Quality & Quantity

, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 2025–2047 | Cite as

Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review

Article

Abstract

Survey questions asking about taboo topics such as sexual activities, illegal behaviour such as social fraud, or unsocial attitudes such as racism, often generate inaccurate survey estimates which are distorted by social desirability bias. Due to self-presentation concerns, survey respondents underreport socially undesirable activities and overreport socially desirable ones. This article reviews theoretical explanations of socially motivated misreporting in sensitive surveys and provides an overview of the empirical evidence on the effectiveness of specific survey methods designed to encourage the respondents to answer more honestly. Besides psychological aspects, like a stable need for social approval and the preference for not getting involved into embarrassing social interactions, aspects of the survey design, the interviewer’s characteristics and the survey situation determine the occurrence and the degree of social desirability bias. The review shows that survey designers could generate more valid data by selecting appropriate data collection strategies that reduce respondents’ discomfort when answering to a sensitive question.

Keywords

Sensitive questions Social desirability bias Survey design Survey Methodology Measurement error 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aguinis H., Pierce C.A., Quigley B.M.: Conditions under which a bogus pipeline procedure enhances the validity of self-reported cigarette-smoking—a meta-analytic review. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 23, 352–373 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguinis H., Pierce C.A., Quigley B.M.: Enhancing the validity of self-reported alcohol and marijuana consumption using a bogus pipeline procedure—a metaanalytic review. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 16, 515–527 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akers R.L., Massey J., Clarke W., Lauer R.M.: Are self-reports of adolescent deviance valid? Biochemical measures, randomized response, and the bogus pipeline in smoking behavior. Soc. Forc. 62, 234–251 (1983)Google Scholar
  4. Anderson B.A., Silver B.D., Abramson P.R.: The effects of race of the interviewer on measures of electoral-participation by blacks in SRC national elections studies. Publ. Opin. Q. 52, 53–83 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson D.A., Simmons A.M., Milnes S.M., Earleywine M.: Effect of response format on endorsement of eating disordered attitudes and behaviors. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 40, 90–93 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aquilino W.S.: Privacy effects on self-reported drug use: interactions with survey mode and respondent characteristics. In: Harrison, L., Hughes, A. (eds) The Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use: Improving the Accuracy Of Survey Estimates. National Institute on Drug Abuse Monograph 167, NIH, DHHS, Washington (1997)Google Scholar
  7. Aquilino W.S., Wright D.L., Supple A.J.: Response effects due to bystander presence in CASI and paper-and-pencil surveys of drug use and alcohol use. Subst. Use Misuse 35, 845–867 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barnett J.: Sensitive questions and response effects: an evaluation. J. Manag. Psychol. 13, 63–76 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barton A.H.: Asking the embarassing question. Publ. Opin. Q. 22, 67–68 (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Becker R.: Selective response to questions on delinquency. Qual. Quant. 40, 483–498 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Becker R., Günther R.: Selektives Antwortverhalten bei Fragen zum delinquenten Handeln—Eine empirische Studie über die Wirksamkeit der, sealed envelope technique“ bei selbstberichteter Delinquenz mit Daten des ALLBUS 2000. ZUMA-Nachrichten 54, 39–59 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. Bellhouse D.R.: Linear models for randomized response design. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 75, 1001–1004 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Beyer, H., Krumpal, I.: “Aber es gibt keine Antisemiten mehr”: Eine experimentelle Studie zur Kommunikationslatenz antisemitischer Einstellungen. Kölner Z. für Soziol. und Sozialpsychol. 62, 681–705 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. Biemer P., Brown G.: Model-based estimation of drug use prevalence using item count data. J. Off. Stat. 21, 287–308 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. Biemer P., Jordan B.K., Hubbard M.L., Wright D.: A test of the item count methodology for estimating cocaine use prevalence. In: Kennet, J., Gfroerer, J. (eds) Evaluating and Improving Methods Used in the National Survey on Drug use and Health, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration, Office of Applied Studies, Rockville (2005)Google Scholar
