Advertisement

Zur Verhaltensvalidität von Vignettenexperimenten

Theoretische Grundlagen, Forschungsstrategien und Befunde
  • Knut PetzoldEmail author
  • Tobias Wolbring
Chapter
Part of the Schriftenreihe der ASI - Arbeitsgemeinschaft Sozialwissenschaftlicher Institute book series (SASI)

Zusammenfassung

Vignettenexperimente werden zunehmend nicht nur zur Messung von Einstellungen, sondern auch zur Erfassung von Verhaltensintentionen eingesetzt. Bei entsprechenden Studien wird meist implizit angenommen, dass die mittels Vignettenexperimenten geschätzten Effekte auf tatsächliches Verhalten und dessen Determinanten schließen lassen. Die Annahme der Verhaltensvalidität faktorieller Surveys wurde bisher jedoch nur selten explizit thematisiert und methodisch sauber getestet. In diesem Beitrag werden daher vor dem Hintergrund theoretischer Überlegungen und empirischer Befunde die Bedingungen diskutiert, unter welchen die gemessenen Intentionen mit tatsächlichem Verhalten korrespondieren sollten. Insbesondere die Theorie des geplanten Verhaltens erweist sich hierbei als hilfreich, um relevante Einflussfaktoren zu identifizieren. Anschließend werden konkrete Kriterien erarbeitet, die bei Validierungsstudien zu beachten sind und es werden Empfehlungen gegeben, wie sich eine methodisch abgesicherte Validierung realisieren lässt. Demnach ist die Güte einer Validierungsstudie insbesondere dann hoch, wenn eine möglichst große Ähnlichkeit hinsichtlich der verwendeten Stichproben, der Treatments, der Effektschätzung, des Settings und der Skalierung der Outcomes gegeben ist.

