IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cesifo/v59y2013i1p181-193.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Taste for Consistency and Survey Response Behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Armin Falk
  • Florian Zimmermann

Abstract

This article studies how a taste for consistency affects decision making. Our application is response behavior in surveys. In particular, we show that the inclusion of questions can affect answers to subsequent related questions. The reason is that participants want to respond in a consistent way. Studying three different surveys, we find a systematic effect of the inclusion of additional questions. The effects are large and reveal how easy survey responses can be manipulated. For example, we find that a subtle manipulation reduced the number of people who agreed that a murderer should be imprisoned for the rest of his life by more than 20 percentage points. (JEL codes: C83, C91, D03) Copyright The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Ifo Institute, Munich. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Armin Falk & Florian Zimmermann, 2013. "A Taste for Consistency and Survey Response Behavior," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 59(1), pages 181-193, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:cesifo:v:59:y:2013:i:1:p:181-193
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cesifo/ifs039
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Lergetporer, Philipp & Woessmann, Ludger, 2019. "The Political Economy of Higher Education Finance: How Information and Design Affect Public Preferences for Tuition," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 145, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    2. Armin Falk & Thomas Neuber & Philipp Strack, 2021. "Limited Self-Knowledge and Survey Response Behavior," CESifo Working Paper Series 9179, CESifo.
    3. Gari Walkowitz & Arne R. Weiss, 2014. ""Read my Lips!" Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Electoral Competition on Shirking and Trust," Cologne Graduate School Working Paper Series 05-07, Cologne Graduate School in Management, Economics and Social Sciences.
    4. Elisabeth Grewenig & Philipp Lergetporer & Katharina Werner & Ludger Woessmann, 2019. "Do Party positions affect the public's policy preferences?," CESifo Working Paper Series 7579, CESifo.
    5. Fellner-Röhling, Gerlinde & Hromek, Kristijan & Kleinknecht, Janina & Ludwig, Sandra, 2023. "How to counteract biased self-assessments? An experimental investigation of reactions to social information," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 1-25.
    6. Thomas Buser & Muriel Niederle & Hessel Oosterbeek, 2020. "Can competitiveness predict education and labor market outcomes? Evidence from incentivized choice and survey measures," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 20-048/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. Erte Xiao & Daniel Houser, 2014. "Sign Me Up! A Model and Field Experiment on Volunteering," Working Papers 1043, George Mason University, Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science.
    8. Lergetporer, P & Woessmann, L, 2022. "Income Contingency and the Electorates Support for Tuition," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 606, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    9. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth, 2023. "Beliefs about Racial Discrimination and Support for Pro-Black Policies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(1), pages 40-53, January.
    10. Cadsby, C. Bram & Song, Fei & Zubanov, Nick, 2024. "Working more for more and working more for less: Labor supply in the gain and loss domains," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    11. Hope, David & Limberg, Julian & Weber, Nina, 2023. "Why do (some) ordinary Americans support tax cuts for the rich? Evidence from a randomised survey experiment," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    12. Xiao, Erte & Houser, Daniel, 2022. "Sign me up! Promoting volunteering with a compound task mechanism," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 897-913.
    13. Leonardo Becchetti & Vittorio Pelligra & Tommaso Reggiani, 2017. "Information, belief elicitation and threshold effects in the 5X1000 tax scheme: a framed field experiment," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 24(6), pages 1026-1049, December.
    14. Walkowitz, Gari & Weiss, Arne R., 2017. "“Read my lips! (but only if I was elected)!” Experimental evidence on the effects of electoral competition on promises, shirking and trust," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 348-367.
    15. Armin Falk & Florian Zimmermann, 2017. "Consistency as a Signal of Skills," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(7), pages 2197-2210, July.
    16. Beckmann, Elisabeth & Schmidt, Tobias, 2020. "Bundesbank online pilot survey on consumer expectations," Technical Papers 01/2020, Deutsche Bundesbank.
    17. Robalo, Pedro & Sayag, Rei, 2018. "Paying is believing: The effect of costly information on Bayesian updating," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 114-125.
    18. Grewenig, Elisabeth & Lergetporer, Philipp & Werner, Katharina & Woessmann, Ludger, 2020. "Do party positions affect the public's policy preferences? Experimental evidence on support for family policies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 523-543.
    19. Gleue, Marvin & Harrs, Sören & Feldhaus, Christoph & Löschel, Andreas, 2024. "Identity and voluntary efforts for climate protection," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 436-476.
    20. Nadja Dwenger & Ingrid Hoem Sjursen & Jasmin Vietz, 2024. "What Is Fair? Experimental Evidence on Fair Equality vs Fair Inequality," CESifo Working Paper Series 11289, CESifo.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles

    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:oup:cesifo:v:59:y:2013:i:1:p:181-193. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    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.