  16. Boeije H., Lensvelt-Mulders G.J.L.M.: Honest by chance: a qualitative interview study to clarify respondents’ (non)-compliance with computer-assisted randomized response. Bull. Methodol. Sociol. 75, 24–39 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Boruch R.F.: Assuring confidentiality of responses in social research: a systematic analysis. A. Psychol. 26, 413–430 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bourke P.D., Moran M.A.: Estimating proportions from randomized response using the EM algorithm. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 83, 964–968 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bradburn N.M., Sudman S.: Improving Interview Method and Questionnaire Design. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1979)Google Scholar
  20. Brener N.D., Eaton D.K., Kann L., Grunbaum J.A., Gross L.A., Kyle T.M., Ross J.G.: The association of survey setting and mode with self-reported health risk behaviors among high school students. Publ. Opin. Q. 70, 354–374 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Buchman T.A., Tracy J.A.: Obtaining responses to sensitive questions: conventional questionnaire versus randomized response technique. J. Account. Res. 20, 263–271 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Campanelli P.C., Dielman T.E., Shope J.T.: Validity of adolescents self-reports of alcohol-use and misuse using a bogus pipeline procedure. Adolescence 22, 7–22 (1987)Google Scholar
  23. Chaudhuri A., Christofides T.C.: Item Count Technique in estimating the proportion of people with a sensitive feature. J. Stat. Planning Infer. 137, 589–593 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Coutts E., Jann B.: Sensitive questions in online surveys: experimental results for the randomized response technique (RRT) and the unmatched count technique (UCT). Sociol. Methods Res. 40, 169–193 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Coutts E., Jann B., Krumpal I., Näher A.-F.: Plagiarism in student papers: prevalence estimates using special techniques for sensitive questions. J. Econ. Stat. 231, 749–760 (2011)Google Scholar
  26. Crowne D., Marlowe D.: A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. J. Consult. Psychol. 24, 349–354 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Crowne D., Marlowe D.: The Approval Motive. John Wiley, New York (1964)Google Scholar
  28. Cruyff M.J.L.F., van den Hout A., van der Heijden P.G.M., Bockenholt U.: Log-linear randomized-response models taking self-protective response behavior into account. Sociol. Methods Res. 36, 266–282 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dalton D.R., Wimbush J.C., Daily C.M.: Using the unmatched count technique (UCT) to estimate base rates for sensitive behavior. Pers. Psychol. 47, 817–828 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dalton D.R., Daily C.M., Wimbush J.C.: Collecting “sensitive” data in business ethics research: a case for the unmatched count technique (UCT). J. Bus. Ethics 16, 1049–1057 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. De Leeuw E.D.: Reducing missing data in surveys: an overview of methods. Qual. Quant. 35, 147–160 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. De Leeuw E.D., Hox J.J., Dillman D.A.: Mixed mode surveys: when and why?. In: De Leeuw, E.D., Hox, J.J., Dillman, D.A. (eds) The International Handbook of Survey Methodology, Erlbaum/Taylor & Francis, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  33. Decker O., Brähler E.: Vom Rand zur Mitte: Rechtsextreme Einstellungen und ihre Einflussfaktoren in Deutschland. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Forum Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  34. DeMaio T.J.: Social desirability and survey measurement: a review. In: Turner, C.F., Martin, E. (eds) Surveying Subjective Phenomena, pp. 257–281. Russel Sage, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  35. DePaulo B.M., Kirkendol S.E., Kashy D.A., Wyer M.M., Epstein J.A.: Lying in everyday life. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 70, 979–995 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. DePaulo B.M., Lindsay J.J., Malone B.E., Muhlenbruck L., Charlton K., Cooper H.: Cues to deception. Psychol. Bull. 129, 74–118 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Des Jarlais D.C., Paone D., Milliken J., Turner C.F., Miller H., Gribble J., Shi Q.H., Hagan H., Friedman S.R.: Audio-computer interviewing to measure risk behaviour for HIV among injecting drug users: a quasi-randomised trial. Lancet 353, 1657–1661 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Dowling T.A., Shachtman R.H.: On the relative efficiency of randomized response technique. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 70, 84–87 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Droitcour J.: The nominative technique: a new method of estimating heroin prevalence. In: Rouse, B.A., Kozel, N.J., Richards, L.G. (eds) Self-Report Methods of Estimating Drug Use: Meeting Current Challenges to Validity, Fishers Lane, pp. 104–124. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Rockville (1985)Google Scholar
