Improving the External Validity of Conjoint Analysis: The Essential Role of Profile Distribution

被引:71
作者
de la Cuesta, Brandon [1 ]
Egami, Naoki [2 ]
Imai, Kosuke [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Stanford Univ, King Ctr Global Dev, Palo Alto, CA 94305 USA
[2] Columbia Univ, Dept Polit Sci, New York, NY 10027 USA
[3] Harvard Univ, Inst Quantitat Social Sci, Dept Govt, 1737 Cambridge St, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
[4] Harvard Univ, Inst Quantitat Social Sci, Dept Stat, 1737 Cambridge St, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
关键词
causal inference; conjoint analysis; factorial experiments; external validity; PUBLIC-OPINION;
D O I
10.1017/pan.2020.40
中图分类号
D0 [政治学、政治理论];
学科分类号
0302 ; 030201 ;
摘要
Conjoint analysis has become popular among social scientists for measuring multidimensional preferences. When analyzing such experiments, researchers often focus on the average marginal component effect (AMCE), which represents the causal effect of a single profile attribute while averaging over the remaining attributes. What has been overlooked, however, is the fact that the AMCE critically relies upon the distribution of the other attributes used for the averaging. Although most experiments employ the uniform distribution, which equally weights each profile, both the actual distribution of profiles in the real world and the distribution of theoretical interest are often far from uniform. This mismatch can severely compromise the external validity of conjoint analysis. We empirically demonstrate that estimates of the AMCE can be substantially different when averaging over the target profile distribution instead of uniform. We propose new experimental designs and estimation methods that incorporate substantive knowledge about the profile distribution. We illustrate our methodology through two empirical applications, one using a real-world distribution and the other based on a counterfactual distribution motivated by a theoretical consideration. The proposed methodology is implemented through an open-source software package.
引用
收藏
页码:19 / 45
页数:27
相关论文
共 41 条
  • [1] What has economics to say about racial discrimination?
    Arrow, KJ
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES, 1998, 12 (02) : 91 - 100
  • [2] The Structure of American Income Tax Policy Preferences
    Ballard-Rosa, Cameron
    Martin, Lucy
    Scheve, Kenneth
    [J]. JOURNAL OF POLITICS, 2017, 79 (01) : 1 - 16
  • [3] How economic, humanitarian, and religious concerns shape European attitudes toward asylum seekers
    Bansak, Kirk
    Hainmueller, Jens
    Hangartner, Dominik
    [J]. SCIENCE, 2016, 354 (6309) : 217 - 222
  • [4] Barnes L, 2019, MEASURING ATTITUDES
  • [5] Partisanship and voting behavior, 1952-1996
    Bartels, LM
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 2000, 44 (01) : 35 - 50
  • [6] Blair G, 2019, AM POLIT SCI REV, V113, P838, DOI [10.1017/s0003055419000194, 10.1017/S0003055419000194]
  • [7] The Influence of Partisan Motivated Reasoning on Public Opinion
    Bolsen, Toby
    Druckman, James N.
    Cook, Fay Lomax
    [J]. POLITICAL BEHAVIOR, 2014, 36 (02) : 235 - 262
  • [8] Bonica A., 2015, Database on Ideology, Money in Politics, and Elections (DIME), pV3, DOI DOI 10.7910/DVN/O5PX0B
  • [9] Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate
    Bullock, John G.
    [J]. AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW, 2011, 105 (03) : 496 - 515
  • [10] Campbell A., 1960, The American Voter