[Ajzen, Icek. 1991. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(2): 179–211.10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T]Search in Google Scholar
[Ajzen, Icek, Thomas C. Brown, and Franklin Carvajal. 2004. Explaining the Discrepancy Between Intentions and Actions: The Case of Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30(9): 1108–1121.10.1177/0146167204264079]Search in Google Scholar
[Alexander, Cheryl S., and Henry Jay Becker. 1978. The Use of Vignettes in Survey Research. Public Opinion Quarterly 42(1): 94–104.10.1086/268432]Search in Google Scholar
[Armacost, Robert L., Jamshid C. Hosseini, Sara A. Morris, and Kathleen A. Rehbein. 1991. An Empirical Comparison of Direct Questioning, Scenario, and Randomized Response Methods for Obtaining Sensitive Business Information. Decision Sciences 22(5): 1073–1099.10.1111/j.1540-5915.1991.tb01907.x]Search in Google Scholar
[Auspurg, Karin, and Thomas Hinz. 2015. Factorial Survey Experiments. London / Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.10.4135/9781483398075]Search in Google Scholar
[Auspurg, Katrin, Thomas Hinz, and Stefan Liebig. 2009. Komplexität von Vignetten, Lerneffekte und Plausibilität im Faktoriellen Survey. Methoden – Daten – Analysen 3(1): 59–96.]Search in Google Scholar
[Auspurg, Katrin, Thomas Hinz, Stefan Liebig, and Carsten Sauer. 2015. The Factorial Survey as a Method for Measuring Sensitive Issues. Pp. 137–150 in Improving Survey Methods: Lessons from Recent Research, edited by Uwe Engel, Ben Jann, Peter Lynn, Annette Scherpenzeel, and Patrick Sturgis. New York / Hove: Routledge.]Search in Google Scholar
[Auspurg, Katrin, and Annette Jäckle. 2017. First Equals Most Important? Order Effects in Vignette-Based Measurement. Sociological Methods and Research 46(3): 490–539.10.1177/0049124115591016]Search in Google Scholar
[Becker, Rolf. 2000. Klassenlage und Bildungsentscheidungen. Eine empirische Anwendung der Wert-Erwartungstheorie. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 52(3): 450–474.10.1007/s11577-000-0068-9]Search in Google Scholar
[Becker, Rolf, and Anna Etta Hecken. 2009. Higher Education or Vocational Training? An Empirical Test of the Rational Action Model of Educational Choices Suggested by Breen and Goldthorpe and Esser. Acta Sociologica 52(1): 25–45.10.1177/0001699308100632]Search in Google Scholar
[Becker, Rolf, and Heike Solga (eds.). 2012. Soziologische Bildungsforschung. Sonderheft 52 der Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.10.1007/978-3-658-00120-9]Search in Google Scholar
[Berk, Richard A., Bruce Western, and Robert E. Weiss. 1995. Statistical Inference for Apparent Populations. Sociological Methodology 25: 421–458.10.2307/271073]Search in Google Scholar
[Boudon, Raymond. 1974. Education, Opportunity, and Social Inequality. Changing Prospects in Western Societies. New York: Wiley & Sons.]Search in Google Scholar
[Breen, Richard, and John H. Goldthorpe. 1997. Explaining Educational Differentials. Towards a Formal Rational Action Theory. Rationality and Society 9(3): 275–305.10.1177/104346397009003002]Search in Google Scholar
[Brüderl, Josef. 2004. Die Überprüfung von Rational-Choice-Modellen mit Umfragedaten. Pp. 163–180 in Rational-Choice Theorie in den Sozialwissenschaften. Anwendungen und Probleme, edited by Andreas Diekmann, and Thomas Voss. München: Oldenbourg Verlag.]Search in Google Scholar
[Brüderl, Josef, and Volker Ludwig. 2015. Fixed-Effects Panel Regression. Pp. 327–359 in The SAGE Handbook of Regression Analysis and Causal Inference, edited by Henning Best, and Christof Wolf. London et al.: Sage.10.4135/9781446288146.n15]Search in Google Scholar
[Buskens, Vincent, Werner Raub, and Marcel A.L.M. van Assen. 2014. Micro-Macro Links and Micro-foundations in Sociology. London / New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315871936]Search in Google Scholar
[Campbell, Donald T. 1957. Factors Relevant to the Validity of Experiments in Social Settings. Psychological Bulletin 54(4): 297–312.10.1037/h0040950]Search in Google Scholar
[Campbell, Donald T. and Julian C. Stanley. 1963. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand-McNally.]Search in Google Scholar
[Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.]Search in Google Scholar
[Coleman, James S. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Collett, Jessica L., and Ellen Childs. 2011. Minding the Gap: Meaning, Affect, and the Potential Shortcomings of Vignettes. Social Science Research 40(2): 513–522.10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.08.008]Search in Google Scholar
[Cook, Thomas D. 2001. Sciencephobia. Why Education Rejects Randomized Experiments. Education Next 1(3): 63–68.]Search in Google Scholar
[Dafoe, Allan, Baobao Zhan, and Devin Caughey. 2018. Information Equivalence in Survey Experiments. Political Analysis 26(4): 399–416.10.1017/pan.2018.9]Search in Google Scholar
[Daniel, Annabell, Martin Neugebauer, and Rainer Watermann. 2019. Studienabbruch und Einstellungschancen auf dem Ausbildungsmarkt. Ein faktorieller Survey mit Arbeitgeber/innen. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 22: 1147–1174.10.1007/s11618-019-00905-0]Search in Google Scholar
[De Leeuw, Edith D. 2005. To Mix or Not to Mix Data Collection Modes in Surveys. Journal of Official Statistics 21(2): 233–255.]Search in Google Scholar
[De Wolf, Inge and Rolf Van Der Velden. 2001. Selection Processes for Three Types of Academic Jobs. An Experiment among Dutch Employers of Social Sciences Graduates. European Sociological Review 17(3): 317–330.10.1093/esr/17.3.317]Search in Google Scholar
[Di Stasio, Valentina. 2014. Education as a Signal of Trainability: Results from a Vignette Study with Italian Employers. European Sociological Review 30(6): 796–809.10.1093/esr/jcu074]Search in Google Scholar
[Dülmer, Hermann. 2007. Experimental Plans in Factorial Surveys: Random or Quota Design? Sociological Methods and Research 35(3): 382–409.10.1177/0049124106292367]Search in Google Scholar
[Dülmer, Hermann. 2016. The Factorial Survey. Design Selection and its Impact on Reliability and Internal Validity. Sociological Methods and Research 45(2): 304–347.10.1177/0049124115582269]Search in Google Scholar
[Dunning, Thad. 2012. Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences. A Design-Based Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139084444]Search in Google Scholar
[Düval, Sabine and Thomas Hinz. 2020. Different Order, Different Results? The Effects of Dimension Order in Factorial Survey Experiments. Field Methods 32(1): 23–37.10.1177/1525822X19886827]Search in Google Scholar
[Edgington, Eugene. 1966. Statistical Inference and Nonrandom Samples. Psychological Bulletin 66(6): 485–487.10.1037/h0023916]Search in Google Scholar
[Eifler, Stefanie, and Knut Petzold. 2019. Validity Aspects of Vignette Experiments: Expected What-If Differences Between Reports of Behavioral Intentions and Actual Behavior. Pp. 393–416 in Experimental Methods in Survey Research: Techniques that Combine Random Sampling with Random Assignment, edited by Paul Lavrakas, Michael Traugott, Courtney Kennedy, Allyson Holbrook, Edith de Leeuw, and Brady West. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9781119083771.ch20]Search in Google Scholar
[Elwert, Felix, and Christopher Winship. 2014. Endogenous Selection Bias: The Problem of Conditioning on a Collider Variable. Annual Review of Sociology 40: 31–53.10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043455]Search in Google Scholar
[Erikson, Robert, and Jan O. Jonsson. 1996. Explaining Class Inequality in Education: The Swedish Test Case. Pp. 1–63 in Can Education Be Equalized? edited by Robert Erikson, and Jan O. Jonsson. Boulder: Westview Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Erlinghagen, Marcel and Karsten Hank. 2018. Neue Sozialstrukturanalyse. Ein Kompass für Studienanfänger. 2. Auflage. Stuttgart: UTB.10.36198/9783838549804]Search in Google Scholar
[Esser, Hartmut. 1996. What is Wrong With “Variable Sociology”? European Sociological Review 12(2): 159–166.10.1093/oxfordjournals.esr.a018183]Search in Google Scholar
[Esser, Hartmut. 1999. Soziologie. Spezielle Grundlagen. Band 1: Situationslogik und Handeln. Frankfurt a.M. / New York: Campus Verlag.]Search in Google Scholar
[Finch, Janet. 1987. The Vignette Technique in Survey Research. Sociology 21(1): 105–114.10.1177/0038038587021001008]Search in Google Scholar
