IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2205.01317.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Open vs Closed-ended questions in attitudinal surveys -- comparing, combining, and interpreting using natural language processing

Author

Listed:
  • Vishnu Baburajan
  • Jo~ao de Abreu e Silva
  • Francisco Camara Pereira

Abstract

To improve the traveling experience, researchers have been analyzing the role of attitudes in travel behavior modeling. Although most researchers use closed-ended surveys, the appropriate method to measure attitudes is debatable. Topic Modeling could significantly reduce the time to extract information from open-ended responses and eliminate subjective bias, thereby alleviating analyst concerns. Our research uses Topic Modeling to extract information from open-ended questions and compare its performance with closed-ended responses. Furthermore, some respondents might prefer answering questions using their preferred questionnaire type. So, we propose a modeling framework that allows respondents to use their preferred questionnaire type to answer the survey and enable analysts to use the modeling frameworks of their choice to predict behavior. We demonstrate this using a dataset collected from the USA that measures the intention to use Autonomous Vehicles for commute trips. Respondents were presented with alternative questionnaire versions (open- and closed- ended). Since our objective was also to compare the performance of alternative questionnaire versions, the survey was designed to eliminate influences resulting from statements, behavioral framework, and the choice experiment. Results indicate the suitability of using Topic Modeling to extract information from open-ended responses; however, the models estimated using the closed-ended questions perform better compared to them. Besides, the proposed model performs better compared to the models used currently. Furthermore, our proposed framework will allow respondents to choose the questionnaire type to answer, which could be particularly beneficial to them when using voice-based surveys.

Suggested Citation

  • Vishnu Baburajan & Jo~ao de Abreu e Silva & Francisco Camara Pereira, 2022. "Open vs Closed-ended questions in attitudinal surveys -- comparing, combining, and interpreting using natural language processing," Papers 2205.01317, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2205.01317
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2205.01317
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edoardo M Airoldi, 2007. "Getting Started in Probabilistic Graphical Models," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(12), pages 1-5, December.
    2. Margaret E. Roberts & Brandon M. Stewart & Dustin Tingley & Christopher Lucas & Jetson Leder‐Luis & Shana Kushner Gadarian & Bethany Albertson & David G. Rand, 2014. "Structural Topic Models for Open‐Ended Survey Responses," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(4), pages 1064-1082, October.
    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. Teodóra Szép & Sander Cranenburgh & Caspar Chorus, 2024. "Moral rhetoric in discrete choice models: a Natural Language Processing approach," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 179-206, February.

    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. Sandra Wankmüller, 2023. "A comparison of approaches for imbalanced classification problems in the context of retrieving relevant documents for an analysis," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 91-163, April.
    2. Minchul Lee & Min Song, 2020. "Incorporating citation impact into analysis of research trends," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1191-1224, August.
    3. Grajzl, Peter & Murrell, Peter, 2021. "A machine-learning history of English caselaw and legal ideas prior to the Industrial Revolution I: generating and interpreting the estimates," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, February.
    4. Dehler-Holland, Joris & Schumacher, Kira & Fichtner, Wolf, 2021. "Topic Modeling Uncovers Shifts in Media Framing of the German Renewable Energy Act," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 2(1).
    5. Marcel Fratzscher & Tobias Heidland & Lukas Menkhoff & Lucio Sarno & Maik Schmeling, 2023. "Foreign Exchange Intervention: A New Database," IMF Economic Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Monetary Fund, vol. 71(4), pages 852-884, December.
    6. Bokyong Shin & Chaitawat Boonjubun, 2021. "Media and the Meanings of Land: A South Korean Case Study," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 80(2), pages 381-425, March.
    7. Parijat Chakrabarti & Margaret Frye, 2017. "A mixed-methods framework for analyzing text data: Integrating computational techniques with qualitative methods in demography," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 37(42), pages 1351-1382.
    8. Li Tang & Jennifer Kuzma & Xi Zhang & Xinyu Song & Yin Li & Hongxu Liu & Guangyuan Hu, 2023. "Synthetic biology and governance research in China: a 40-year evolution," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(9), pages 5293-5310, September.
    9. Benjamin E. Bagozzi & Daniel Berliner & Zack W. Almquist, 2021. "When does open government shut? Predicting government responses to citizen information requests," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 280-297, April.
    10. Han, Chunjia & Yang, Mu & Piterou, Athena, 2021. "Do news media and citizens have the same agenda on COVID-19? an empirical comparison of twitter posts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    11. Celso Brunetti & Marc Joëts & Valérie Mignon, 2023. "Reasons Behind Words: OPEC Narratives and the Oil Market," Working Papers 2023-19, CEPII research center.
    12. Zhang, Han, 2021. "How Using Machine Learning Classification as a Variable in Regression Leads to Attenuation Bias and What to Do About It," SocArXiv 453jk, Center for Open Science.
    13. Savin, Ivan & Drews, Stefan & van den Bergh, Jeroen, 2021. "Free associations of citizens and scientists with economic and green growth: A computational-linguistics analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    14. Damani K. White-Lewis & KerryAnn O’Meara & Kiernan Mathews & Nicholas Havey, 2023. "Leaving the Institution or Leaving the Academy? Analyzing the Factors that Faculty Weigh in Actual Departure Decisions," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 64(3), pages 473-494, May.
    15. David C Molik & DeAndre Tomlinson & Shane Davitt & Eric L Morgan & Matthew Sisk & Benjamin Roche & Natalie Meyers & Michael E Pfrender, 2021. "Combining natural language processing and metabarcoding to reveal pathogen-environment associations," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-21, April.
    16. Ferrara, Federico M. & Masciandaro, Donato & Moschella, Manuela & Romelli, Davide, 2022. "Political voice on monetary policy: Evidence from the parliamentary hearings of the European Central Bank," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    17. Camilla Salvatore & Silvia Biffignandi & Annamaria Bianchi, 2022. "Corporate Social Responsibility Activities Through Twitter: From Topic Model Analysis to Indexes Measuring Communication Characteristics," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 164(3), pages 1217-1248, December.
    18. Mónica D. Oliveira & Inês Mataloto & Panos Kanavos, 2019. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 891-918, August.
    19. Grace Skogstad & Matt Wilder, 2019. "Strangers at the gate: the role of multidimensional ideas, policy anomalies and institutional gatekeepers in biofuel policy developments in the USA and European Union," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(3), pages 343-366, September.
    20. Alex Luscombe & Kevin Dick & Kevin Walby, 2022. "Algorithmic thinking in the public interest: navigating technical, legal, and ethical hurdles to web scraping in the social sciences," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1023-1044, June.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2205.01317. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.