Abstract
Eliciting honest answers to sensitive questions is frustrated if subjects withhold the truth for fear that others will judge or punish them. The resulting bias is commonly referred to as social desirability bias, a subset of what we label sensitivity bias. We make three contributions. First, we propose a social reference theory of sensitivity bias to structure expectations about survey responses on sensitive topics. Second, we explore the bias-variance trade-off inherent in the choice between direct and indirect measurement technologies. Third, to estimate the extent of sensitivity bias, we meta-analyze the set of published and unpublished list experiments (a.k.a., the item count technique) conducted to date and compare the results with direct questions. We find that sensitivity biases are typically smaller than 10 percentage points and in some domains are approximately zero.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Political Science and International Relations,Sociology and Political Science
Reference105 articles.
1. Religion and Presidential Politics in Florida: A List Experiment*
2. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test.
3. In Search of Self-Censorship;Shen;British Journal of Political Science
4. Samii, Cyrus . 2012. “List Experiments as Outcome Measures.” Unpublished Research Note. New York University.
Cited by
133 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Political Stigma and Preference Falsification: Theory and Observational Evidence;The Journal of Politics;2024-10-01
2. Second phase: The activation stage;The Normalization of the Radical Right;2024-09-02
3. First phase: The latency equilibrium;The Normalization of the Radical Right;2024-09-02
4. Reported vote: An observational measure of political stigma;The Normalization of the Radical Right;2024-09-02
5. Dedication;The Normalization of the Radical Right;2024-09-02