  40. Droitcour J., Caspar R.A., Hubbard M.L., Parsely T.L., Visscher W., Ezzati T.M.: The item count technique as a method of indirect questioning: a review of its development and a case study application. In: Biemer, P., Groves, R.M., Lyberg, L., Mathiowetz, N., Sudman, S. (eds) Measurement Errors in Surveys, pp. 85–210. Wiley, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  41. Esser H.: Können Befragte lügen?—Zum Konzept des “wahren Wertes” im Rahmen der handlungstheoretischen Erklärung von Situationseinflüssen bei der Befragung. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 38, 314–336 (1986)Google Scholar
  42. Fendrich M., Johnson T.P.: Examining prevalence differences in three national surveys of youth: impact of consent procedures, mode, and editing rules. J. Drug Issues 31, 615–642 (2001)Google Scholar
  43. Folsom R.E., Greenberg B.G., Horvitz D.G., Abernathy J.R.: The two alternate questions randomized response model for human surveys. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 68, 525–530 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Fowler F.J. Jr: Improving Survey Questions: Design and Evaluation. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1995)Google Scholar
  45. Fowler F.J. Jr, Mangione T.W.: Standardized Survey Interviewing: Minimizing Interviewer-Related Error. Sage, Newbury Park (1990)Google Scholar
  46. Fox J.A., Tracy P.E.: Randomized Response: A Method for Sensitive Surveys. Sage, Berverly Hills (1986)Google Scholar
  47. Gfroerer J., Wright D., Kopstein A.: Prevalence of youth substance use: the impact of methodological differences between two national surveys. Drug Alcohol Depend. 47, 19–30 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Goodstadt M.S., Gruson V.: The randomized response technique: a test of drug use. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 70, 814–818 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Greenberg B.G., Abul-Ela A.-L.A., Simmons W.R., Horvitz D.G.: The unrelated question randomized response model for human surveys. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 64, 520–539 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Greenberg B.G., Kuebler R.R. Jr, Abernathy J.R., Horvitz D.G.: Application of the randomized response technique in obtaining quantitative data. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 66, 243–250 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Gribble J.N., Miller H.G., Rogers S.M., Turner C.F.: Interview mode and measurement of sexual behaviors: methodological issues. J. Sex Res. 36, 16–24 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Groves R.M.: Survey Errors and Survey Costs. Wiley, New York (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Groves R.M., Fowler F.J. Jr., Couper M.P., Lepkowski J.M., Singer E., Tourangeau R.: Survey Methodology. Wiley, Hoboken (2004)Google Scholar
  54. Hartmann P.: Response behavior in interview settings of limited privacy. Int. J. Publ. Opin. Res. 7, 383–390 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Holbrook A.L., Krosnick J.A.: Measuring voter turnout by using the randomized response technique: evidence calling into question the method’s validity. Publ. Opin. Q. 74, 328–343 (2010a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Holbrook A.L., Krosnick J.A.: Social desirability bias in voter turnout reports: tests using the item count technique. Publ. Opin. Q. 74, 37–67 (2010b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Holbrook A.L., Green M.C., Krosnick J.A.: Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing of national probability samples with long questionnaires - Comparisons of respondent satisficing and social desirability response bias. Publ. Opin. Q. 67, 79–125 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Holtgraves T.: Social desirability and self-reports: testing models of socially desirable responding. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30, 161–172 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Holtgraves T., Eck J., Lasky B.: Face management, question wording, and social desirability. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 27, 1650–1671 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Horvitz, D.G., Shah, B.V., Simmons, W.R.: The unrelated question randomized response model. In: Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section, pp. 65–72. ASA (1967)Google Scholar
  61. Hox J.J., De Leeuw E.D.: The influence of interviewers’ attitude and behavior on household survey nonresponse: an international comparison. In: Groves, R.M., Dillman, D.A., Eltinge, J.L., Little, R.J.A. (eds) Survey Nonresponse, pp. 103–120. Wiley, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  62. Jann, B., Jerke, J., Krumpal, I.: Asking sensitive questions using the crosswise model: an experimental survey measuring plagiarism. Publ. Opin. Q. (2011). doi:10.1093/poq/nfr036
  63. Johnson T., van de Vijver F.J.: Social desirability in cross-cultural research. In: Harness, J., Vijver, F.J., Mohler, P. (eds) Cross-Cultural Survey Methods, pp. 193–202. Wiley, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  64. Jones E.E., Sigall H.: Bogus pipeline—new paradigm for measuring affect and attitude. Psychol. Bull. 76, 349–354 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kann L., Brener N.D., Warren C.W., Collins J.L., Giovino G.A.: An assessment of the effect of data collection setting on the prevalence of health risk behaviors among adolescents. J. Adolesc. Health 31, 327–335 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Katz D.: Do interviewers bias poll results?.  Publ. Opin. Q. 6, 248–268 (1942)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kish L.: Survey Sampling. Wiley, New York (1965)Google Scholar
  68. Krysan M.: Privacy and the expression of white racial attitudes—a comparison across three contexts. Publ. Opin. Q. 62, 506–544 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Kuk A.Y.C.: Asking sensitive questions indirectly. Biometrika 77, 436–438 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. LaBrie J.W., Earleywine M.: Sexual risk behaviors and alcohol: higher base rates revealed using the unmatched-count technique. J. Sex Res. 37, 321–326 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Lalwani A.K., Shavitt S., Johnson T.: What is the relation between cultural orientation and socially desirable responding?. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90, 165–178 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Landsheer J.A., Van der Heijden P.G.M., Van Gils G.: Trust and understanding, two psychological aspects of randomized response. Qual. Quant. 33, 1–12 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lara D., Strickler J., Olavarrieta C.D., Ellertson C.: Measuring induced abortion in Mexico. A comparison of four methodologies. Soc. Methods Res. 32, 529–558 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Lee R.M.: Doing Research on Sensitive Topics. Sage, London (1993)Google Scholar
  75. Lee R.M., Renzetti C.M.: The Problems of Researching Sensitive Topics: An Overview and Introduction. In: Renzetti, C.M., Lee, R.M. (eds) Researching Sensitive Topics, Sage, London (1993)Google Scholar
  76. Lensvelt-Mulders G.J.L.M., Boeije H.R.: Evaluating compliance with a computer assisted randomized response technique: a qualitative study into the origins of lying and cheating. Comput. Hum. Behav. 23, 591–608 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Lensvelt-Mulders G.J.L.M. : Surveying sensitive topics. In: De Leeuw, E.D., Hox, J.J., Dillman, D.A. (eds) The international Handbook of Survey Methodology, Erlbaum/Taylor & Francis, New York/London (2008)Google Scholar
  78. Lensvelt-Mulders G.J.L.M., Hox J.J., van der Heijden P.G.M., Mass C.J.M.: Meta-analysis of randomized response research. thirty-five years of validation. Sociol. Methods Res. 33, 319–348 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Levitt S.D., List J.A.: What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world?. J. Econ. Perspect. 21, 153–174 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Liu P.T., Chow L.P.: The efficiency of the multiple trial randomized response technique. Biometrics 32, 607–618 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Loynes R.M.: Asymptotically optimal randomized response procedures. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 71, 924–928 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Maddala G.S.: Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge University Press, New York (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Mangat N.S.: An improved randomized response strategy. J. R. Stat. Soc B (Methodol.) 56, 93–95 (1994)Google Scholar