[Finger, Claudia. 2016. Institutional Constraints and the Translation of College Aspirations into Intentions–Evidence from a Factorial Survey. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 46: 112–128.10.1016/j.rssm.2016.08.001]Search in Google Scholar
[Friedman, Daniel, and Alessandra Cassar. 2004. Economics Lab. An Intensive Course in Experimental Economics. London / New York: Routledge.]Search in Google Scholar
[Gerber, Alan S. and Donald P. Green. 2012. Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.]Search in Google Scholar
[Goldthorpe, John H. 2001. Causation, Statistics, and Sociology. European Sociological Review 17(1): 1–20.10.1093/esr/17.1.1]Search in Google Scholar
[Grusky, David B. 1994. Social Stratification: Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective. Boulder: Westview Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hainmueller, Jens, Dominik Hangartner, and Teppei Yamamoto. 2015. Validating Vignette and Conjoint Survey Experiments Against Real-World Behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(8): 2395–2400.10.1073/pnas.1416587112]Search in Google Scholar
[Harkness, Janet (ed.). 1998. Cross-Cultural Survey Equivalence. Zentrum für Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen. Mannheim: ZUMA]Search in Google Scholar
[Hedström, Peter, and Richard Swedberg. 1996. Rational Choice, Empirical Research, and the Sociological Tradition. European Sociological Review 12(2): 127–146.10.1093/oxfordjournals.esr.a018181]Search in Google Scholar
[Hedström, Peter, and Petri Ylikoski. 2010. Rational Choice, Empirical Research, and the Sociological Tradition. Annual Review of Sociology 36: 49–67.10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102632]Search in Google Scholar
[Holland, Paul W. 1986. Causal Mechanisms in the Social Sciences. Journal of the American Statistical Association 81(4): 945–960.10.1080/01621459.1986.10478354]Search in Google Scholar
[Hox, Joob J., Ita G. Kreft, and Piet L. J. Hermkens. 1991. The Analysis of Factorial Surveys. Sociological Methods and Research 19(4): 439–510.10.1177/0049124191019004003]Search in Google Scholar
[Hughes, Rhidian, and Meg Huby. 2004. The Construction and Interpretation of Vignettes in Social Research. Social Work & Social Sciences Review 11(1): 36–51.10.1921/17466105.11.1.36]Search in Google Scholar
[Jackson, Michelle, and D.R. Cox. 2013. The Principles of Experimental Design and Their Application in Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 39: 27–49.10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145443]Search in Google Scholar
[Jasso, Guillermina. 2006. Factorial Survey Methods for Studying Beliefs and Judgements. Sociological Methods and Research 34(3): 334–423.10.1177/0049124105283121]Search in Google Scholar
[Keller, Tamás. 2018. Dare to Dream: A Vignette Survey on Self-Selection in Secondary Education Track Choice. Sociological Research Online 23(2): 1–20.10.1177/1360780418757539]Search in Google Scholar
[King, Gary, Christopher J. L. Murray, Joshua A. Salomon, and Ajay Tandon. 2004. Enhancing the Validity and Cross-Cultural Comparability of Measurement in Survey Research. American Political Science Review 98: 191–207.10.1017/S000305540400108X]Search in Google Scholar
[Krumpal, Ivar. 2013. Determinants of Social Desirability Bias in Sensitive Surveys: A Literature Review. Quality and Quantity 47(3): 2025–2047.10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9]Search in Google Scholar
[Kuhfeld, Warren F., Randall D. Tobias, and Mark Garratt. 1994. Efficient Experimental Design With Marketing Research Applications. Journal of Marketing Research 31(4): 545–557.10.1177/002224379403100408]Search in Google Scholar
[Levitt, Steven D., and John A. List. 2007. What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World? The Journal of Economic Perspectives 21(2): 153–174.10.1257/jep.21.2.153]Search in Google Scholar
[Lindenberg, Siegwart. 1996. Die Relevanz theoriereicher Brückenannahmen. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 48(1): 126–140.]Search in Google Scholar
