Premium
Comparing and Combining List and Endorsement Experiments: Evidence from Afghanistan
Author(s) -
Blair Graeme,
Imai Kosuke,
Lyall Jason
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
american journal of political science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.347
H-Index - 170
eISSN - 1540-5907
pISSN - 0092-5853
DOI - 10.1111/ajps.12086
Subject(s) - credibility , militant , external validity , test (biology) , psychology , multivariate statistics , empirical research , computer science , prejudice (legal term) , survey data collection , randomized experiment , social psychology , data science , econometrics , applied psychology , political science , statistics , machine learning , politics , economics , mathematics , law , paleontology , biology
List and endorsement experiments are becoming increasingly popular among social scientists as indirect survey techniques for sensitive questions. When studying issues such as racial prejudice and support for militant groups, these survey methodologies may improve the validity of measurements by reducing nonresponse and social desirability biases. We develop a statistical test and multivariate regression models for comparing and combining the results from list and endorsement experiments. We demonstrate that when carefully designed and analyzed, the two survey experiments can produce substantively similar empirical findings. Such agreement is shown to be possible even when these experiments are applied to one of the most challenging research environments: contemporary Afghanistan. We find that both experiments uncover similar patterns of support for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) among Pashtun respondents. Our findings suggest that multiple measurement strategies can enhance the credibility of empirical conclusions. Open‐source software is available for implementing the proposed methods.