We then compare effects between “eager” and “reluctant” respondents in 50 TESS-funded experiments. We find their effects are very similar.
This suggests that even if we could get everyone to respond, we wouldn’t get different results in most social science experiments!
By leveraging information on which respondents were recruited through a randomized non-response follow-up procedure (more effort and money) to raise response rates, we get closer than previous research to the people who refuse to take surveys.
Would survey experiments’ results differ if we could somehow reach the 90+% people who don’t take surveys? Apparently not.
Our new paper in @polanalysis finds experimental effects on “eager” survey respondents are similar to those on “reluctant” ones.
https://t.co/PxtNbNUaG7
@_amengel Not explicitly political psychology, but Henrich’s The WEIRDest People in the World, particularly the first 3 chapters, is a terrific exposition of how institutions, culture, and psychology interact to produce the values and norms we all take for granted and “normal.”
This paper is the beginning of a research agenda centered on what info & beliefs shape people’s perceptions of how serious social problems are and how these shape policy support. I appreciate your reading down to this point! If you have any comments, please let me know.
I’m happy to share that my paper on political persuasion using statistics/numerical facts is out at @apr_journal. It's about how info can change people's perceptions of problems and thereby change their policy attitudes! (1/11)
https://t.co/lZJlroPrkv
I also show using mediation models (with sensitivity analyses) that contextualized info changed policy attitudes by first changing how serious the problem seemed. Effects on the order of 2-5 percentage points. Not huge but come from about a paragraph of dry, numerical text.