[Lörz, Markus, Nicolai Netz, and Heiko Quast. 2016. Why Do Students from Underprivileged Families Less Often Intend to Study Abroad? Higher Education 72(2): 153–174.10.1007/s10734-015-9943-1]Search in Google Scholar
[Markovsky, Barry, and Kimmo Eriksson. 2012. Comparing Direct and Indirect Measures of Just Rewards. Sociological Methods and Research 41(1): 199–216.10.1177/0049124112437712]Search in Google Scholar
[McDonald, Patrick. 2019. How Factorial Survey Analysis Improves Our Understanding of Employer Preferences. Swiss Journal of Sociology 45(2): 237–260.10.2478/sjs-2019-0011]Search in Google Scholar
[Mook, Douglas G. 1983. In Defense of External Invalidity. American Psychologist 38(4): 379–387.10.1037/0003-066X.38.4.379]Search in Google Scholar
[Morgan, Stephen L., and Christopher Winship. 2015. Counterfactuals and Causal Inference: Methods and Principles for Social Research. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107587991]Search in Google Scholar
[Möser, Sara, David Glauser, and Rolf Becker. 2019. Valuation of Labour Market Entrance Positions among (Future) Apprentices - Results from Two Discrete Choice Experiments. Journal of Choice Modelling 33: 100180.10.1016/j.jocm.2019.100180]Search in Google Scholar
[Mutz, Diana C. 2011. Population-Based Survey Experiments. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.23943/princeton/9780691144511.001.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[Opp, Karl-Dieter. 1999. Contending Conceptions of the Theory of Rational Choice. Journal of Theoretical Politics 11(2): 171–202.10.1177/0951692899011002002]Search in Google Scholar
[Pager, Devah, and Lincoln Quillian. 2005. Walking the Talk? What Employers Say Versus What They Do. American Sociological Review 70(3): 355–380.10.1177/000312240507000301]Search in Google Scholar
[Pearl, Judea. 2010. The Foundations of Causal Inference. Sociological Methodology 40(1): 75–149.10.1111/j.1467-9531.2010.01228.x]Search in Google Scholar
[Petzold, Knut. 2018. Fachspezifische Entscheidungen zum Auslandsstudium. Ein experimenteller Test der Wert-Erwartungstheorie. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 21(4): 817–838.10.1007/s11618-017-0788-5]Search in Google Scholar
[Petzold, Knut, and Petra Moog. 2018. What Shapes the Intention to Study Abroad? An Experimental Approach. Higher Education 75(1): 35–54.10.1007/s10734-017-0119-z]Search in Google Scholar
[Petzold, Knut, and Tobias Wolbring. 2018. What Can We Learn From Factorial Surveys About Human Behavior? A Validation Study Comparing Field and Survey Experiments on Discrimination. Methodology. 15(1): 19-30.10.1027/1614-2241/a000161]Search in Google Scholar
[Petzold, Knut, and Tobias Wolbring. 2019. Zur Verhaltensvalidität von Vignettenexperimenten: Theoretische Grundlagen, Forschungsstrategien und Befunde. Pp. 307–338 in Qualitätssicherung sozialwissenschaftlicher Erhebungsinstrumente., edited by Natalja Menold, and Tobias Wolbring. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.10.1007/978-3-658-24517-7_10]Search in Google Scholar
[Popper, Karl Raimund. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.10.1063/1.3060577]Search in Google Scholar
[Rosenbaum, Paul R. 2010. The Design of Observational Studies. New York et al.: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4419-1213-8]Search in Google Scholar
[Rössel, Jörg. 2009. Sozialstrukturanalyse. Eine kompakte Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.]Search in Google Scholar
[Rossi, Peter H., and Andy B. Anderson. 1982. The Factorial Survey Approach: An Introduction. Pp. 15–67 in Measuring Social Judgments. The Factorial Approach, edited by Peter H. Rossi, and Steven L. Nock. Beverly Hills et al.: Sage Publications.]Search in Google Scholar
[Rubin, Donald B. 1980. Randomization Analysis of Experimental Data: The Fisher Randomization Test Comment. Journal of the American Statistical Association 75(371): 591–593.10.2307/2287653]Search in Google Scholar
[Rubin, Donald B. 2008. For Objective Causal Inference, Design Trumps Analysis. The Annals of Applied Statistics 2(3): 808–840.10.1214/08-AOAS187]Search in Google Scholar
[Salisbury, Mark H., Paul U. Umbach, Michael B. Paulsen, and Ernest T. Pascarella. 2009. Going Global: Understanding the Choice Process of the Intent to Study Abroad. Research in Higher Education 50(2): 119–143.10.1007/s11162-008-9111-x]Search in Google Scholar
[Sauer, Carsten, Katrin Auspurg, Thomas Hinz, and Stefan Liebig. 2011. The Application of Factorial Survey in General Population Samples: The Effect of Respondent Age and Education on Response Times and Response Consistency. Survey Research Methods 5(3): 89–102.]Search in Google Scholar
[Sauer, Carsten, Katrin Auspurg, and Thomas Hinz. 2020. Designing Multi-Factorial Survey Experiments: Effects of Presentation Style (Text or Table), Answering Scales, and Vignette Order. methods, data, analyses 14(2): 195–214.]Search in Google Scholar
[Shadish, William R., Thomas D. Cook, and Donald T. Campbell. 2002. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston / New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.]Search in Google Scholar
[Shamon, Hawal, Hermann Dülmer, and Adam Giza. 2019. The Factorial Survey: The Impact of the Presentation Format of Vignettes on Answer Behavior and Processing Time. Sociological Methods and Research DOI: 10.1177/0049124119852382.10.1177/0049124119852382]Search in Google Scholar
[Shi, Lulu P., Christian Imdorf, Robin Samuel, and Stefan Sacchi. 2018. How Unemployment Scarring Affects Skilled Young Workers: Evidence from a Factorial Survey of Swiss Recruiters. Journal for Labour Market Research 52: Article n°7.10.1186/s12651-018-0239-7]Search in Google Scholar
[Snijders, Tom A. B., and Roel J. Bosker. 2012. Multilevel Analysis. An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.]Search in Google Scholar
[Stocké, Volker. 2010. Der Beitrag der Theorie rationaler Entscheidung zur Erklärung von Bildungsungleichheit. Pp. 73–94 in Bildungsverlierer. Neue Ungleichheiten, edited by Gudrun Quenzel. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.10.1007/978-3-531-92576-9_4]Search in Google Scholar
[Stroebe, Wolfgang, Volker Gardenne, and Bernard A. Nijstad. 2018. Do Our Psychological Laws Apply Only to College Students? External Validity Revisited. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 40(6): 384–395.10.1080/01973533.2018.1513362]Search in Google Scholar
[Thelin, Mikael and Thomas Niedomysl. 2015. The (Ir)Relevance of Geography for School Choice: Evidence from a Swedish Choice Experiment. Geoforum 67(1): 110–120.10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.11.003]Search in Google Scholar
[Tourangeau, Roger, and Ting Yan. 2007. Sensitive Questions in Surveys. Psychological Bulletin 133(5): 859–883.10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.859]Search in Google Scholar
[Trafimow, David. 2012. The Role of Auxiliary Assumptions for the Validity of Manipulations and Measures. Theory & Psychology 22(4): 486–498.10.1177/0959354311429996]Search in Google Scholar
[Verlegh, Peeter W. J., Hendrik N. J. Schifferstein, and Dick R. Wittink. 2002. Range and Number-of-Levels Effects in Derived and Stated Measures of Attribute Importance. Marketing Letters 13(1): 41–52.10.1023/A:1015063125062]Search in Google Scholar
[Wallander, Lisa. 2009. 25 Years of Factorial Surveys in Sociology: A Review. Social Science Research 38(3): 505–520.10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.03.004]Search in Google Scholar
[Walzenbach, Sandra. 2019. Hiding Sensitive Topics by Design? An Experiment on the Reduction of Social Desirability Bias in Factorial Surveys. Survey Research Methods 13(1): 103–121.]Search in Google Scholar
[Webster, Murray Jr., and Jane Sell. 2007. Laboratory Experiments in the Social Sciences. Amsterdam: Academic Press / Elsevier.]Search in Google Scholar
[Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. 2013. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. 5th Edition. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.]Search in Google Scholar
[Zangger, Christoph, and Rolf Becker. 2019. Experiments in the Sociology of Education: Causal Inference and Estimating Causal Effects in Sociological Research on Education. Pp. 153–171 in Research Handbook on the Sociology of Education, edited by Rolf Becker. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.10.4337/9781788110426.00017]Search in Google Scholar