What Would You Do? Conducting Web-Based Factorial Vignette Surveys

Chapter

Abstract

Factorial vignette studies combine survey methodologies with an experimental research design, and allow researchers to examine subjects’ reactions to hypothetical scenarios (vignettes) while controlling for variables within the scenarios. Slightly different versions of the vignettes are randomly assigned to respondents. This chapter guides readers through the necessary steps to craft, administer, and analyze a factorial survey. After first assessing the suitability of a factorial vignette design to the topic, researcher should settle on the number of variables according to budget constraints, and then craft realistic vignettes with multiple versions according to the number of variables. This chapter provides guidelines as to programming the survey, sampling populations, and administration of the survey. Finally, it examines the presentation of findings and the typical limitations of a factorial study.

Keywords

Factorial  Vignette  Budget  Programming  Variables  Survey crafting  Analysis  Experiment  

References

  1. Abbott, P., & Sapsford, R. (1993). Studying policy and practice: The use of vignettes. Nurse Researcher, 1, 81–91.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, C. S., & Becker, H. J. (1978). The use of vignettes in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aviram, H. & Leib, E. J. (2010). Are friendship and the law separate spheres? A vignette survey study. Paper presented at the 5th Conference on Empirical Legal Studies, New Haven.Google Scholar
  4. Aviram, H., & Persinger, A. M. (2012). Domestic violence in unconventional gender settings: A vignette survey study. Hastings Women’s Law Journal, 29(2), 152 (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  5. Baldinger, A. L. (2001). Online research and data quality: Stepping toward truth. Council of American Survey Research Organizations Journal, 2001, 93–96.Google Scholar
  6. Dalziel, J. R. (1996). Students as research subjects: Ethical and educational issues. Australian Psychologist, 31, 119–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Denk, C. E., Benson, J. M., Fletcher, J. C., & Reigel, T. M. (1997). How do Americans want to die? A factorial vignette survey of public attitudes about end-of-life medical decision-making. Social Science Research, 26(1), 95–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dülmer, H. (2007). Random or quota design? Experimental plans in factorial surveys. Sociological Methods Research, 35(3), 382–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elis, L. A., & Simpson, S. S. (1995). Informal sanction threats and corporate crime: Additive versus multiplicative models. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32(4), 399–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hox, J. K., Kreft, I. G. G., & Hermkens, P. J. (1991). The analysis of factorial surveys. Sociological Methods Research, 19(4), 493–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hughes, R., & Huby, M. (2002). The application of vignettes in social and nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 37(4), 382–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jehn, K. A., & Jonsen, K. (2010). A multimethod approach to the study of sensitive organizational issues. Journal of Mixed Research Methods Research, 4(4), 313–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Leighton, S. (2010). Using a vignette-based questionnaire to explore adolescents’ understanding of mental health issues. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 15(2), 231–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ludwick, R., & Zeller, R. A. (2001). The factorial survey: An experimental method to replicate real world problems. Nursing Research, 50(2), 129–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Peterson, R. A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second-order meta-analysis. The Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 450–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2004). Generalized latent variable modeling: Multilevel, longitudinal, and structural equation models. Boca Raton: CRC.Google Scholar
  17. Raffery, A. A. (2001). Statistics in sociology, 1950–2000: A selective review. Sociological Methodology, 31, 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Reece, R. D., & Siegal, H. A. (1986). Studying people: A primer in the ethics of social research. Macon: Mercer University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Rosenthal, R. (1970). The social psychology of the behavioral scientist: On self-fulfilling prophecies in behavioral research and everyday life. In E. R. Tufte (Ed.), The quantitative analysis of social problems. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  20. Rossi, P. H., & Nock, S. L. (Eds.). (1982). Measuring social judgment: The factorial survey approach. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Salant, P., & Dillman, D. A. (1994). How to conduct your own survey. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. Sapsford, R. (1999). Survey Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1981). Questions and answers in attitude suveys. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  24. Shooter, W., & Galloway, S. (2010). The use of factorial surveys in leisure research. Journal of Leisure Research, 42(4), 641–652.Google Scholar
  25. Sonquist, J. A., & Dunkelberg, W. C. (1977). Survey and opinion research: procedures for processing and analaysis. Englewood Clifs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  26. Stanton, J. M., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2001). Using Internet/Intranet web pages to collect organizational research data. Organizational Research Methods, 4(3), 200–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Taylor, B. J. (2006). Factorial surveys: Using vignettes to study professional judgement. British Journal of Social Work, 36(7), 1187–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thurman, Q. C. (1989). General prevention of tax evasion: A factorial survey approach. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 5(2), 127–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hastings College of the LawUniversity of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations