IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/espost/263913.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Solid support or secret dissent? A list experiment on preference falsification during the Russian war against Ukraine

Author

Listed:
  • Chapkovski, Philipp
  • Schaub, Max

Abstract

Do individuals reveal their true preferences when asked for their support for an ongoing war? This research note presents the results of a list experiment implemented in the midst of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Our experiment allows us to estimate the extent of preference falsification with regard to support for the war by comparing the experimental results with a direct question. Our data comes from an online sample of 3000 Russians. Results show high levels of support for the war and significant levels of preference falsification: when asked directly, 71% of respondents support the war, while this share drops to 61% when using the list experiment. Preference falsification is particularly pronounced among individuals using TV as a main source of news. Our results imply that war leaders can pursue peace without fearing a large popular backlash, but also show that high levels of support for war can be sustained even once the brutality of the war has become clear.

Suggested Citation

  • Chapkovski, Philipp & Schaub, Max, 2022. "Solid support or secret dissent? A list experiment on preference falsification during the Russian war against Ukraine," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 9(2), pages 1-6.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:espost:263913
    DOI: 10.1177/20531680221108328
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/263913/1/Full-text-article-Chapkovski-et-al-Solid-support-or.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/20531680221108328?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eady, Gregory, 2017. "The Statistical Analysis of Misreporting on Sensitive Survey Questions," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 241-259, April.
    2. Bryn Rosenfeld & Kosuke Imai & Jacob N. Shapiro, 2016. "An Empirical Validation Study of Popular Survey Methodologies for Sensitive Questions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(3), pages 783-802, July.
    3. Blair, Graeme & Imai, Kosuke, 2012. "Statistical Analysis of List Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 47-77, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Charles D. Coleman & Ilona Sologoub, 2022. "The Cost of War: A Comment and a Reply," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 57(5), pages 337-338, September.
    2. Elinder, Mikael & Erixson, Oscar & Hammar, Olle, 2024. "How Has the War in Ukraine Affected Russian Sentiments?," IZA Discussion Papers 17457, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Elinder, Mikael & Erixson, Oscar & Hammar, Olle, 2024. "How Has the War in Ukraine Affected Russian Sentiments?," Working Papers in Economics and Statistics 14/2024, Linnaeus University, School of Business and Economics, Department of Economics and Statistics.
    4. Aluykov, Maxim & Gilev, Aleksei & Vyrskaia, Marina & Rumiantseva, Aleksandra & Zavadskaya, Margarita, 2024. "Panel study of Russian public opinion and attitudes (PROPA). Wave 1. Report," OSF Preprints ek8wy, Center for Open Science.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pier Francesco Perri & Eleni Manoli & Tasos C. Christofides, 2023. "Assessing the effectiveness of indirect questioning techniques by detecting liars," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 64(5), pages 1483-1506, October.
    2. Chuang, Erica & Dupas, Pascaline & Huillery, Elise & Seban, Juliette, 2021. "Sex, lies, and measurement: Consistency tests for indirect response survey methods," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    3. Lai, Yufeng & Boaitey, Albert & Minegishi, Kota, 2022. "Behind the veil: Social desirability bias and animal welfare ballot initiatives," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    4. Gutierrez, Emilio & Rubli, Adrian, 2024. "LGBT+ persons and homophobia prevalence across job sectors: Survey evidence from Mexico," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    5. Garay, Candelaria & Palmer-Rubin, Brian & Poertner, Mathias, 2020. "Organizational and partisan brokerage of social benefits: Social policy linkages in Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    6. Bertelli, Olivia & Calvo, Thomas & Lavallée, Emmanuelle & Mercier, Marion & Mesplé-Somps, Sandrine, 2024. "What one thinks, what one says and what one does: male justifications and practices of gender-based violence in Mali," CEPREMAP Working Papers (Docweb) 2406, CEPREMAP.
    7. Olivia Bertelli & Thomas Calvo & Emmanuelle Lavallée & Marion Mercier & Sandrine Mesplé-Somps, 2023. "Measuring insecurity-related experiences and preferences in a fragile State. A list experiment in Mali," Working Papers DT/2023/01, DIAL (Développement, Institutions et Mondialisation).
    8. Barrera, Oscar & Guriev, Sergei & Henry, Emeric & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2020. "Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    9. Ronconi, Lucas & Zarazaga S.J., Rodrigo, 2015. "Labor Exclusion and the Erosion of Citizenship Responsibilities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 453-461.
    10. Sylvain Chassang & Christian Zehnder, 2024. "Secure Survey Design in Organizations: Theory and Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 16(4), pages 371-405, November.
    11. Esther Atukunda & Anne Fitzpatrick, 2015. "An Evaluation of Factors Affecting Drug Quality: Evidence from the Antimalarial Market in Uganda," Working Papers 2015_03, University of Massachusetts Boston, Economics Department.
    12. Granja, Cintia & Visentin, Fabiana & Carneiro, Ana Maria, 2023. "Can international mobility shape students' attitudes toward inequality?," MERIT Working Papers 2023-001, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    13. Burgstaller, Lilith & Feld, Lars P. & Pfeil, Katharina, 2022. "Working in the shadow: Survey techniques for measuring and explaining undeclared work," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 661-671.
    14. Blattman, Christopher & Jamison, Julian & Koroknay-Palicz, Tricia & Rodrigues, Katherine & Sheridan, Margaret, 2016. "Measuring the measurement error: A method to qualitatively validate survey data," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 99-112.
    15. Ezequiel Gonzalez-Ocantos & Chad Kiewiet de Jonge & Carlos Meléndez & David Nickerson & Javier Osorio, 2020. "Carrots and sticks: Experimental evidence of vote-buying and voter intimidation in Guatemala," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(1), pages 46-61, January.
    16. Jorge M. Agüero & Veronica Frisancho, 2022. "Measuring Violence against Women with Experimental Methods," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 70(4), pages 1565-1590.
    17. De Cao, Elisabetta & Lutz, Clemens, 2014. "Sensitive survey questions," Research Report 14017-EEF, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    18. Lara Marie Berger & Anna Kerkhof & Felix Mindl & Johannes Münster, 2023. "Debunking “Fake News” on Social Media: Short-Term and Longer-Term Effects of Fact Checking and Media Literacy Interventions," CESifo Working Paper Series 10576, CESifo.
    19. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/1dhd1b1s319fbai85khk40fudc is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Jiayuan Li & Wim Van den Noortgate, 2022. "A Meta-analysis of the Relative Effectiveness of the Item Count Technique Compared to Direct Questioning," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 51(2), pages 760-799, May.
    21. Lata Gangadharan & Tarun Jain & Pushkar Maitra & Joe Vecci, 2022. "Lab-in-the-field experiments: perspectives from research on gender," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 73(1), pages 31-59, January.

    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:zbw:espost:263913. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.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.