Nonparametric Tests of Panel Conditioning and Attrition Bias in Panel Surveys

Abstract

Nonparametric tests of panel conditioning and attrition bias in panel surveysDas, J.W.M.; van Soest, A.H.O.; Toepoel, V.

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

“…In this paper, we argued that while recent works greatly advanced the methods to adequately measure effects of panel conditioning (Crossley et al, 2017;Das et al, 2011;Halpern-Manners et al, 2014;Kroh et al, 2016;Yan & Eckman, 2012), in order to thoroughly understand the mechanisms behind panel conditioning and to produce testable hypotheses on its occurrence, magnitude and direction, a theoretical framework is needed that is more comprehensive than existing singular assumptions. Based on research in cognitive information processing, we proposed that repeatedly answering the same questions can be understood as a trigger for structural changes in associative networks, thus increasing (1) accessibility, (2) internal consistency and (3) extremity of attitudes.…”

“…The presence of such effects is most likely in questions that have already been experienced as burdensome in a preceding interview (Das et al, 2011;Toepoel et al, 2008). Positioning individual motivation as a key concept in analyses of panel conditioning thus substantially reduces the arbitrariness that characterizes most previous theoretical approaches towards changes in reporting survey answers, where 'better' and 'worse' response behaviour is predicted simultaneously (Warren & HalpernManners, 2012;Waterton & Lievesley, 1989;Yan & Eckman, 2012) and can help to distinguish different directions of changes in reporting.…”

“…While a substantial number of studies has suggested sophisticated measurement approaches for the separation of panel conditioning effects from attrition bias and true change (Crossley, de Bresser, Delaney, & Winter, 2017;Das, Toepoel, & van Soest, 2011;Struminskaya, 2016;Yan & Eckman, 2012), the phenomenon's underlying mechanisms and driving factors are still far from clear. Hence, this paper aims to integrate proposed mechanisms behind panel conditioning in a comprehensive theoretical framework by drawing on insights from research on cognitive information processing, attitude strength and respondents' survey response strategies.…”

Panel Conditioning and Self-Reported Satisfaction: Evidence from International Panel Data and Repeated Cross-Sections

“…One might consider the strategy of Das et al (2011), who extend the framework of Keisuke et al (2001) by recognizing that differences between an experienced sample and a refreshment sample can be due to not only panel attrition but also panel conditioning. Das et al (2011) point out if no assumptions regarding the attrition process are to be made, one can still identify upper and lower bounds of the panel effect. They illustrate this with dichotomous responses and calculate bounds by assuming that all attritors would have chosen either 0 or 1.…”

“…Das et al (2011) and Toepoel et al (2009) offer a cross-disciplinary overview of the literature on panel conditioning, and by comparing two samples, one fresh and the other, more experienced, they find that a panel effect is especially strong for knowledge questions but not for attitudinal questions. The authors note, however, that research on panel conditioning is still rather limited and that generally no attempt is made to distinguish panel conditioning from panel attrition.…”