 2008. Vote buying or turnout buying? Machine politics and the secret ballot. American Political Science Review 102(1): 19–31.Google Scholar
Nichter, S., and Palmer-Rubin, B. 2015. Clientelism, declared support, and Mexico's 2012 campaign. In Mexico's evolving democracy: A comparative study of the 2012 elections, eds. Domínguez, J., Greene, K., Lawson, C., and Moreno, A., 220–26. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Penfold Becerra, M. 2007. Clientelism and social funds: Evidence from Chávez's Misiones. Latin American Politics and Society 49(4): 63–84.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, B., Imai, K., and Shapiro, J. 2014. An empirical validation study of popular survey methodologies for sensitive questions. Working Paper available at http://imai.princeton.edu/research/Validate.html (accessed June 1, 2014).Google Scholar
Stokes, S. 2005. Perverse accountability: A formal model of machine politics with evidence from Argentina. American Political Science Review 99(3): 315–25.Google Scholar
Stokes, S., Dunning, T., Nazareno, M., and Brusco, V. 2013. Brokers, voters, and clientelism: The puzzle of distributive politics. Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Streb, M. J., Burrell, B., Frederick, B., and Genovese, M. A. 2008. Social desirability effects and support for a female American president. Public Opinion Quarterly 72(1): 76–89.Google Scholar
Tourangeau, R., and Yan, T. 2007. Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin 133(5): 859–83.Google Scholar
Warner, S. L. 1965. Randomized response: A survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association 60(309): 63–69.Google Scholar
Wimbush, J. C., and Dalton, D. R. 1997. Base rate for employee theft: Convergence of multiple methods. Journal of Applied Psychology 82(5): 756–63.Google Scholar
Wolfinger, R., and Rosenstone, S. 1980. Who votes? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Imai et al. supplementary material

Appendix

Download Imai et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 192.9 KB