understanding society conference 25 july 2013 paul mathews knowledge, analysis and intelligence...
TRANSCRIPT
Understanding Society Conference25 July 2013
Paul Mathews
Knowledge, Analysis and Intelligence Directorate, HM Revenue and Customs Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Essex
Question ordering effects on the reporting of fertility intentions and close social networks
Question ordering - Context Effects
Change in the answers to a survey questionnaire as a function of the previous items in the questionnaire’ Tourangeau et al, 2003
Examples Context Effects
Vodka or beer questions influences rating to how ‘Germanic’ is wine drinking? (Schwarz, Munkel and Hippler, 1990)
Life Satisfaction preceding Marriage Satisfaction r = 0.32, Marriage satisfaction preceding Life Satisfaction r = 0.67 (Schwarz, Strack and Mai 1991)
Frequency of Context Effects General Social Survey (US) batteries of questions rotated. Only
4% of questions effected by placement (Smith, 1988) Needs to be a conceptual link
Question ordering - Context Effects
Question priming bias as domain sampling
Particularly in multipurpose longitudinal research (Time series - Change over time? Changes in preceding questions?)
Plausible risk
Why are fertility intentions important?
5
6
7
“The changing face of London: A baby boom is sending the city’s planners back to the drawing board”
The Economist 28th Jan 2012
“By 2015-16 greater London will need around 70,000 more school places”
Measurement problems…
Uncertainty / ambivalence
Context dependent… Preferences change over time
Age, ageing, life course, cohort, period Is there a ‘correct’ age to measure FP?
Experience of children Partnership and partner’s preferences Competing preferences
economic, cultural, leisure etc…
Because fertility preferences are so context dependent, then will the context in the questionnaire matter i.e. preceding questions?
10
11
Millennium Cohort Study – Wave 1
“How long did the labour last?” “Which, if any, of the following
types of pain relief did you have at any time during labour?”
Before asking “Do you plan to
have any more children?”
Social networks
Numerous concepts and operationalisations Flows through social networks Social capital Strength of weak ties Relatedness
At risk of context effects? E.g. prime a domain such as ‘work’ or ‘family’… does this influence who is ‘in’ your social network
My empirical work
Mortality experiments
Randomised (systematically identical) groups. o Treatments: priming questions then fertility questionso Controls: fertility questions then priming questions
Adult (own) mortality priming questions • 11 Questions• “What age do you expect to be when you die?”
Data collected 2006 and 2008-09 Published - Mathews and Sear 2008
Students internet experiment
Results: Significant increase in MALE ideal numbers of children. No effect for females •
15
Why?
Not mutually exclusive… Fatigue? Negative mood? Old age support (in adult prime)? First item in battery of fertility preferences? (DHS ideal
question) Own mortality is a ‘shock’ to non-decision decision?
(Competing preferences, cultural output and sociological modernity)
Social Psychological - Terror Management Theory (TMT) social immortality?
Evolutionary biology – Life History Theory (perceived risky environment should alter reproductive strategy)?
Sheer chance?!• Replication
Innovation Panel experiment
Waves 4 and 5 of Innovation Panel sub sample of 1,500 households - NOT STUDENTS!
Randomisation at household level
Controls Wave 4: Experiment after mental wellbeing
“I've been able to make up my own mind about things”
5 point scale: [All of the time – None of the time] Wave 5: Experiment after GHQ
“Have you recently been feeling reasonably happy, all things considered?”
4 point scale 1 More so than usual 4 Much less than usual
Two question ordering ‘treatments’
Fertility Intentions: “Do you think you will have any (more) children?”
[1 Yes, 2 Self / partner currently pregnant, 3 No] if the answer is yes “How many (more) children do you
think you will have?”
Close social network (i.e. 3 closest friends) ‘Please choose the three people you consider to be your
closest friends... They should not include people who live with you but they can include relatives’
Sex, Age, relatedness, frequency of contact, how far away they live etc
‘Is this friend a relative?’ [ 1 Yes, 2 No]
19
Descriptive statistics
Observations 696 Wave 4 N=409, Wave 5 N=287
223 individuals measured twice (27 changed their minds on wanting children)
Background demographics remain very similar across waves - Male 60%, Age mean 37.5 (SD 13.4) median 39 (split dummies in model), Parents 48%, Employed 72% (11% full time students), Married 45%, Lives with a parent 22%, sibling 14%.
Fertility intentions27 close social
network questions
(Nine questions for three
friends)
Fertility intentions questions
wave 4 ‘Make mind’ or wave 5
‘happiness’
(No social network
questions)
Social network
Close social network questions
1 or 2 fertility intentions questions
wave 4 ‘Make mind’ or wave 5 ‘happiness’
(No fertility intentions questions)
Results – Fertility intentions
All participants - reporting expecting
a(nother) child
Just unmarried participants - same
Wave 4 Wave 5 Wave 4 Wave 5
Treatment –preceding close social network
34.4% 50%
Control 1 – make mind up question
27.0% 37.1%
Control 2 – general happiness question
/ /
Number of participants
409 225
P-value of a t-test between control and treatment within the wave (Note: without Bonferoni correction)
0.052 0.03
Results – Fertility intentions
All participants - reporting expecting
a(nother) child
Just unmarried participants - same
Wave 4 Wave 5 Wave 4 Wave 5
Treatment –preceding close social network
34.4% 32.7% 50% 48.8%
Control 1 – make mind up question
27.0% / 37.1% /
Control 2 – general happiness question
/ 33.6% / 47.4%
Number of participants
409 287 225 160
P-value of a t-test between control and treatment within the wave (Note: without Bonferoni correction)
0.052 0.44 0.03 0.43
Results – Fertility intentions
All participants - reporting expecting
a(nother) child
Just unmarried participants - same
Wave 4 Wave 5 Wave 4 Wave 5
Treatment –preceding close social network
34.4% 32.7% 50% 48.8%
Control 1 – make mind up question
27.0% / 37.1% /
Control 2 – general happiness question
/ 33.6% / 47.4%
Number of participants
409 287 225 160
P-value of a t-test between control and treatment within the wave (Note: without Bonferoni correction)
0.052 0.44 0.03 0.43
Results – Social network
All participants - reporting a relative in their close social
network
Wave 4 Wave 5
Treatment –preceding fertility intentions question
31.4% 26.5%
Control 1 – make mind up question
29% /
Control 2 – general happiness question
/ 25%
Number of participants 409 287
P-value of a t-test between control and treatment within the wave (Note: without Bonferoni correction)
0.30 0.38
Conclusions
Fertility intentions at risk of preceding questions Plausible risk...
Little evidence relatedness (or any other characteristics) of their close social network at risk of preceding questions
Important to construct and read questionnaires as a whole
Repeated measures: Replication, replication, replication
Acknowledgements
Participants in all studies
Maria Iacovou, University of Essex
Rebecca Sear, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Ernestina Coast London School of Economics and Political Science
UK Economic and Research Council for funding
UKHLS Methodological Advisory Committee for accepting proposal
ISER and HMRC secondment
*Advert* - HM Revenue & Customs Datalab
• Compliance• Corporation tax• Self assessment• Value added tax• Stamp duty land tax• Trade statistics • Tax credits • Tobacco
• Variable names and descriptions are available on our website:
• www.hmrc.gov.uk/datalab/data.htm
Conclusions
Fertility intentions at risk of preceding questions Plausible risk...
Little evidence relatedness (or any other characteristics) of their close social network at risk of preceding questions
Important to construct and read questionnaires as a whole
Repeated measures: Replication, replication, replication