IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bge/wpaper/1393.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Rationalizability of Survey Responses

Author

Listed:
  • Jose Apesteguia
  • Miguel Ángel Ballester

Abstract

We propose and study the concept of survey rationalizability. In the simplest scenario of dichotomous attitudinal surveys, survey rationalizability means that both questions and individuals' views can be positioned on the real line in such a way that individuals endorse only the questions that closely align with their views. We demonstrate how the relative positioning of questions can be learned through a revelation mechanism involving pairs of individuals and triplets of questions. We also establish that the acyclicity of these revelations is necessary and sufficient for rationalizability. Additionally, we show that our analysis readily extends to polytomous surveys and probabilistic data. Furthermore, we investigate the identification of the parameters in these models and prove that even the cardinal locations can be fully determined in an exponential version of the probabilistic model. Finally, we conclude by examining an alternative model of survey responses for aptitudes.

Suggested Citation

  • Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ángel Ballester, 2023. "The Rationalizability of Survey Responses," Working Papers 1393, Barcelona School of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:bge:wpaper:1393
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://bse.eu/sites/default/files/working_paper_pdfs/1393.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jean-François Laslier, 2009. "The Leader Rule," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 21(1), pages 113-136, January.
    2. Greene,William H. & Hensher,David A., 2010. "Modeling Ordered Choices," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521194204.
    3. Armin Falk & Thomas Neuber & Philipp Strack, 2021. "Limited Self-Knowledge and Survey Response Behavior," CESifo Working Paper Series 9179, CESifo.
    4. Stefanie Stantcheva, 2022. "How to Run Surveys: A Guide to Creating Your Own Identifying Variation and Revealing the Invisible," NBER Working Papers 30527, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Jean-François Laslier, 2009. "The Leader rule: a model of strategic approval voting in a large electorate," Post-Print hal-00363218, HAL.
    6. Herbert Hoijtink, 1990. "A latent trait model for dichotomous choice data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 55(4), pages 641-656, December.
    7. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Buckenmaier, Johannes, 2019. "Strongly sincere best responses under approval voting and arbitrary preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 388-401.
    8. Sendhil Mullainathan & Marianne Bertrand, 2001. "Do People Mean What They Say? Implications for Subjective Survey Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 67-72, May.
    9. Núñez, Matías & Xefteris, Dimitrios, 2017. "Implementation via approval mechanisms," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 169-181.
    10. Andrew Caplin, 2021. "Data Engineering for Cognitive Economics," NBER Working Papers 29378, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Daron Acemoglu & Ali Makhdoumi & Azarakhsh Malekian & Asuman Ozdaglar, 2022. "Learning From Reviews: The Selection Effect and the Speed of Learning," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(6), pages 2857-2899, November.
    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. Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco & Ülkü, Levent, 2024. "A model of approval with an application to list design," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).

    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. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel A. Ballester, 2023. "The rationalizability of survey responses," Economics Working Papers 1863, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    2. Su, Francis Edward & Zerbib, Shira, 2019. "Piercing numbers in approval voting," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 65-71.
    3. François Durand & Antonin Macé & Matias Nunez, 2019. "Analysis of Approval Voting in Poisson Games," Working Papers halshs-02049865, HAL.
    4. Michele Giannola, 2024. "Parental Investments and Intra-household Inequality in Child Human Capital: Evidence from a Survey Experiment," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 134(658), pages 671-727.
    5. Jean-François Laslier & Karine Straeten, 2016. "Strategic voting in multi-winner elections with approval balloting: a theory for large electorates," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(3), pages 559-587, October.
    6. Benoît R. Kloeckner, 2022. "Cycles in synchronous iterative voting: general robustness and examples in Approval Voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(2), pages 423-466, August.
    7. Laurent Bouton & Micael Castanheira, 2012. "One Person, Many Votes: Divided Majority and Information Aggregation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(1), pages 43-87, January.
    8. Jean-François Laslier & Karine van Der Straeten, 2015. "Strategic Voting under Committee Approval: A Theory," Working Papers halshs-01168767, HAL.
    9. Isabelle Lebon & Antoinette Baujard & Frédéric Gavrel & Herrade Igersheim & Jean-François Laslier, 2016. "Ce que le vote par approbation révèle des préférences des électeurs français," Working Papers halshs-01409106, HAL.
    10. François Maniquet & Massimo Morelli, 2015. "Approval quorums dominate participation quorums," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 1-27, June.
    11. Igerseim, Herrade & Baujard, Antoinette & Laslier, Jean-François, 2016. "La question du vote. Expérimentations en laboratoire et In Situ," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 92(1-2), pages 151-189, Mars-Juin.
    12. Attanasi, Giuseppe & Corazzini, Luca & Passarelli, Francesco, 2017. "Voting as a lottery," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 129-137.
    13. Martin Gregor, 2013. "The Optimal Ballot Structure for Double-Member Districts," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp493, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    14. Ulle Endriss, 2013. "Sincerity and manipulation under approval voting," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(3), pages 335-355, March.
    15. Marc Guinjoan & Pablo Simón & Sandra Bermúdez & Ignacio Lago, 2014. "Expectations in Mass Elections: Back to the Future?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1346-1359, December.
    16. Baujard, Antoinette & Gavrel, Frédéric & Igersheim, Herrade & Laslier, Jean-François & Lebon, Isabelle, 2018. "How voters use grade scales in evaluative voting," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 14-28.
    17. Romain Lachat & Jean-François Laslier & Karine van Der Straeten, 2015. "Strategic Voting under Committee Approval: An Application to the 2011 Regional Government Election in Zurich," PSE Working Papers halshs-01168743, HAL.
    18. Karine Van der Straeten & Jean-François Laslier & Nicolas Sauger & André Blais, 2010. "Strategic, sincere, and heuristic voting under four election rules: an experimental study," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(3), pages 435-472, September.
    19. Isabelle Lebon & Antoinette Baujard & Frédéric Gavrel & Herrade Igersheim & Jean-François Laslier, 2017. "Ce que le vote par approbation révèle des préférences des électeurs français," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 68(6), pages 1063-1076.
    20. Kaiser, Caspar, 2022. "Using memories to assess the intrapersonal comparability of wellbeing reports," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 410-442.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    surveys; Rationalizability; attitudes; aptitudes;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C02 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - General - - - Mathematical Economics
    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods
    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: 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:bge:wpaper:1393. 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: Bruno Guallar (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/bargses.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.