• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

在互联网调查中引出主观概率

Eliciting Subjective Probabilities in Internet Surveys.

作者信息

Delavande Adeline, Rohwedder Susann

机构信息

RAND and Universidade Nova de Lisboa, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138, Tel 310-393-0411, ext 6593, Fax 310-260-8176,

出版信息

Public Opin Q. 2008 Dec 1;72(5):866-891. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfn062.

DOI:10.1093/poq/nfn062
PMID:20862271
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2942770/
Abstract

Individuals' subjective expectations are important in explaining heterogeneity in individual choices, but their elicitation poses some challenges, in particular when one is interested in the subjective probability distribution of an individual. We have developed an innovative visual representation for Internet surveys that has some advantages over previously used formats. In this paper we present our findings from testing this visual representation in the context of individuals' Social Security expectations. Respondents are asked to allocate a total of 20 balls across seven bins to express what they believe the chances to be that their future Social Security benefits would fall into any one of those bins. Our data come from the Internet Survey of respondents to the Health and Retirement Study, a representative survey of the U.S. population age 51 and older. To contrast the results from the visual format with a previously used format we divided the sample into two random groups and administered both, the visual format and the more standard percent chance format. Our findings suggest that the main advantage of the visual format is that it generates usable answers for virtually all respondents in the sample while in the percent chance format a significant fraction (about 20 percent) of responses is lost due to inconsistencies. Across various other dimensions the visual format performs similarly to the percent chance format, leading us to conclude that the bins-and-balls format is a viable alternative that leads to more complete data.

摘要

个人的主观期望在解释个体选择的异质性方面很重要,但获取这些期望存在一些挑战,尤其是当人们对个体的主观概率分布感兴趣时。我们为网络调查开发了一种创新的视觉呈现方式,它比以前使用的格式具有一些优势。在本文中,我们展示了在个人对社会保障的期望背景下测试这种视觉呈现方式的结果。受访者被要求在七个箱子中总共分配20个球,以表达他们认为未来社会保障福利落入其中任何一个箱子的可能性。我们的数据来自对健康与退休研究的受访者进行的网络调查,该研究是对美国51岁及以上人群的代表性调查。为了将视觉格式的结果与以前使用的格式进行对比,我们将样本随机分为两组,并同时采用视觉格式和更标准的百分比概率格式进行调查。我们的研究结果表明,视觉格式的主要优点是它几乎能为样本中的所有受访者生成可用答案,而在百分比概率格式中,由于不一致性,相当一部分(约20%)的回答丢失了。在其他各个方面,视觉格式的表现与百分比概率格式相似,这使我们得出结论,箱子和球的格式是一种可行的替代方案,能产生更完整的数据。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d102/2942770/97ed42bee5b6/nihms205475f3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d102/2942770/8a0fdadea7cd/nihms205475f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d102/2942770/21b90f624367/nihms205475f2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d102/2942770/97ed42bee5b6/nihms205475f3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d102/2942770/8a0fdadea7cd/nihms205475f1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d102/2942770/21b90f624367/nihms205475f2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d102/2942770/97ed42bee5b6/nihms205475f3.jpg

相似文献

1
Eliciting Subjective Probabilities in Internet Surveys.在互联网调查中引出主观概率
Public Opin Q. 2008 Dec 1;72(5):866-891. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfn062.
2
Individuals' Uncertainty about Future Social Security Benefits and Portfolio Choice.个人对未来社会保障福利的不确定性与投资组合选择。
J Appl Econ (Chichester Engl). 2011;26(3):498-519. doi: 10.1002/jae.1235.
3
Lifetime earnings patterns, the distribution of future Social Security benefits, and the impact of pension reform.终身收入模式、未来社会保障福利的分配以及养老金改革的影响。
Soc Secur Bull. 2000;63(4):74-98.
4
Qualitative Study定性研究
5
Retirement and wealth.退休与财富。
Soc Secur Bull. 2001;64(2):66-91. doi: 10.3386/w8229.
6
Rational expectations? An explorative study of subjective survival probabilities and lifestyle across Europe.理性预期?一项关于欧洲主观生存概率和生活方式的探索性研究。
Health Expect. 2016 Feb;19(1):121-37. doi: 10.1111/hex.12335. Epub 2015 Jan 19.
7
Predicting polytomous career choices in healthcare using probabilistic expectations data.使用概率期望数据预测医疗保健中的多项职业选择。
Health Econ. 2021 Mar;30(3):544-563. doi: 10.1002/hec.4209. Epub 2020 Dec 17.
8
Response formats and satisfaction surveys for elders.针对老年人的回应格式及满意度调查。
Gerontologist. 2004 Jun;44(3):358-67. doi: 10.1093/geront/44.3.358.
9
Touching beliefs: Using touchscreen technology to elicit subjective expectations in survey research.触碰信仰:利用触屏科技在调查研究中引出主观期望。
PLoS One. 2018 Nov 20;13(11):e0207484. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207484. eCollection 2018.
10
A short note on measuring subjective life expectancy: survival probabilities versus point estimates.关于测量主观预期寿命的简短说明:生存概率与点估计值。
Eur J Health Econ. 2017 Jan;18(1):7-12. doi: 10.1007/s10198-015-0754-1. Epub 2016 Jan 9.

