IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/pscirm/v6y2018i04p771-789_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Self-Selection and Misreporting in Legislative Surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Bundi, Pirmin
  • Varone, Frédéric
  • Gava, Roy
  • Widmer, Thomas

Abstract

This article discusses the methodological challenges of legislative surveys. Following an overview of different types of survey biases, the article argues that self-selection and misreporting are the most critical problems for legislative surveys. In order to identify the self-selection and misreporting biases, we compare the answers with a survey from Swiss members of parliament with their observed behavior in the parliament. The empirical analysis shows that the survey sample has a substantial misreporting bias. We conclude that the parliamentarian’s attitude toward the survey object is strongly linked to their response. These issues should be addressed to improve the design and quality of legislative surveys.

Suggested Citation

  • Bundi, Pirmin & Varone, Frédéric & Gava, Roy & Widmer, Thomas, 2018. "Self-Selection and Misreporting in Legislative Surveys," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(4), pages 771-789, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:6:y:2018:i:04:p:771-789_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2049847016000352/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bon Sang Koo, 2023. "When legislators responded to news media surveys: unstable responses, missing not at random responses, and self-censorship," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(2), pages 1821-1843, April.
    2. Pirmin Bundi & Philipp Trein, 2022. "Evaluation use and learning in public policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(2), pages 283-309, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:6:y:2018:i:04:p:771-789_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ram .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.