  84. Mangat N.S., Singh R.: An alternative randomized response procedure. Biometrika 77, 439–442 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Marquis K.H., Duan N., Marquis M.S., Polich J.M.: Response Errors in Sensitive Topics Surveys. The Rand Corporation, CA (1981)Google Scholar
  86. Marquis K.H., Marquis M.S., Polich J.M.: Response bias and reliability in sensitive topic surveys. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 81, 381–389 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. McAuliffe W.E., Breer P., Ahmadifar N.W., Spino C.: Assessment of drug abuser treatment needs in Rhode Island. Am. J. Publ. Health 81, 365–371 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Metzger D.S., Koblin B., Turner C., Navaline H., Valenti F., Holte S., Gross M., Sheon A., Miller H., Cooley P., Seage G.R.: Randomized controlled trial of audio computer-assisted self-interviewing: utility and acceptability in longitudinal studies. Am. J. Epidemiol. 152, 99–106 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Moors J.J.A.: Optimization of the unrelated question randomized response model. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 66, 627–629 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Nathan, G., Sirken, M., Willis, G.B., Esposito, J.: Laboratory experiments on the cognitive aspects of sensitive questions. In: International Conference on Measurement Error in Surveys. Tuscon, Arizona (1990)Google Scholar
  91. Näher, A.-F., Krumpal, I.: Asking sensitive questions: the impact of forgiving wording and question context on social desirability bias. Qual. Quant. (2011). doi:10.1007/s11135-011-9469-2
  92. O’Hagan A.: Bayes linear estimators for randomized response models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 82, 580–585 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Okamoto K., Ohsuka K., Shiraishi T., Hukazawa E., Wakasugi S., Furuta K.: Comparability of epidemiological information between self- and interviewer-administered questionnaires. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 55, 505–511 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Ong A.D., Weiss D.J.: The impact of anonymity on responses to sensitive questions. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 30, 1691–1708 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Ostapczuk M., Musch J., Moshagen M.: A randomized-response investigation of the education effect in attitudes towards foreigners. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 39, 920–931 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Paulhus, D.L.: Measurement and control of response bias. In: Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes, vol. 1. San Diego, CA: Academic Press (1991)Google Scholar
  97. Paulhus D.L.: Self-presentation measurement. In: Fernandez-Ballesteros, R. (eds) Encyclopedia of Psychological Assessment, pp. 858–860. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2003)Google Scholar
  98. Pollock K.H., Bek Y.: A comparison of three randomized response models for quantitative data. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 71, 884–886 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Raghavarao D., Federer W.T.: Block total response as an alternative to the randomized response method in surveys. J. R. Stat. Soc. B Methodol. 41, 40–45 (1979)Google Scholar
  100. Randall D.M., Fernandes M.F.: The social desirability response bias in ethics research. J. Bus. Ethics 10, 805–817 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Rasinski K.A., Baldwin A.K., Willis G.B., Jobe J.B.: Risk and Loss Perceptions Associated with Survey Reporting of Sensitive Topics, pp. 497–502. National Opinion Research Center (NORC), Chicago (1994)Google Scholar
  102. Rasinski K.A., Willis G.B., Baldwin A.K., Yeh W.C., Lee L.: Methods of data collection, perceptions of risks and losses, and motivation to give truthful answers to sensitive survey questions. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 13, 465–484 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Rauhut H., Krumpal I.: Die Durchsetzung sozialer Normen in low-cost und high-cost situationen. Z. für Soziol. 37, 380–402 (2008)Google Scholar
  104. Rayburn N.R., Earleywine M., Davison G.C.: Base rates of hate crime victimization among college students. J. Interpers. Violence 18, 1209–1221 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Reckers P.M.J., Wheeler S.W., Wong-On-Wing B.: A comparative examination of auditor premature sign-offs using the direct and the randomized response methods. Audit. J. Pract. Theory 16, 69–78 (1997)Google Scholar
  106. Reuband K.H.: Unerwünschte Dritte beim Interview: Erscheinungsformen und Folgen. Zeitschrift Für Soziologie 16, 303–308 (1987)Google Scholar
