Transcript Rethinking Leverage-Salience Theory: Adding Emotion

Rethinking Leverage-Salience Theory
and Causes of Survey Nonresponse:
Integrating Emotion, Mood, and Affect into
Theory of Nonresponse
Matt Jans
US Census Bureau, Statistical Research Division
Rachel Levenstein
Michigan Program in Survey Methodology
University of Michigan
Scope
• What makes up leverage?
– Affect v. Reasoned judgment
• Application of random effects w/in LST
– Affect
– Design features
Leverage-Salience Theory (LST)
(Groves, Singer, & Corning, 2000)
• Addresses correlates and causes of unit
refusal nonresponse
• Probability of response for the individual is a
combination of
– Leverage of a survey attribute
– Salience of the same survey attribute
Visual Model of LST
Groves, Singer, & Corning (2000), p. 300
Definition and Examples of
Leverage
• “The sample person’s assessment of a
particular attribute of a survey” (Groves, et al., 2000)
– Incentive: Economic need or social exchange
– Survey Topic: Interest in or commitment to issue
– Survey Mode: Enjoyment of or aversion to
interacting w/ a live person (e.g., temperament or
social isolation)
Definition and Examples of
Salience
• Awareness of the sampled person to the
survey feature
– Explanation of topic, mode, incentive in cover
letter or interviewer recruitment script
– Obvious presence of survey feature (e.g., $5 bill
clipped to survey; Interviewer on doorstep)
Decomposing Leverage
Leverage = Valence + Distance
Valence is positive or negative
– Positively valenced features
dispose the sampled person
toward participation
– Negatively valenced features
dispose the sample person
toward refusal
Focus of the Talk
Leverage
Salience
Theory
Leverage
Valence
Affect
Integral
Reason
Incidental
Salience
Distance
Another
Paper
Another
Paper
Another
Paper
Another
Paper
Another
Paper
Another
Paper
Another
Paper
Another
Paper
Decomposing Valence
– No explicit distinction between causes of valence
• All cognitive, emotional, judgmental psychological
actions are pooled
Affective
Positive
Negative
Interacting with people makes me feel good
Interacting with people makes me feel
uncomfortable
This interviewer seems pleasant
This interviewer’s voice irritates me
That organization makes my blood boil
Reasoned
I think this topic is important
Given the current economic situation, the
government would benefit from my opinion
on this issue
The size of the incentive relative to the time the
survey will take and my income is unreasonable
Definitions of Affect
• Affect
– Mood
• Non-directed, lower-intensity, longer-lasting
– Emotion
• Directed at an object/cause, higher-intensity, acute
Affect and Decision Making
• “Feelings as Information” perspective
• Affect impacts/operates in information
processing, judgment and memory
(Schwarz & Clore, 2007)
• We often make judgments and decisions on
affective or emotional information
(Schwarz & Clore, 2007; Schwarz, 2000)
• We perceive the world emotionally first
(Zajonc, 1980)
Major Findings on Affect and
Decision Making
• Depressed v. positive mood
• Strong arguments more effective for people in
sad or negative moods, than positive moods
(Schwarz, 2000)
• Mood will influence responses unless there is
an attributable cause
– Weather & well-being (Schwarz & Clore, 1983)
Incorporating Affect into LST
ln  pi / (1  pi )  0  1Cij  2Sij  3 Aij  4Cij Sij  5Cij Aij  6Sij Aij  7Cij Sij Aij  i
Incorporating Affect into LST
• Affect related to design features
(integral affect)
– Like or dislike interacting with another person or
not (SAQ v. Iwr Admin Modes)?
– Feel that the incentive is a “fair trade” or
manipulative?
– Does R have strong feelings (positive or negative)
about the survey topic or sponsor?
