Author:
Meisters Julia,Hoffmann Adrian,Musch Jochen
Abstract
AbstractThe Randomized Response Technique (Warner, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 60, 63-69, 1965) has been developed to control for socially desirable responses in surveys on sensitive attributes. The Crosswise Model (CWM; Yu et al., Metrika, 67, 251-263, 2008) and its extension, the Extended Crosswise Model (ECWM; Heck et al., Behavior Research Methods, 50, 1895-1905, 2018), are advancements of the Randomized Response Technique that have provided promising results in terms of improved validity of the obtained prevalence estimates compared to estimates based on conventional direct questions. However, recent studies have raised the question as to whether these promising results might have been primarily driven by a methodological artifact in terms of random responses rather than a successful control of socially desirable responding. The current study was designed to disentangle the influence of successful control of socially desirable responding and random answer behavior on the validity of (E)CWM estimates. To this end, we orthogonally manipulated the direction of social desirability (undesirable vs. desirable) and the prevalence (high vs. low) of sensitive attributes. Our results generally support the notion that the ECWM successfully controls social desirability bias and is inconsistent with the alternative account that ECWM estimates are distorted by a substantial influence of random responding. The results do not rule out a small proportion of random answers, especially when socially undesirable attributes with high prevalence are studied, or when high randomization probabilities are applied. Our results however do rule out that random responding is a major factor that can account for the findings attesting to the improved validity of (E)CWM as compared with DQ estimates.
Funder
Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Psychology,Psychology (miscellaneous),Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Developmental and Educational Psychology,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
Reference55 articles.
1. Antonak, R. F., & Livneh, H. (1995). Randomized-Response Technique - a Review and Proposed Extension to Disability Attitude Research. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 121, 97–145 ://A1995QU19100004.
2. Atsusaka, Y., & Stevenson, R. (2021). A bias-corrected estimator for the crosswise model with inattentive respondents. Political Analysis, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2021.43.
3. Berufsverband Deutscher Psychologinnen und Psychologen & Deutsche Gesellschaft
für Psychologie. (2016). Berufsethische Richtlinien des Berufsverbandes Deutscher Psychologinnen und Psychologen e.V. und der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie e.V. [Professional ethical guidelines of the German Association of Psychologists and the German Psychological Society]. https://www.dgps.de/fileadmin/documents/Empfehlungen/berufsethische_richtlinien_dgps.pdf.
4. Cerri, J., Davis, E. O., Veríssimo, D., & Glikman, J. A. (2021). Specialized questioning techniques and their use in conservation: A review of available tools, with a focus on methodological advances. Biological Conservation, 257, 1–19.
5. Chaudhuri, A. (2011). Randomized Response and Indirect Questioning Techniques in Surveys. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Cited by
9 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