ArticleThe journal of behavioral finance2018
Eliciting stock market expectations: The effects of question wording on survey experience and response validity.
Article in The journal of behavioral finance, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Measuring Subjective Probabilities: The Effect of Response Mode on the Use of Focal Responses, Validity, and Respondents' Evaluations.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Expectations about stock market movements are an important factor in models of investments and savings. To better understand consumers' financial behavior, economic surveys such as the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) ask participants to report expectations about the stock market. However, readability statistics suggest that the HRS' stock market expectations questions use relatively complex wording, which may contribute to their relatively high rates of missing responses. Here, we build on survey design research to improve the readability of these questions. In two experiments using national online panels, we test whether revising stock market expectation questions to reduce their difficulty affects respondents' 1) survey experience, as measured by percent of missing answers and ratings of question clarity and difficulty, and 2) response validity, as assessed by respondents' confidence in their answer and comparisons between expectations and stock market outcomes. In both studies, our revisions improve survey experience. Unfortunately, revisions also decreased the perceived (Study 1) and actual (Study 2) validity of responses. We discuss implications of question revisions for the design of economic surveys.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.