Schlüsselwörter

Vignettenexperiment faktorieller Survey soziale Normen Hypothetical Bias Social Desirability Bias Validität Validierungsstudie 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Abraham, M., Auspurg, K., & Hinz, T.(2010). Migration decisions within dual-earner partnerships: A test of bargaining theory. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(4), 876-892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I.(1985).From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control. From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39). Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.Google Scholar
  4. Ajzen, I. (2015). Consumer attitudes and behavior: the theory of planned behavior applied to food consumption decisions. Rivista di Economia Agraria, 70(2), 121-138.Google Scholar
  5. Ajzen, I., Brown, T. C., & Carvajal, F. (2004). Explaining the discrepancy between intentions and actions: The case of hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(9), 1108-1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Alexander, C. S., & Becker, H. J. (1978). The use of vignettes in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42(1), 94-104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Allison, P. D. (2009). Fixed effects regression models. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. -S. (2015). Mostly harmless econometrics. An empiricit‘s companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Armacost, R. L., Hosseini, J. C., Morris, S. A., & Rehbein, K. A. (1991). An empirical comparison of direct questioning, scenario, and randomized response methods for obtaining sensitive business information. Decision Sciences, 22(5), 1073-1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471-499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Atzmüller, C., & Steiner, P. M. (2010). Experimental vignette studies in survey research. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 6(3), 128-138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Auspurg, K., & Hinz, T. (2015). Factorial survey experiments. London/Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Auspurg, K., Hinz, T., Liebig, S., & Sauer, C. (2015). The factorial survey as a method for measuring sensitive issues. In U. Engel, B. Jann, P. Lynn, A. Scherpenzeel, & P. Sturgis (Eds.), Improving survey methods: Lessons from recent research (pp. 137-150). New York/ Hove: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Barabas, J., & Jerit, J. (2010). Are survey experiments externally valid? American Political Science Review, 104(2), 226-242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Beck, M., & Opp, K. -D. (2001). Der faktorielle Survey und die Messung von Normen. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 53(2), 283-306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Berger, R., & Wolbring, T. (2015). Kontrafaktische Kausalität und eine Typologie sozialwissenschaftlicher Experimente. In M. Keuschnigg & T. Wolbring (Eds.), Experimente in den Sozialwissenschaften. Soziale Welt Sonderband 22 (pp. 34-52). Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Best, H., & Wolf, C. (Eds.). (2015). The SAGE handbook of regression analysis and causal inference. London et al.: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Burstin, K., Doughtie, E., & Raphaeli, A. (1980). Contrastive vignette technique: An indirect methodology designed to address reactive social attitude measurement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10(2), 147-165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Buskens, V., & Weesie, J. (2000). An experiment on the effects of embeddedness in trust situations. Buying a used car. Rationality and Society, 12(2), 227-253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Campbell, D. T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin, 54(4), 297-312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand-McNally.Google Scholar
  23. Carlsson, F., & Martinsson, P. (2001). Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments? Application to the valuation of the environment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 41(2), 179-192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Collett, J. L., & Childs, E. (2011). Minding the gap: Meaning, affect, and the potential shortcomings of vignettes. Social Science Research, 40(2), 513-522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  26. Cronbach, L. J. (1982). Designing evaluations of educational and social programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. Diehl, C., Andorfer, V. A., Khoudja, Y., & Krause, K. (2013). Not in my kitchen? Ethnic discrimination and discrimination intentions in shared housing among university students in Germany. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(10), 1679-1697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Diekmann, A., & Preisendörfer, P. (1992). Persönliches Umweltverhalten. Diskrepanzen zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 44(2), 226-251.Google Scholar
  29. Diekmann, A., & Preisendörfer, P. (2003). Green and greenback: The behavioral effects of environmental attitudes in low-cost and high-cost situations. Rationality and Society, 15(4), 441-472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dülmer, H. (2016). The factorial survey. Design selection and its impact on reliability and internal validity. Sociological Methods and Research, 45(2), 304-347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Eifler, S. (2007). Evaluating the validity of self-reported deviant behavior using vignette analyses. Quality and Quantity, 41(2), 303-318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Eifler, S.(2010).Validity of a factorial survey approach to the analysis of criminal behavior.Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 6(3), 139-146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Eifler, S., & Petzold, K.(forthcoming).Validity aspects of vignette experiments: Expected ‘what-if’ differences between reports of behavioral intentions and actual behavior.In P.J.Lavrakas, E.de Leeuw, A.Holbrook, C.Kennedy, M.W.Traugott & B.T.West (Eds.), Experimental methods in survey research: Techniques that combine random sampling with random assignment.Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  34. Elwert, F., & Winship, C.(2014).Endogenous selection bias: The problem of conditioning on a collider variable.Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 31-53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Finch, J.(1987).The vignette technique in survey research.Sociology, 21(1), 105-114.Google Scholar
  36. Findley, M.G., Laney, B., Nielson, D.L., & Sharman, J.C.(2017).External validity in parallel global field and survey experiments on anonymous incorporation.The Journal of Politics, 79(3), 856-872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I.(2010).Predicting and changing behavior. The reasoned action approach.New York/Hove: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Fisher, R.A.(1935).The design of experiments.Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