引用本文的文献

1
Discounting Future Reward in an Uncertain World.在一个不确定的世界中对未来奖励进行贴现。
Decision (Wash D C ). 2024 Apr;11(2):255-282. doi: 10.1037/dec0000219. Epub 2023 Jun 29.
2
Understanding Joint Retirement.了解联合退休。
J Econ Behav Organ. 2020 May;173:386-401. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2019.07.013. Epub 2019 Jul 29.
3
Changes in Spending and Labor Supply in Response to a Social Security Benefit Cut: Evidence from Stated Choice Data.应对社会保障福利削减的支出与劳动力供给变化:来自陈述性选择数据的证据

本文引用的文献

1
Subjective mortality risk and bequests.主观死亡风险与遗产
J Econom. 2015 Oct;188(2):514-525. doi: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2015.03.015. Epub 2015 May 1.
2
Subjective Probabilities in Household Surveys.家庭调查中的主观概率
Annu Rev Econom. 2009 Jun 1;1:543-562. doi: 10.1146/annurev.economics.050708.142955.
3
Rounding Probabilistic Expectations in Surveys.调查中的概率期望四舍五入
J Econ Ageing. 2017 Dec;10:34-50. doi: 10.1016/j.jeoa.2017.09.001. Epub 2017 Sep 6.
4
Does Financial Literacy Contribute to Food Security?金融知识水平对粮食安全有贡献吗?
Int J Food Agric Econ. 2016 Jan;4(1):1-19.
5
Dimensions of Subjective Well-Being.主观幸福感的维度
Soc Indic Res. 2015;123(3):625-660. doi: 10.1007/s11205-014-0753-0. Epub 2014 Sep 13.
6
Questions for Surveys: Current Trends and Future Directions.调查问题:当前趋势与未来方向。
Public Opin Q. 2011 Dec;75(5):909-961. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfr048.
7
Probabilistic Polling And Voting In The 2008 Presidential Election: Evidence From The American Life Panel.2008年总统选举中的概率性民意调查与投票:来自美国生活面板的证据
Public Opin Q. 2010 Fall;74(3):433-459. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfq019.
8
Individuals' Uncertainty about Future Social Security Benefits and Portfolio Choice.个人对未来社会保障福利的不确定性与投资组合选择。
J Appl Econ (Chichester Engl). 2011;26(3):498-519. doi: 10.1002/jae.1235.
9
What Explains the Gender Gap in Financial Literacy? The Role of Household Decision Making.如何解释金融知识方面的性别差异?家庭决策的作用。
J Consum Aff. 2012 Spring;46(1):90-106. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6606.2011.01221.x.
10
Measuring risk perceptions: what does the excessive use of 50% mean?衡量风险认知:过度使用 50%意味着什么?
Med Decis Making. 2012 Mar-Apr;32(2):232-6. doi: 10.1177/0272989X11404077. Epub 2011 Apr 26.
J Bus Econ Stat. 2010 Apr 1;28(2):219-231. doi: 10.1198/jbes.2009.08098.
4
What number is "fifty-fifty"?: redistributing excessive 50% responses in elicited probabilities.“五五开”是多少?:在引出的概率中重新分配过多的50%的回答。
Risk Anal. 2002 Aug;22(4):713-23. doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.00063.
5
Teen expectations for significant life events.青少年对重大人生事件的期望。
Public Opin Q. 2000 Summer;64(2):189-205. doi: 10.1086/317762.
6
Verbal and Numerical Expressions of Probability: "It's a Fifty-Fifty Chance".概率的文字和数值表达:“五五开的机会”
Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2000 Jan;81(1):115-131. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1999.2868.