  107. Reuband K.H.: On 3rd persons in the interview situation and their impact on responses. Int. J. Publ. Opin. Res. 4, 269–274 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Robinson D., Rhode S.: 2 experiments with an anti-semitsm poll. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 41, 136–144 (1946)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Roese N.J., Jamieson D.W.: 20 years of bogus pipeline research—a critical-review and metaanalysis. Psychol. Bull. 114, 363–375 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Rootman I., Smart R.G.: A comparison of alcohol, tobacco and drug-use as determined from household and school surveys. Drug Alcohol Depend. 16, 89–94 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Schaeffer N.C.: Asking questions about threatening topics: a selective overview. In: Stone, A., Turkkan, J., Bachrach, C., Cain, V., Jobe, J., Kurtzman, H. (eds) The Science of Self-Report: Implications for Research and Practice, pp. 105–121. Erlbaum, Mahwah (2000)Google Scholar
  112. Scheers N.J., Dayton C.M.: Improved estimation of academic cheating behavior using the randomized-response technique. Res. Higher Educ. 26, 61–69 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Scheers N.J., Dayton C.M.: Covariate randomized response models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 83, 969–974 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Schnell R., Kreuter F.: Separating interviewer and sampling-point effects. J. Off. Stat. 21, 389–410 (2005)Google Scholar
  115. Schuman H., Converse J.M.: Effects of black and white interviewers on black responses in 1968. Publ. Opin. Q. 35, 44–68 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Sen P.K.: On unbiased estimation for randomized response models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 69, 997–1001 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Singer E., Kohnke-Aquirre L.: Interviewer expectation effects—replication and extension. Publ. Opin. Q. 43, 245–260 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Singer E., Hippler H.J., Schwarz N.: Confidentiality assurances in surveys—reassurance or threat. Int. J. Publ. Opin. Res. 4, 256–268 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Singer E., Vonthurn D.R., Miller E.R.: Confidentiality assurances and response—a quantitative review of the experimental literature. Publ. Opin. Q. 59, 66–77 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Sirken M.: Household surveys with multiplicity. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 65, 257–266 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Sirken, M.: Network surveys of rare and sensitive conditions. In: Advances in Health Survey Research Methods. National Center on Health Statistics Research Proceedings Series, pp. 31–32 (1975)Google Scholar
  122. Sirken, M., Indefurth, G.P., Burnham, C.E., Danchik, K.M.: Household sample surveys of diabetes: design effects of counting rules. In: Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, pp. 659–663. Social Statistics Section (1975)Google Scholar
  123. Sirken M., Willis G.B., Nathan G.: Cognitive aspects of answering sensitive survey questions. Bull. Int. Stat. Inst. 48, 628–629 (1991)Google Scholar
  124. Smith T.W.: Discrepancies between men and women in reporting number of sexual partners - a summary from 4 countries. Soc. Biol. 39, 203–211 (1992)Google Scholar
  125. Smith T.W.: The impact of the presence of others on a respondent’s answers to questions. Int. J. Publ. Opin. Res. 9, 33–47 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Smith, L.L., Federer, W.T., Raghavarao, D.: A comparison of three techniques for eliciting truthful answers to sensitive questions. In: Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, pp. 447–452. Social Statistics Section (1974)Google Scholar
  127. Stem D.E., Steinhorst R.K.: Telephone interview and mail questionnaire applications of the randomized response model. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 79, 555–564 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Stocké V.: Determinants and consequences of survey respondents’ social desirability beliefs about racial attitudes. Methodology 3, 125–138 (2007a)Google Scholar
  129. Stocké V.: The interdependence of determinants for the strength and direction of social desirability bias in racial attitude surveys. J. Off. Stat. 23, 493–514 (2007b)Google Scholar
  130. Stocké V., Hunkler C.: Measures of desirability beliefs and their validity as indicators for socially desirable responding. Field Methods 19, 313–336 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Sudman S., Bradburn N.M.: Response Effects in Surveys: A Review and Synthesis. Aldine, Chicago (1974)Google Scholar
