If You Provide It, Will They Read It? Response Time Effects in a Choice Experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Substantial effort is expended in the design of surveys, including the amount and type of information they contain. However, we often do not know how involved respondents are in reading and processing the informational content of a survey and making choices, and whether different levels of involvement result in systematic differences in estimated models. To address this issue, we recorded response times for each respondent of an internet‐based choice experiment for stream restoration. Response times per survey section and for the entire survey were used as proxies for the amount of involvement in reading information provided or answering choice questions. Response times per survey section fell rapidly, possibly signaling learning, use of heuristics, or attempts to quickly dispel with the survey. Response times were found to be independent of demographics and attitudes. Log‐likelihood ratio tests failed to reject the null hypotheses of equal coefficients and scale parameters across response time‐partitioned data. However, there exists an association between response times and the increasing learning curve or difficult choice trade‐offs, suggesting a heuristic response. Additional research on response time effects and survey design is needed, especially with the rise in electronic surveying media. D'énormes efforts sont investis dans la conception de sondages, notamment pour déterminer la quantité et le type d'information présentée. Toutefois, nous ne savons pas combien de temps les répondants consacrent à la lecture et au traitement de cette information et au choix des réponses, ni si les divers degrés de participation entraînent ou non des différences systématiques dans les modèles estimés. Pour s'attaquer à cette question, nous avons chronométré les personnes qui ont répondu à un sondage en ligne sur la restauration des cours d'eau. Nous avons utilisé le temps de réponse pour chaque section et pour le sondage au complet comme mesure approximative de l'effort des participants pour lire l'information et répondre aux questions. Pour chaque section, le temps de réponse diminuait rapidement, soit en raison des connaissances heuristiques des répondants, soit en raison de leur désir d'effectuer le sondage le plus rapidement possible. Le temps de réponse s'est révélé indépendant des caractéristiques démographiques et des attitudes des répondants. Des tests du rapport de vraisemblance n'ont pas rejeté les hypothèses nulles de coefficients égaux et de paramètres d'échelle de l'ensemble des données cloisonnées. Toutefois, il existe un lien entre le temps de réponse et la courbe d'apprentissage croissante ou la difficulté des choix, ce qui laisse supposer une réponse heuristique. Il faudrait effectuer davantage de recherche sur les effets du temps consacré pour répondre à un sondage et pour le concevoir, en raison du nombre croissant de sondages en ligne.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.074 | 0.140 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".