Abstract
This study examines two different Randomized Response methods to see whether they evoke sufficient understanding and trust, and ensure fewer evasive answers to socially sensitive questions. Two Randomized Response methods were employed by trained interviewers to study fraud: the Forced Response method, using dice, and Kuk's method, using playing cards. Respondents were selected from the files of the social security offices of three Dutch cities. A total of 334 respondents participated voluntarily in this study of two Randomized Response methods. Most respondents were known to have committed some form of fraud, and their answer on the Randomized Response question is validated with this information. The results indicate that subjects who have a better understanding of the Forced Response technique give more socially undesirable answers. The interviewer has a most important role establishing trust and understanding. Respondents who are less able to understand the instructions, e.g., have limited language abilities, develop less trust in the method.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Edgell, S.E., Himmelfarb, S. & Duchan, K.L. (1982). Validity of forced responses in a randomized response model. Sociological Methods and Research 11(1): 89–100.
Fox, J.A. & Tracy, P.E. (1980). The randomized response approach: applicability to criminal justice research and evaluation. Evaluation Review 4(5): 601–622.
Fox, J.A. & Tracy, P.E. (1986). Randomized Response: AMethod for Sensitive Surveys. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Goodstadt, M.S. & Gruson, V. (1975). The randomized response technique: a test on drug use. Journal of the American Statistical Association 70: 814–818.
Himmelfarb, S. & Lickteig, C. (1982). Social desirability and the randomized response technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43(4): 710–717.
Kuk, A.Y.C. (1990). Asking sensitive questions indirectly. Biometrika 72(2): 436–438.
Nathan, G. (1988). A bibliography on randomized response: 1965–1987. Survey Methodology 4(2): 331–346.
Soeken, L. & MacReady, G.B. (1982). Respondents' perceived protection when using randomized response. Psychological Bulletin 92(2): 487–489.
Umesh, U.N. & Peterson, R.A. (1991). A critical evaluation of the randomized response method: applications, validation and research agenda. Sociological Methods and Research 20(1): 104–138.
Van der Heijden, P.G.M. & van Gils, G. (1996). Some logistic regression models for randomized response data. In A. Forcina, G.M. Marchetti, R. Hatzinger and G. Galmatti (eds), Statistical Modeling.Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Statistical Modeling. Orvieto, Italy, 15–19 July 1996, pp. 341–348.
Van der Heijden, P.G.M., van Gils, G., Bouts, J. & Hox, J. (1997). A comparison of randomized response, CASIQ, and direct questioning; eliciting sensitive information in the context of social security fraud. Methods Series MS–97–4. Utrecht: Department of Methodology and Statistics.
Van Gils, G., Van der Heijden, P.G.M. and Landsheer, J.A. (1996). Rapportage van uitkeringsfraude in surveys [Reporting of social security fraud in surveys]. Werkdocumenten, 43. Den Haag: Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid.
Warner, S.L. (1965). Randomized response: a survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association 60: 63–69.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Landsheer, J.A., Van Der Heijden, P. & Van Gils, G. Trust and Understanding, Two Psychological Aspects of Randomized Response. Quality & Quantity 33, 1–12 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004361819974
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004361819974