Using Factorial Surveys and Stated Choice Experiments to Investigate Discriminatory Attitudes and Preferences

Empirical research on discriminatory attitudes and behaviour grapples with the social undesirability of its object. In many studies using regular survey methods, estimates are biased, and the social context of discrimination is not taken into account. Several methods have been developed, especially to deal with the first problem. In this regard, the estimation of the ‘true value’ of discriminatory attitudes is at the centre of interest. However, methodological contributions focusing on the social context of attitude communication and discriminatory behaviour, as well as the correlation between both, are rare. We present two experimental methods which address those issues: factorial surveys and stated choice experiments. In a first study, the usefulness of factorial surveys is demonstrated with data on German anti-Semitism (N=279). We show that the rate of approval with anti-Semitic statements increases if (a) respondents are told that the majority of fellows agree with such statements, (b) the term “Jews” is replaced by the term “Israelis”, and (c) reference to the Holocaust is made. Apart from the main effects of these experimental factors, significant interaction effects regarding the political attitudes and social status of respondents are observed. In a second study, a stated choice experiment on the purchase of olive oil and tomatoes was conducted in Germany (N=440). We find that respondents prefer Italian and Dutch products (control treatment) compared to Israeli and Palestinian ones (discrimination treatments). There are no significant differences between preferences for a so called ‘Peace product’ (which is produced jointly by Israelis and Palestinians) and products from Italy as well as the Netherlands. Yet, taking discriminatory attitudes (anti-Semitic and anti-Arabic attitudes) into account, a strong correlation between those attitudes and stated behaviour (purchase of Israeli, Palestinian and jointly produced products) can be found. This adds support to the hypothesis that discriminatory attitudes hold behavioural consequences.

Does the Use of Mobile Devices (Tablets and Smartphones) Affect Stated Choice Behavior in Web Surveys? An Application to Environmental Valuation

Web surveys are becoming increasingly popular in survey research. Compared with face-to-face, telephone and mail surveys, web surveys may contain a different and new source of measurement error and bias: the type of device that respondents use to answer the survey questions. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that tests whether the use of mobile devices affects survey characteristics and stated preferences in a web-based choice experiment. The web survey was carried out in Germany with 3,400 respondents, of which 12 per cent used a mobile device (i.e. tablet or smartphone), and comprised a stated choice experiment on externalities of renewable energy production using wind, solar and biomass. Our main finding is that survey characteristics such as interview length and acquiescence tendency are affected by the device used. In contrast to what might be expected, we find that, compared with respondents using desktop computers and laptops, mobile device users spent more time to answer the survey and are less likely to be prone to acquiescence bias. In the choice experiment, mobile device users tended to be more consistent in their stated choices, and there are differences in willingness to pay between both subsamples.

Luxembourgish farmers lack information about grain legume cultivation

Grain legume production in Europe has decreased in recent years, while legume demand has rapidly increased due to growth of meat production. Therefore, Europe imports grain legumes, principally soybeans, to meet feed protein requirements. Various investigations have identified problems and benefits of local grain legume cultivation. Nevertheless, grain legume cultivation has still not increased in the last years. Studies investigating why farmers do not cultivate grain legumes are missing. Here, we surveyed the knowledge of farmers about grain legume cultivation, problems and constraints of grain legume cultivation and the barriers faced by and incentives needed by farmers. We sent a questionnaire to 1373 farmers in Luxembourg, with a response rate of 29 %. Results show that only 17 % of all the responding farmers cultivated grain legumes; 88 % of the conventional farmers did not cultivate grain legumes, while 85 % of the organic farmers did. We observed that Luxembourgish farmers feel badly informed about grain legume cultivation; organic farmers generally feel better informed than their conventional colleagues. The main barrier, named by Luxemburgish farmers to not cultivate grain legumes, is not economic issues but a lack of knowledge and extension services for these crops. Main incentives needed to start grain legume cultivation in the future are economic issues. Even though grain legume producers mentioned several negative experiences with grain legume cultivation, they are not discouraged by the poor economic conditions and appreciate the benefits of grain legume cultivation. Overall, our findings show that research results on grain legume should be better disseminated to extension services and farmers.

Do Information, Price, or Morals Influence Ethical Consumption? A Natural Field Experiment and Customer Survey on the Purchase of Fair Trade Coffee

We address ethical consumption using a natural field experiment on the actual purchase of Fair Trade (FT) coffee in three supermarkets in Germany. Based on a quasi-experimental before-and-after design the effects of three different treatments – information, 20% price reduction, and a moral appeal – are analyzed. Sales data cover actual ethical purchase behavior and avoid problems of social desirability. But they offer only limited insights into the motivations of individual consumers. We therefore complemented the field experiment with a customer survey that allows us to contrast observed (ethical) buying behavior with self-reported FT consumption. Results from the experiment suggest that only the price reduction had the expected positive and statistically significant effect on FT consumption.