Incorporating Affect into LST
• Random effect of design features
– Design feature is one realization of similar
features (e.g. levels of incentive, personalization
of letter)
– Repeated measures from different levels-features
across same R’s
ln[pij/(1-pij)]=B0 + B1ijAffDesij + B2iSij + u1iAffDesij + eij
i=Respondent , j=Design Feature
Incorporating Affect into LST
• Affect unrelated to design features
(incidental affect)
– The mind state we happen upon when requesting
survey participation
• Daily/weekly variation in mood
• Individual variation in mood
• Societal variation in mood (e.g., anxious mood due to
economic situation; saturation with polling)
Incorporating Affect into LST
• Random effect of respondent
– Respondent’s propensity may change over time
irrespective of design feature
– Repeated measures from same respondent
receiving same design features
ln[pij/(1-pij)]=B0 + B1ijAffRespij + B2iSi + u1iAffRespij + eij
i=Respondent , j=Recruitment Attempt
Collection of Measures
• Voice and speech indicators of mood
• Respondent speech (spoken words)
– Coded for affective content
• “I don’t feel comfortable answering questions about
my sex life”
• Interviewer or observer rating of affect
• Respondent rating of own affector design
featares
Collection of Measures
• Complexity of measures will depend on
definition of affect
– Integral: Affect related to survey design features
• Measures collected from initial contact with R
– Incidental: Affect unrelated to survey
• Voice at contact
• Measures need to be taken outside of the interaction
with the survey
• Non-contact v. Refusal
• Panel data helpful
Links to Other Error Sources
• Measurement Error
– Response by individuals with only positive
affective states would bias measures of affect or
wellbeing
– Identifying current mood & assigning it to a cause
(e.g. weather) can change satisfaction reports
• Item Nonresponse
– Similar mechanisms & opportunities for tailoring
apply
International Component
• Cultural differences in social cognition &
emotion (Markus & Kitayama, 1991)
References
Bachorowski, J. A. (1999). Vocal expression and perception of emotion. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 8(2), 53-57.
Groves, R. M., Couper, M. P., Presser, S., Singer, E., Tourangeau, R., Acosta, G. P., & Nelson, L.
(2006). Experiments in producing nonresponse bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5), 720-736.
Groves, R. M., Presser, S., & Dipko, S. (2004). The role of topic interest in survey participation
decisions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 2-31.
Groves, R. M., Singer, E., & Corning, A. (2000). Leverage-saliency theory of survey participation:
Description and an illustration. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(3), 299-308.
Markus HR, Kitayama S. Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.
Psychological Review. 1991;98(2):224-253. Available at:
http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224.
Roose, H., Lievens, J., & Waege, H. (2007). The joint effect of topic interest and follow-up
procedures on the response in a mail questionnaire: An empirical test of the leveragesaliency theory in audience research. Sociological Methods & Research, 35(3), 410.
Schwarz, N. (2000). Emotion, cognition, and decision making. Cognition and Emotion, 14(4), 433440.
Schwarz N, Clore GL. Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and
directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
1983;45(3):513-523. Available at: http://content.apa.org/journals/psp/45/3/513.
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (2007). Feelings and emotional experiences. In A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T.
Higgins, Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, (pp. 385-407). Guilford Press.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist,
35(2), 151-175.
Thank You
• [email protected]
• [email protected]
LST Findings
• “Peripheral” aspects of surveys (e.g.,
incentive, follow-up protocol) have larger
impact in absence of personal relevance of
topic (Groves, et al., 2000; Roose, Lievens, & Waege, 2007)
• Personal relevance does not always lead to
increased response
(Groves, Couper, Presser, et al, 2006; Groves, Presser, & Dipko, 2004)
Understanding Leverage
• Hard to measure
– Internal, subjective
– Group membership
• Decompose leverage into components to
facilitate measurement
• Affective v. reasoned perceptions and
judgments of survey request
Integrating Affect into Survey
Practice
• Tailoring to affect states
– “I’m sure you’ve had a busy day” if calling in
evening
– Listen for vocal cues indicating unease and tailor
– Different information/arguments required for
different moods
– Moods may be changeable