Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments | Political Analysis | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Survey experiments are a core tool for causal inference. Yet, the design of classical survey experiments prevents them from identifying which components of a multidimensional treatment are influential. Here, we show how conjoint analysis, an experimental design yet to be widely applied in political science, enables researchers to estimate the causal effects of multiple treatment components and assess several causal hypotheses simultaneously. In conjoint analysis, respondents score a set of alternatives, where each has randomly varied attributes. Here, we undertake a formal identification analysis to integrate conjoint analysis with the potential outcomes framework for causal inference. We propose a new causal estimand and show that it can be nonparametrically identified and easily estimated from conjoint data using a fully randomized design. The analysis enables us to propose diagnostic checks for the identification assumptions. We then demonstrate the value of these techniques through empirical applications to voter decision making and attitudes toward immigrants.

References

Alexander, C. S., and Becker, H. J. 1978. The use of vignettes in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly 42(1): 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alves, W. M., and Rossi, P. H. 1978. Who should get what? Fairness judgments of the distribution of earnings. American Journal of Sociology 84(3): 541–64.Google Scholar

Barabas, J., and Jerit, J. 2010. Are survey experiments externally valid? American Political Science Review 104(2): 226–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bechtel, M., Hainmueller, J., and Margalit, Y. 2013. Studying public opinion on multidimensional policies: The case of the Eurozone bailouts. MIT Political Science Department Paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bechtel, M., and Scheve, K. 2013. Public support for global climate cooperation. Mimeo, Stanford University.Google Scholar

Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., and Lenz, G. S. 2012. Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis 20: 351–68.Google Scholar

Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., and Payne, J. W. 1998. Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research 25(3): 187–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brader, T., Valentino, N., and Suhay, E. 2008. Is it immigration or the immigrants? The emotional influence of groups on public opinion and political action. American Journal of Political Science 52(4): 959–78.Google Scholar

Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., and Stokes, D. E. 1960. The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Citrin, J., Green, D. P., Muste, C., and Wong, C. 1997. Public opinion toward immigration reform: The role of economic motivations. Journal of Politics 59(3): 858–81.Google Scholar

Cutler, F. 2002. The simplest shortcut of all: Sociodemographic characteristics and electoral choice. Journal of Politics 64(2): 466–90.Google Scholar

Diamond, P. A., and Hausman, J. A. 1994. Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(4): 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Faia, M. A. 1980. The vagaries of the vignette world: A comment on Alves and Rossi. American Journal of Sociology 85(4): 951–4.Google Scholar

Gaines, B. J., Kuklinski, J. H., and Quirk, P. J. 2007. The logic of the survey experiment re-examined. Political Analysis 15(1): 1–20.Google Scholar

Gerber, A. S., and Green, D. P. 2012. Field experiments: design, analysis, and interpretation. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar

Green, P. E., Krieger, A. M., and Wind, Y. J. 2001. Thirty years of conjoint analysis: Reflections and prospects. Interfaces 31: 56–73.Google Scholar

Green, D. P., Palmquist, B., and Schickler, E. 2002. Partisan hearts and minds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Green, P. E., and Rao, V. R. 1971. Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data. Journal of Marketing Research 8: 355–63.Google Scholar

Hainmueller, J., and Hiscox, M. J. 2010. Attitudes toward highly skilled and low-skilled immigration: Evidence from a survey experiment. American Political Science Review 104(1): 61–84.Google Scholar

Hainmueller, J., and Hopkins, D. J. 2012. The hidden American immigration consensus: A conjoint analysis of attitudes toward immigrants. SSRN Working Paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J., and Yamamoto, T. 2013. Replication data for: Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. hdl:1902.1/22603. The Dataverse Network.Google Scholar

Hauser, J. R. 2007. A note on conjoint analysis. MIT Sloan Courseware, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Hedström, P., and Ylikoski, P. 2010. Causal mechanisms in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology 36: 49–67.Google Scholar

Holland, P. W. 1986. Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association 81: 945–60.Google Scholar

Imai, K., Keele, L., Tingley, D., and Yamamoto, T. 2011. Unpacking the black box of causality: Learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational studies. American Political Science Review 105(4): 765–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jasso, G., and Rossi, P. H. 1977. Distributive justice and earned income. American Sociological Review 42(4): 639–51.Google Scholar

Luce, R. D., and Tukey, J. W. 1964. Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1(1): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Malhotra, N. K. 1982. Information load and consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research 8: 19–30.Google Scholar

McFadden, D. L. 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Frontiers in econometrics, ed. Zarembka, P., 105–42. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Mendelberg, T. 2001. The race card: Campaign strategy, implicit messages, and the norm of equality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Neyman, J. 1923. On the application of probability theory to agricultural experiments: Essay on principles, section 9. (translated in 1990). Statistical Science 5: 465–80.Google Scholar

Raghavarao, D., Wiley, J. B., and Chitturi, P. 2011. Choice-based conjoint analysis: Models and designs. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar

Rossi, P. H. 1979. Vignette analysis: Uncovering the normative structure of complex judgments. In Qualitative and Quantitative Social Research: Papers in Honor of Paul F. Lazarsfeld, eds. Merton, Robert K., et al. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Rossi, P. H., and Alves, W. M. 1980. Rejoinder to Faia. American Journal of Sociology 85(4): 954–5.Google Scholar

Rubin, D. B. 1974. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology 66(5): 688–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rubin, D. B. 1980. Comments on “Randomization analysis of experimental data: The Fisher randomization test” by D. Basu. Journal of the American Statistical Association 75: 591–93.Google Scholar

Scheve, K., and Slaughter, M. 2001. Labor market competition and individual preferences over immigration policy. Review of Economics and Statistics 83(1): 133–45.Google Scholar

Schildkraut, D. 2011. Americanism in the twenty-first century: Public opinion in the age of immigration. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schulte, A. 2002. Consensus versus disagreement in disease-related stigma: A comparison of reactions to AIDS and cancer patients. Sociological Perspectives 45(1): 81–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schuman, H., and Bobo, L. 1988. Survey-based experiments on white racial attitudes toward residential integration. American Journal of Sociology 94: 273–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sniderman, P. M. 2011. The logic and design of the survey experiment. In Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, eds. Druckman, James et al. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sniderman, P., and Carmines, E. 1997. Reaching beyond race. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Sniderman, P. M., and Grob, D. B. 1996. Innovations in experimental design in attitude surveys. Annual Review of Sociology 22: 377–99.Google Scholar

VanderWeele, T. J., and Robins, J. M. 2009. Minimal sufficient causation and directed acyclic graphs. Annals of Statistics 37(3): 1437–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Verlegh, P. W., Schifferstein, H. N., and Wittink, D. R. 2002. Range and number-of-levels effects in derived and stated measures of attribute importance. Marketing Letters 13(1): 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wallander, L. 2009. 25 years of factorial surveys in sociology: A review. Social Science Research 38: 505–20.Google Scholar

Wong, C. J. 2010. Boundaries of obligation in American politics: Geographic, national, and racial communities. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wright, M., and Citrin, J. 2011. Saved by the stars and stripes? Images of protest, salience of threat, and immigration attitudes. American Politics Research 39(2): 323–43.Google Scholar

Wright, M., Levy, M., and Citrin, J. 2013. Who should be allowed to stay? American public opinion on legal status for illegal immigrants. Working paper, American University.Google Scholar