Three Experimental Approaches to Measure the Social Context Dependence of Prejudice Communication and Discriminatory Behavior

Empirical research on discrimination is faced with crucial problems stemming from the specific character of its object of study. In democratic societies the communication of prejudices and other forms of discriminatory behavior is considered socially undesirable and depends on situational factors such as whether a situation is considered private or whether a discriminatory consensus can be assumed. Regular surveys thus can only offer a blurred picture of the phenomenon. But also survey experiments intended to decrease the social desirability bias (SDB) so far failed in systematically implementing situational variables. This paper introduces three experimental approaches to improve the study of discrimination and other topics of social (un-)desirability. First, we argue in favor of cognitive context framing in surveys in order to operationalize the salience of situational norms. Second, factorial surveys offer a way to take situational contexts and substitute behavior into account. And third, choice experiments – a rather new method in sociology – offer a more valid method of measuring behavioral characteristics compared to simple items in surveys. All three approaches – which may be combined – are easy to implement in large-scale surveys. Results of empirical studies demonstrate the fruitfulness of each of these approaches.

Energiewende in Deutschland – Not-In-My-Backyard oder eine Frage der Gerechtigkeit?

Eine Gegenüberstellung von Experten- und Bevölkerungsmeinung

Does the use of mobile devices (tablets and smartphones) affect survey quality and choice behaviour in web surveys?

Web surveys are becoming increasingly popular in survey research including stated preference surveys. Compared with face-to-face, telephone and mail surveys, web surveys may contain a different and new source of measurement error and bias: the type of device that respondents use to answer the survey questions. This is the first study that tests whether the use of mobile devices, tablets or smartphones, affects survey characteristics and stated preferences in a web-based choice experiment. The web survey on expanding renewable energy production in Germany was carried out with 3182 respondents, of which 12% used a mobile device. Propensity score matching is used to account for selection bias in the use of mobile devices for survey completion. We find that mobile device users spent more time than desktop/laptop users to answer the survey. Yet, desktop/laptop users and mobile device users do not differ in acquiescence tendency as an indicator of extreme response patterns. For mobile device users only, we find a negative correlation between screen size and interview length and a positive correlation between screen size and acquiescence tendency. In the choice experiment data, we do not find significant differences in the tendency to choose the status quo option and scale between both subsamples. However, some of the estimates of implicit prices differ, albeit not in a unidirectional fashion. Model results for mobile device users indicate a U-shaped relationship between error variance and screen size. Together, the results suggest that using mobile devices is not detrimental to survey quality.

Einstellungen und Präferenzen zum Ausbau Erneuerbarer Energien

Um die Energiewende umzusetzen, ist ein Ausbau von Erneuerbaren Energien notwendig. Doch regt sich in einigen Regionen Widerstand. In einer bundesweiten Bevölkerungsumfrage wurden nun die Einstellungen zum Ausbau von erneuerbaren Energieträgern erhoben.

Generosity is a sign of trustworthiness—the punishment of selfishness is not

Peer-punishment is an important determinant of cooperation in human groups. It has been suggested that, at the proximate level of analysis, punitive preferences can explain why humans incur costs to punish their deviant peers. How punitive preferences could have evolved in humans is still not entirely understood. A possible explanation at the ultimate level of analysis comes from signaling theory. It has been argued that the punishment of defectors can be a type-separating signal of the punisher's cooperative intent. As a result, punishers are selected more often as interaction partners in social exchange and are partly compensated for the costs they incur when punishing defectors. A similar argument has been made with regard to acts of generosity. In a laboratory experiment, we investigate whether the punishment of a selfish division of money in a dictator game is a sign of trustworthiness and whether punishers are more trustworthy interaction partners in a trust game than non-punishers. We distinguish between second-party and third-party punishment and compare punitive acts with acts of generosity as signs of trustworthiness. We find that punishers are not more trustworthy than non-punishers and that punishers are not trusted more than non-punishers, both in the second-party and in the third-party punishment condition. To the contrary, second-party punishers are trusted less than their non-punishing counterparts. However, participants who choose a generous division of money are more trustworthy and are trusted more than participants who choose a selfish division or participants about whom no information is available. Our results suggest that, unlike for punitive acts, the signaling benefits of generosity are to be gained in social exchange.