Cited by 639Survey Sampling and Estimation TechniquesSurvey Methodology and NonresponseOptimal Experimental Design Methods

Statistical Analysis of List Experiments

Open access
Blair, Graeme, Imai, Kosuke·2012·Political Analysis

Abstract

The validity of empirical research often relies upon the accuracy of self-reported behavior and beliefs. Yet eliciting truthful answers in surveys is challenging, especially when studying sensitive issues such as racial prejudice, corruption, and support for militant groups. List experiments have attracted much attention recently as a potential solution to this measurement problem. Many researchers, however, have used a simple difference-in-means estimator, which prevents the efficient examination of multivariate relationships between respondents' characteristics and their responses to sensitive items. Moreover, no systematic means exists to investigate the role of underlying assumptions. We fill these gaps by developing a set of new statistical methods for list experiments. We identify the commonly invoked assumptions, propose new multivariate regression estimators, and develop methods to detect and adjust for potential violations of key assumptions. For empirical illustration, we analyze list experiments concerning racial prejudice. Open-source software is made available to implement the proposed methodology.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/pan/mpr048

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Berinsky, A. J. 2004. Silent voices: Public opinion and political participation in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  2. Biemer, P., and G. Brown. 2005. Model-based estimation of drug use prevalence using item count data. Journal of Official Statistics 21:287-308.
  3. Chaudhuri, A., and T. C. Christofides. 2007. Item count technique in estimating the proportion of people with a sensitive feature. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 137:589-93.
  4. Corstange, D. 2009. Sensitive questions, truthful answers? Modeling the list experiment with LISTIT. Political Analysis 17(1): 45-63.
  5. Droitcour, J., R. A. Caspar, M. L. Hubbard, T. L. Parsley, W. Visscher, and T. M. Ezzati. 1991. Measurement errors in surveys. In The Item Count Technique as a method of indirect questioning: A review of its development and a case study application, eds.
  6. P. P. Biemer, R. M. Groves, L. E. Lyberg, N. A. Mathiowetz, and S. Sudman, 185-210. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  7. Ehm, W. 1991. Binomial approximation to the Poisson binomial distribution. Statistics & Probability Letters 11:7-16.
  8. Gelman, A., A. Jakulin, M. G. Pittau, and Y. Su. 2008. A weakly informative default prior distribution for logistic and other regres- sion models. Annals of Applied Statistics 2:1360-83.
  9. Gilens, M., P. M. Sniderman, and J. H. Kuklinski. 1998. Affirmative action and the politics of realignment. British Journal of Political Science 28:159-83.
  10. Holbrook, A. L., and J. A. Krosnick. 2010. Social desirability bias in voter turnout reports: Tests using the item count technique. Public Opinion Quarterly 74(1):37-67.
  11. Holland, P. W. 1986. Statistics and causal inference (with discussion). Journal of the American Statistical Association 81: 945-60.
  12. Imai, K. 2011. Multivariate regression analysis for the item count technique. Journal of the American Statistical Association 106:407-16.
  13. Imai, K., G. King, and E. A. Stuart. 2008. Misunderstandings between experimentalists and observationalists about causal inference. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A (Statistics in Society) 171:481-502.
  14. Janus, A. L. 2010. The influence of social desirability pressures on expressed immigration attitudes. Social Science Quarterly 91:928-46.
  15. Kane, J. G., S. C. Craig, and K. D. Wald. 2004. Religion and presidential politics in Florida: A list experiment. Social Science Quarterly 85:281-93.
  16. Kuklinski, J. H., M. D. Cobb, and M. Gilens. 1997a. Racial attitudes and the "New South." Journal of Politics 59:323-49.
  17. Kuklinski, J. H., P. M. Sniderman, K. Knight, T. Piazza, P. E. Tetlock, G. R. Lawrence, and B. Mellers. 1997b. Racial prejudice and attitudes toward affirmative action. American Journal of Political Science 41:402-19.
  18. LaBrie, J. W., and M. Earleywine. 2000. Sexual risk behaviors and alcohol: Higher base rates revealed using the unmatched-count technique. Journal of Sex Research 37:321-26.
  19. Manski, C. F. 2007. Identification for Prediction and Decision. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  20. Perlman, M. D. 1969. One-sided testing problems in multivariate analysis. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 40:549-67.
  21. Presser, S., and L. Stinson. 1998. Data collection mode and social desirability bias in self-reported religious attendance. American Sociological Review 63:137-45.
  22. Raghavarao, D., and W. T. Federer. 1979. Block total response as an alternative to the randomized response method in surveys. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, Methodological 41(1):40-5.
  23. Rayburn, N. R., M. Earleywine, and G. C. Davison. 2003. An investigation of base rates of anti-gay hate crimes using the unmatched- count technique. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma 6:137-52.
  24. Redlawsk, D. P., C. J. Tolbert, and W. Franko. 2010. Voters, emotions, and race in 2008: Obama as the first black president. Political Research Quarterly 63:875-89.
  25. Sniderman, P. M., and E. G. Carmines. 1997. Reaching Beyond Race. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  26. Streb, M. J., B. Burrell, B. Frederick, and M. A. Genovese. 2008. Social desirability effects and support for a female american president. Public Opinion Quarterly 72(1):76-89.
  27. Tsuchiya, T. 2005. Domain estimators for the item count technique. Survey Methodology 31(1):41-51.
  28. Tsuchiya, T., Y. Hirai, and S. Ono. 2007. A study of the properties of the item count technique. Public Opinon Quarterly 71: 253-72.
  29. Warner, S. L. 1965. Randomized response: A survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. Journal of the American Statis- tical Association 60(309):63-9.
  30. Wimbush, J. C., and D. R. Dalton. 1997. Base rate for employee theft: Convergence of multiple methods. Journal of Applied Psychology 82:756-63.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blair, G., & Imai, K.
Affiliations
Princeton University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Blair, Graeme
  • Imai, Kosuke
Venue
Political Analysis
Published
2012
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
47-77
ISSN
  • 1047-1987 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4989
OpenAlex
W2092564267
Cited by
639
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 46 · 2025: 65 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 69 · 2019: 52 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 6
FWCI
22.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Political Analysis (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (0849715)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Survey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Optimal Experimental Design Methods
Keywords
list experiment, sensitive survey questions, self-reported behavior, measurement error, assumption testing, racial prejudice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review