Difference between revisions of "Stated preferences do not align with revealed preferences"
Paul Herring (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Fancy way of saying that you cannot necessarily believe what people say they think in a survey. For example, in a survey on giving more money to charity, people are more like...") |
Paul Herring (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
For example, in a survey on giving more money to charity, people are more likely to express the opinion that of course they'd give more to charity if X, Y or Z were to happen. However it is unlikely that everyone expressing that opinion would, in fact, give more money to charity when Y eventually does happen. | For example, in a survey on giving more money to charity, people are more likely to express the opinion that of course they'd give more to charity if X, Y or Z were to happen. However it is unlikely that everyone expressing that opinion would, in fact, give more money to charity when Y eventually does happen. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Another would be "how much do you drink" or "would you like to drink less" would receive answers the person being questioned thinks would paint them in a better light, rather than what a 'truer' answer would be. | ||
To give a concrete example, [[Wakefield, Hayes, Durkin, and Borland (2013)]], has been used by [[tobacco control]] as justification that [[plain packaging]] was a success in Australia because people ''thought'' about quitting more when smoking cigarettes in [[plain packaging]]. Unfortunately no-one thought to follow up these thoughtful people to find out if they actually had given up. | To give a concrete example, [[Wakefield, Hayes, Durkin, and Borland (2013)]], has been used by [[tobacco control]] as justification that [[plain packaging]] was a success in Australia because people ''thought'' about quitting more when smoking cigarettes in [[plain packaging]]. Unfortunately no-one thought to follow up these thoughtful people to find out if they actually had given up. | ||
Revision as of 12:57, 9 December 2016
Fancy way of saying that you cannot necessarily believe what people say they think in a survey.
For example, in a survey on giving more money to charity, people are more likely to express the opinion that of course they'd give more to charity if X, Y or Z were to happen. However it is unlikely that everyone expressing that opinion would, in fact, give more money to charity when Y eventually does happen.
Another would be "how much do you drink" or "would you like to drink less" would receive answers the person being questioned thinks would paint them in a better light, rather than what a 'truer' answer would be.
To give a concrete example, Wakefield, Hayes, Durkin, and Borland (2013), has been used by tobacco control as justification that plain packaging was a success in Australia because people thought about quitting more when smoking cigarettes in plain packaging. Unfortunately no-one thought to follow up these thoughtful people to find out if they actually had given up.