  132. Sudman S., Bradburn N.M.: Asking Questions: A Practical Guide to Questionnaire Design. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1982)Google Scholar
  133. Sudman S., Bradburn N.M., Blair E., Stocking C.: Modest expectations—effects of interviewers prior expectations on responses. Sociol. Methods. Res. 6, 171–182 (1977a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Sudman S., Blair E., Bradburn N., Stocking C.: Estimates of threatening behavior based on reports of friends. Publ. Opin. Q. 41, 261–264 (1977b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Tamhane A.C.: Randomized response techniques for multiple sensitive attributes. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 76, 916–923 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Tentler T.N.: Sin and Confession on the Eve of the Reformation. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1977)Google Scholar
  137. Tourangeau R., Smith T.W.: Asking sensitive questions—the impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Publ. Opin. Q. 60, 275–304 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Tourangeau R., Rasinski K.A., Jobe J., Smith T.W., Pratt W.F.: Sources of error in a survey on sexual behavior. J. Off. Stat. 13, 341–365 (1997)Google Scholar
  139. Tourangeau R., Rips L.J., Rasinski K.A.: The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Tourangeau R., Yan T.: Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychol. Bull. 133, 859–883 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Tracy P.S., Fox J.A.: The validity of randomized response for sensitive measurements. Am. Sociol. Rev. 46, 187–200 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Tsuchiya T.: Domain estimators for the item count technique. Survey Methodol. 31, 41–51 (2005)Google Scholar
  143. Tsuchiya T., Hirai Y., Ono S.: A study of the properties of the item count technique. Publ. Opin. Q. 71, 253–272 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Turner C.F., Ku L., Rogers S.M., Lindberg L.D., Pleck J.H., Sonenstein F.L.: Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science 280, 867–873 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Turner C.F., Villarroel M.A., Rogers S.M., Eggleston E., Ganapathi L., Roman A.M., Al-Tayyib A.: Reducing bias in telephone survey estimates of the prevalence of drug use: a randomized trial of telephone audio-CASI. Addiction 100, 1432–1444 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Van der Heijden P.G.M., van Gils G., Bouts J., Hox J.J.: A comparison of randomized response, computer-assisted self-interview, and face-to-face direct questioning – eliciting sensitive information in the context of welfare and unemployment benefit. Sociol. Methods Res. 28, 505–537 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Villarroel M.A., Turner C.F., Eggleston E., Al-Tayyib A., Rogers S.M., Roman A.M., Cooley P.C., Gordek H.: Same-gender sex in the United States—impact of T-ACASI on prevalence estimates. Publ. Opin. Q. 70, 166–196 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Villarroel M.A., Turner C.F., Rogers S.M., Roman A.M., Cooley P.C., Steinberg A.B., Eggleston E., Chromy J.R.: T-ACASI reduces bias in STD measurements: the national STD and behavior measurement experiment. Sex. Transmit. Dis. 35, 499–506 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Warner S.L.: Randomized response: a survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 60, 63–69 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Weissman A.N., Steer R.A., Lipton D.S.: Estimating illicit drug use through telephone interviews and the randomized response technique. Drug Alcohol Depend. 18, 225–233 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Willis, G.B., Sirken, M., Nathan, G.: The cognitive aspects of responses to sensitive survey questions. In: Working Paper Series 9. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, Cognitive Methods Staff (1994)Google Scholar
  152. Wimbush J.C., Dalton D.R.: Base rate for employee theft: convergence of multiple methods. J. Appl. Psychol. 82, 756–763 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Wiseman F., Moriarty M., Schafer M.: Estimating public-opinion with randomized response model. Publ. Opin. Q. 39, 507–513 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Yu J.W., Tian G.L., Tang M.L.: Two new models for survey sampling with sensitive characteristic: design and analysis. Metrika 67, 251–263 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Zdep S.M., Rhodes I.N.: Making the randomized response technique work. Publ. Opin. Q. 40, 513–537 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of LeipzigLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations