Re: iid distribution problem

Posted by Bruce Weaver on Sep 18, 2011; 12:02am
URL: http://spssx-discussion.165.s1.nabble.com/iid-distribution-problem-tp4746052p4814999.html

Off-Topic

This comment is not about the statistics.  Rather, it is concerned with what conclusions one can draw from studies that have people read vignettes and then indicate how they would behave or respond in that situation.  Reading the quote below reminded me of B.F. Skinner's 1985 article "Cognitive Science and Behaviourism" (British J of Psychology, Vol 76, No. 3, pp. 291-301).  See point 3 in the abstract:

--- Abstract from Skinner (1985) ---
In this paper it is argued that cognitive scientists, claiming the support of brain science and computer simulation, have revived a traditional view that behaviour is initiated by an internal, autonomous mind. In doing so, they have (1) misused the metaphor of storage and retrieval, (2) given neurology a misleading assignment, (3) frequently replaced controlled experimental conditions with mere descriptions of conditions and the assessment of behaviour with statements of expectations and intentions, (4) given feelings and states of mind the status of causes of behaviour rather than the products of the causes, and (5) failed to define many key terms in dimensions acceptable to science.
--- End of abstract ---

It's been a while since I read the article, but as I recall, Skinner's point was that people's expectations and intentions about how they would act in a given situation often do not match their actual behaviour.  So if you want to know how people actually behave in some situation (rather than their expectations or intentions), you have to put them in the situation and observe.  Suppose Milgram had asked people how much shock they would administer to someone rather than putting them in the situation and observing, for example.  No doubt the results would have been dramatically different.  

  http://psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/a/milgram.htm

David Marso wrote

Quote from your link:
"Factorial surveys constitute a specific technique for introducing experimental designs in sample surveys. Respondents are presented with descriptions (vignettes) of a constructed world in which important factors are built in experimentally. Using balanced designs well known from the multivariate experimental tradition, it is possible to build in a relatively large number of factors and levels. Within this context, the normal hypothesis is that responses are consistent on the individual level, but not totally idiosyncratic. In the analysis, it is important to determine the influence of both the vignette and the respondent variables. Analysis models for this type of data should reflect the fact that factorial surveys produce data pertaining to two distinct levels: the individual level and the vignette level. Such models are available and are generally known as multilevel analysis models. This article discusses the properties of factorial survey designs and some analysis models that address the multilevel aspects of the data. An example is presented using data on judgments on the fairness of incomes."

So how does this relate to your question?
What is manipulated in the 16 vignettes?
What multilevel model are you proposing to fit to the data?
Have you bothered to research HLM?

drfg2008 wrote

According to the researcher this design is a Factorial Survey (Hox/Kreft/Hermkens: The Analysis of Factorial Surveys, 1991) [1] also known as Vignette Analysis. The statistical methodology suggested is a multilevel / hierarchical regression model (p.495, p.499).

Frank

[1]

http://smr.sagepub.com/content/19/4/493
DOI: 10.1177/0049124191019004003
Sociological Methods & Research 1991 19: 493
JOOP J. HOX, ITA G. G. KREFT and PIET L. J. HERMKENS