  39. Friedman, D., & Cassar, A.(2004).Economics lab. An intensive course in experimental economics.London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Frodermann, C.(2015).Wer arbeitet wie viel? Entscheidungen über den Erwerbsumfang im Partnerschaftskontext.Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 27(1), 78-104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gangl, M.(2010).Causal inference in sociological research.Annual Review of Sociology, 36(1), 21-47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Graeff, P., Sattler, S., Mehlkop, G., & Sauer, C.(2014).Incentives and inhibitors of abusing academic positions: Analysing universty students‘ decision about bribing academic staff.European Sociological Review, 30(2), 230-241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Groß, J., & Börensen, C.(2009).Wie valide sind Verhaltensmessungen mittels Vignetten? Ein methodischer Vergleich von faktoriellem Survey und Verhaltensbeobachtung.In P.Kriwy & C.Gross (Eds.), Klein aber fein! Quantitative Sozialforschung mit kleinen Fallzahlen (pp.149-178).Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  44. Hainmueller, J., Hangartner, D., & Yamamoto, T.(2015).Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(8), 2395-2400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Halaby, C.N.(2004).Panel models in sociological research: Theory into practice.Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 504-544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Holland, P.W.(1986).Statistics and causal inference.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81(4), 945-960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hughes, R., & Huby, M.(2004).The construction and interpretation of vignettes in social research.Social Work & Social Sciences Review, 11(1), 36-51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jackson, M., & Cox, D.R.(2013).The principles of experimental design and their application in sociology.Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 27-49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jasso, G.(2006).Factorial survey methods for studying beliefs and judgements.Sociological Methods and Research, 34(3), 334-423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jasso, G., & Rossi, P.H.(1977).Distributive justice and earned income.American Sociological Review, 42(4), 639-651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kerlinger, F.N.(1986).Foundations of behavioral research.New York: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
  52. Krumpal, I.(2013).Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review.Quality and Quantity, 47(3), 2025-2047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kuhfeld, W.F.(2010).Marketing research methods in SAS. Experimental design, choice, conjoint, and graphical techniques. SAS 9.2 Edition MR-2010.Google Scholar
  54. Legewie, J.(2012).Die Schätzung von kausalen Effekten: Überlegungen zu Methoden der Kausalanalyse anhand von Kontexteffekten in der Schule.Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 64(1), 123-153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Liebig, S., Sauer, C., & Friedhoff, S.(2015).Using factorial surveys to study justice perceptions: Five methodological problems of attitudinal justice research.Social Justice Research, 28(4), 415-434.Google Scholar
  56. Luce, D.R., & Turkey, J.W.(1964).Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1(1), 1-27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Markovsky, B., & Eriksson, K.(2012).Comparing direct and indirect measures of just rewards.Sociological Methods and Research, 41(1), 199-216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Morgan, S.L., & Harding, D.J.(2006).Matching estimators of causal effects.Prospects and pitfalls in theory and practice.Sociological Methods and Research, 35(1), 3-60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Morgan, S.L., & Winship, C.(2015).Counterfactuals and causal inference: Methods and principles for social research.2nd edition.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Mutz, D.C.(2011).Population-based survey experiments.Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Nisic, N., & Auspurg, K.(2009).Faktorieller Survey und klassische Bevölkerungsumfrage im Vergleich - Validität, Grenzen und Möglichkeiten beider Ansätze.In P.Kriwy & C.Gross (Eds.), Klein aber fein! Quantitative Sozialforschung mit kleinen Fallzahlen (pp.211-245).Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  62. Pager, D., & Quillian, L.(2005).Walking the talk? What employers say versus what they do.American Sociological Review, 70(3), 355-380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Petzold, K.(2017).Mobility experience and mobility decision-making: An experiment on permanent migration and residential multilocality.Population, Space and Place, 23(8), e2065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Petzold, K., & Wolbring, T.(forthcoming).What can we learn from factorial surveys about human behavior? A validation study comparing field and survey experiments on discrimination.Methodology.Google Scholar
  65. Rosenbaum, P.R.(2010).The design of observational studies. New York et al.: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rosenbaum, P.R., & Rubin, D.B.(1983).The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects.Biometrika, 70(1), 41-55.Google Scholar
  67. Rossi, P.H.(1979).Vignette analysis: Uncovering the normative structure of complex judgments.In R.K.Merton, J.S.Coleman, & P.H.Rossi (Eds.), Qualitative and quantitative social research: Papers in honor of Paul F. Lazarsfeld (pp.176-186).New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  68. Rossi, P.H., & Anderson, A.B.(1982).The factorial survey approach: An introduction.In P.H.Rossi & S.L.Nock (Eds.), Measuring social judgments. The factorial approach (pp.15-67).Beverly Hills et al.: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  69. Rost, K., & Arnold, N.(2017).Die Vignettenanalyse in den Sozialwissenschaften. Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung.München: Rainer Hampp Verlag.Google Scholar
  70. Schwalbe, C.S., Fraser, M.W., Day, S.H., & Arnold, E.M.(2004).North Carolina Assessment of Risk (NCAR): Reliability and predictive validity with juvenile offenders.Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 40(1/2), 1-22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T.(2002).Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference.Boston/ New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  72. Shifter, D.E., & Ajzen, I.(1985).Intention, perceived control, and weight loss: An application of the theory of planned behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 843-851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Stocké, V.(2004).Entstehungsbedingungen von Antwortverzerrungen durch soziale Erwünschtheit.Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 33(4), 303-320.Google Scholar
  74. Stocké, V.(2007).Determinants and consequences of survey respondents’ social desirability beliefs about racial attitudes.Methodology, 3(3), 125-138.Google Scholar
  75. Stouffer, S.A., & Toby, J.(1951).Role conflict and personality.American Journal of Sociology, 56(5), 395-406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Telser, H., & Zweifel, P.(2007).Validity of discrete-choice experiments evidence for health risk reduction.Applied Economics, 39(1), 69-78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Treischl, E.& Wolbring, T.(2018): Past, present and future of survey experiments: A review about factorial surveys in the social sciences.Unveröffentlichtes Arbeitspapier, FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg.Google Scholar
  78. Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T.(2007).Sensitive questions in surveys.Psychological Bulletin, 133(5), 859-883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tucker, S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Reid, E., & Elving, C.(2006). Apologies and transformational leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(2), 195-207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Vellinga, A., Smit, J. H., Van Leeuwen, E., Van Tilburg, W., & Jonker, C.(2005). Decision-making capacity of elderly patients assessed through the vignette method: Imagination or reality? Aging and Mental Health, 9(1), 40-48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wallander, L. (2009). 25 years of factorial surveys in sociology: A review. Social Science Research, 38(3), 505-520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wienhold, M., & Petzold, K. (2014). Fairnessnormen, Sanktionsmacht und soziale Kontrolle bei Bonuszahlungen in Unternehmen. Ein Multi-Level Factorial Survey Experiment. Soziale Welt. Zeitschrift für sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung und Praxis, 65(3), 345-367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Winship, C., & Morgan, S. L. (1999). The estimation of causal effects from observational data. Annual Review of Sociology, 25(1), 659-706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wooldridge, J. M. (2012). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. 5th Edition. Boston: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BochumDeutschland
  2. 2.NürnbergDeutschland

Personalised recommendations