We
all feel happier in the sun, well most of us anyway. And it’s no stretch of the
imagination to imagine that we change our behavior when we are happy. We might
go outside more, we may talk more, probably sunbathe more. It also seems,
according to paper by Guéguen and Jacob [1], that we are more likely to respond to requests
for an interview when it is sunny. They tested the hypothesis that respondents
would be more likely to comply with a request for a face to face survey when it
was sunny rather than when it was cloudy. They controlled for outside temperature
and interviewer gender, and found that they had more completed interviews when
it was sunny. They did also note that male respondents were more likely to
complete surveys when the interviewer was female, but there were no other
interactions. Of course this was a personal intercept situation, not a web
survey. It may be that the interviewers are happier being outside in sunny
weather and this made their invitations to take a survey more attractive. Either way, weather had an effect on
respondents’ co-operation. It would be interesting to see the variability of
responses to web surveys with relation to the weather. I can make a guess that
being stuck indoors on a beautiful day may not help your recall of shampoo
products used in the last few months.
The
sun is a good example of an environmental influence on respondent behavior. There
is also our genetic make up that can also influence how we behave. I found the
paper by Hatemi and McDermott [2] on “The genetics of politics: discovery,
challenges, and progress” utterly fascinating. Geneticists have developed
analytical techniques to parse out what part of a behavior is genetically
derived, environmentally derived or “unique” environmentally derived. It is all
based on identical twins, meaning that they genetic material is exactly the
same in two individuals. Using some fancy statistics they can get indications
as to how much a behavior may be hereditary (genetic), derived from the general
experience of the person or from their unique experience as an individual Hatemi
and McDermott [2] collated studies on political attitudes from twin and kinship
studies over a period of some 30 years. According to them “political knowledge
and sophistication” is nearly 60% determined by genetics. On the other hand “political
party affiliation” is less than 5% determined by genetics. “Participation and
voter turnout” is over 40% determined by genetics. It’s seems our politics grow
outside the womb.
The
Hatemi and McDermott [2] reviewed studies all dealing with politically oriented
characteristics. A more survey interview oriented study that used twins by
Littvay, Popa and Fazekas [3] attempted to validate measures of survey response
propensity. There is always the question that non-responders may not be the
same as responders in characteristics that the survey wants to measure.
Non-responders represent a possible bias, they can be fundamentally different
from responders. As part of their study
of propensity variables Littvay et al [3] identified as part of a larger study
a number of monozygotic (identical) and dizygotic (non-identical twins). The
idea was to see if genetic variability was related to the validity of measures
used for propensity scoring. An interesting fact is that twins, of any kind,
have a tendency to respond to surveys more. Littvay et al [3] found a couple of interesting effects. First non-response in a panel or follow-up situation seems
to be highly heritable, that is there is a strong genetic component to it.
Secondly non-response to requests for information about close friends or the
respondents’ social security number is mediated by environmental influences
rather than genetic influences.
As
usual, why respondents respond or don’t respond is complicated. Some people just
don’t like answering survey questions, it’s a genetic thing. It does seem that
if you want to ask a respondent about their friends though, pick a sunny day…..
1[1] Nicolas
Guéguen, Céline Jacob. 2014. “‘Here
comes the sun’: Evidence of the Effect of the Weather Conditions on Compliance
to a Survey Request “. Survey Practice, Vol 7, #5.
2[2] Peter K.
Hatemi, Rose McDermott. 2012. “The genetics of politics: discovery, challenges,
and progress”. Trends in Genetics, Vol. 28, Issue 10, p525–533.
3[3] Levente
Littvay, Sebastian Adrian Popa, Zoltán Fazekas, 2013. “Validity of Survey
Response Propensity Indicators: A Behavior Genetics Approach”. Social Science Quarterly, Vol 94, Issue 2, p569-589.
No comments:
Post a Comment