All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Ideas, Analogical Reasoning and International Trade Attitudes: Evidence from a Survey Experiment
Unformatted Document Text:  thresholds are deliberately arbitrary, as it is impossible to observe here just how much attention people paid to the messages. In general, however, it seems reasonable to assume that the more time spent on the screen, the more likely it is that the respondent read the treatment in full and considered its implications before providing an answer. Unfortunately, this dynamic in the data makes the effects of the treatments hard to interpret, as receipt of the message was not randomly varied across respondents as one would like in an experiment. Any “treatment” effects among those who did choose to receive the message should therefore be interpreted with care, because receipt of the message involves a choice on their part upon encountering it. To examine this issue in more detail, Table B in Appendix 1 shows the same benchmark regressions, but this time with treatment groups defined by how long they spent on the screens in question. Thus, the first model includes all respondents who spent at least 5 seconds on whichever screen they encountered, control or treatment. The second, third and fourth columns include respondents from the control group who spent at least 5 seconds on the screen, plus those in each of the treatment groups who spent at least 30, 45 and 60 seconds respectively on their question screens with the treatments; it excludes from the analysis any respondents in the treatment groups that did not spend the designated amount of time in each model. As noted, these estimates should be interpreted with care, as there are likely selection effects associated with the decision to spend longer on the screens. The results from Table B suggest that all of the treatments were ineffective, with the possible exception of the Tiger Woods treatment among men who spent 45 seconds or more on the screen with it. 18

Authors: David, Lynch.
first   previous   Page 20 of 37   next   last



background image
thresholds are deliberately arbitrary, as it is impossible to observe here just how much
attention people paid to the messages. In general, however, it seems reasonable to assume
that the more time spent on the screen, the more likely it is that the respondent read the
treatment in full and considered its implications before providing an answer.
Unfortunately, this dynamic in the data makes the effects of the treatments hard to
interpret, as receipt of the message was not randomly varied across respondents as one
would like in an experiment. Any “treatment” effects among those who did choose to
receive the message should therefore be interpreted with care, because receipt of the
message involves a choice on their part upon encountering it.
To examine this issue in more detail, Table B in Appendix 1 shows the same benchmark
regressions, but this time with treatment groups defined by how long they spent on the
screens in question. Thus, the first model includes all respondents who spent at least 5
seconds on whichever screen they encountered, control or treatment. The second, third
and fourth columns include respondents from the control group who spent at least 5
seconds on the screen, plus those in each of the treatment groups who spent at least 30,
45 and 60 seconds respectively on their question screens with the treatments; it excludes
from the analysis any respondents in the treatment groups that did not spend the
designated amount of time in each model. As noted, these estimates should be interpreted
with care, as there are likely selection effects associated with the decision to spend longer
on the screens. The results from Table B suggest that all of the treatments were
ineffective, with the possible exception of the Tiger Woods treatment among men who
spent 45 seconds or more on the screen with it.
18


Convention
Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 20 of 37   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.