Quadratic voting in the wild: real people, real votes
Quadratic voting in the wild: real people, real votes
复制标题
野外二次投票：真实的人，真实的选票
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Ellen Konar
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
David Quarfoot;Douglas von Kohorn;Kevin Slavin;R. Sutherland;D. Goldstein;Ellen Konar
自1932年推出以来，李克特和其他连续的独立评级量表已成为调查研究的事实工具集。学者们提出了显着的可靠性和有效性问题，这些类型的规模，和其他方法来捕捉的看法和偏好已经获得牵引力在特定领域。在本文中，我们评估了一种新的，广泛适用的方法，以二次投票（QV）的基础上的意见测量，在这种方法中，受访者表示偏好的“购买”投票的选项使用一个固定的预算，他们支付二次价格的选票。可比QV为基础的和Likert为基础的调查工具设计的集体决策引擎有限责任公司进行了实验评估，随机分配潜在的受访者的一种或另一种方法。使用一系列指标，包括受访者参与度和基于流程的指标，我们提供了一些初步证据，证明基于QV的工具比基于Likert的工具更清晰地衡量了最强烈动机的受访者的偏好。我们认为调查满意度的影响，调查研究的持续价值的一个关键威胁，并讨论了QV的机制，使自己从Likert为基础的规模，从而建立QV作为一个有前途的替代调查工具，政治和商业研究。我们还探讨了基于QV的调查中的关键设计问题，以扩展这些有希望的结果。
Since their introduction in 1932, Likert and other continuous, independent rating scales have become the de facto toolset for survey research. Scholars have raised significant reliability and validity problems with these types of scales, and alternative methods for capturing perceptions and preferences have gained traction within specific domains. In this paper, we evaluate a new, broadly applicable approach to opinion measurement based on quadratic voting (QV), a method in which respondents express preferences by ‘buying’ votes for options using a fixed budget from which they pay quadratic prices for votes. Comparable QV-based and Likert-based survey instruments designed by Collective Decision Engines LLC were evaluated experimentally by assigning potential respondents randomly to one or the other method. Using a host of metrics, including respondent engagement and process-based metrics, we provide some initial evidence that the QV-based instrument provides a clearer measure of the preferences of the most intensely motivated respondents than the Likert-based instrument does. We consider the implications for survey satisficing, a key threat to the continued value of survey research, and discuss the mechanisms by which QV differentiates itself from Likert-based scales, thus establishing QV as a promising alternative survey tool for political and commercial research. We also explore key design issues within QV-based surveys to extend these promising results.