Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Quality & Quantity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett J.: Sensitive questions and response effects: an evaluation. J. Manag. Psychol. 13, 63–76 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton A.H.: Asking the embarassing question. Publ. Opin. Q. 22, 67–68 (1958)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker R.: Selective response to questions on delinquency. Qual. Quant. 40, 483–498 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bellhouse D.R.: Linear models for randomized response design. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 75, 1001–1004 (1980)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • Biemer P., Brown G.: Model-based estimation of drug use prevalence using item count data. J. Off. Stat. 21, 287–308 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boruch R.F.: Assuring confidentiality of responses in social research: a systematic analysis. A. Psychol. 26, 413–430 (1971)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourke P.D., Moran M.A.: Estimating proportions from randomized response using the EM algorithm. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 83, 964–968 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradburn N.M., Sudman S.: Improving Interview Method and Questionnaire Design. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchman T.A., Tracy J.A.: Obtaining responses to sensitive questions: conventional questionnaire versus randomized response technique. J. Account. Res. 20, 263–271 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Crowne D., Marlowe D.: A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. J. Consult. Psychol. 24, 349–354 (1960)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowne D., Marlowe D.: The Approval Motive. John Wiley, New York (1964)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Leeuw E.D.: Reducing missing data in surveys: an overview of methods. Qual. Quant. 35, 147–160 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Decker O., Brähler E.: Vom Rand zur Mitte: Rechtsextreme Einstellungen und ihre Einflussfaktoren in Deutschland. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Forum Berlin (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo B.M., Lindsay J.J., Malone B.E., Muhlenbruck L., Charlton K., Cooper H.: Cues to deception. Psychol. Bull. 129, 74–118 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowling T.A., Shachtman R.H.: On the relative efficiency of randomized response technique. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 70, 84–87 (1975)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler F.J. Jr: Improving Survey Questions: Design and Evaluation. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler F.J. Jr, Mangione T.W.: Standardized Survey Interviewing: Minimizing Interviewer-Related Error. Sage, Newbury Park (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox J.A., Tracy P.E.: Randomized Response: A Method for Sensitive Surveys. Sage, Berverly Hills (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodstadt M.S., Gruson V.: The randomized response technique: a test of drug use. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 70, 814–818 (1975)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves R.M.: Survey Errors and Survey Costs. Wiley, New York (1989)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Groves R.M., Fowler F.J. Jr., Couper M.P., Lepkowski J.M., Singer E., Tourangeau R.: Survey Methodology. Wiley, Hoboken (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann P.: Response behavior in interview settings of limited privacy. Int. J. Publ. Opin. Res. 7, 383–390 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtgraves T.: Social desirability and self-reports: testing models of socially desirable responding. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30, 161–172 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtgraves T., Eck J., Lasky B.: Face management, question wording, and social desirability. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 27, 1650–1671 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • 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 

  • 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

  • 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 

  • Jones E.E., Sigall H.: Bogus pipeline—new paradigm for measuring affect and attitude. Psychol. Bull. 76, 349–354 (1971)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz D.: Do interviewers bias poll results?.  Publ. Opin. Q. 6, 248–268 (1942)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kish L.: Survey Sampling. Wiley, New York (1965)

    Google Scholar 

  • Krysan M.: Privacy and the expression of white racial attitudes—a comparison across three contexts. Publ. Opin. Q. 62, 506–544 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuk A.Y.C.: Asking sensitive questions indirectly. Biometrika 77, 436–438 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee R.M.: Doing Research on Sensitive Topics. Sage, London (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu P.T., Chow L.P.: The efficiency of the multiple trial randomized response technique. Biometrics 32, 607–618 (1976)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loynes R.M.: Asymptotically optimal randomized response procedures. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 71, 924–928 (1976)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maddala G.S.: Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge University Press, New York (1983)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mangat N.S.: An improved randomized response strategy. J. R. Stat. Soc B (Methodol.) 56, 93–95 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangat N.S., Singh R.: An alternative randomized response procedure. Biometrika 77, 439–442 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquis K.H., Duan N., Marquis M.S., Polich J.M.: Response Errors in Sensitive Topics Surveys. The Rand Corporation, CA (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moors J.J.A.: Optimization of the unrelated question randomized response model. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 66, 627–629 (1971)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • 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

  • O’Hagan A.: Bayes linear estimators for randomized response models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 82, 580–585 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ong A.D., Weiss D.J.: The impact of anonymity on responses to sensitive questions. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 30, 1691–1708 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • Paulhus D.L.: Self-presentation measurement. In: Fernandez-Ballesteros, R. (eds) Encyclopedia of Psychological Assessment, pp. 858–860. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock K.H., Bek Y.: A comparison of three randomized response models for quantitative data. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 71, 884–886 (1976)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Randall D.M., Fernandes M.F.: The social desirability response bias in ethics research. J. Bus. Ethics 10, 805–817 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauhut H., Krumpal I.: Die Durchsetzung sozialer Normen in low-cost und high-cost situationen. Z. für Soziol. 37, 380–402 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayburn N.R., Earleywine M., Davison G.C.: Base rates of hate crime victimization among college students. J. Interpers. Violence 18, 1209–1221 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Reuband K.H.: Unerwünschte Dritte beim Interview: Erscheinungsformen und Folgen. Zeitschrift Für Soziologie 16, 303–308 (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  • Reuband K.H.: On 3rd persons in the interview situation and their impact on responses. Int. J. Publ. Opin. Res. 4, 269–274 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson D., Rhode S.: 2 experiments with an anti-semitsm poll. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 41, 136–144 (1946)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roese N.J., Jamieson D.W.: 20 years of bogus pipeline research—a critical-review and metaanalysis. Psychol. Bull. 114, 363–375 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Scheers N.J., Dayton C.M.: Improved estimation of academic cheating behavior using the randomized-response technique. Res. Higher Educ. 26, 61–69 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheers N.J., Dayton C.M.: Covariate randomized response models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 83, 969–974 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnell R., Kreuter F.: Separating interviewer and sampling-point effects. J. Off. Stat. 21, 389–410 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuman H., Converse J.M.: Effects of black and white interviewers on black responses in 1968. Publ. Opin. Q. 35, 44–68 (1971)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen P.K.: On unbiased estimation for randomized response models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 69, 997–1001 (1974)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer E., Kohnke-Aquirre L.: Interviewer expectation effects—replication and extension. Publ. Opin. Q. 43, 245–260 (1979)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer E., Hippler H.J., Schwarz N.: Confidentiality assurances in surveys—reassurance or threat. Int. J. Publ. Opin. Res. 4, 256–268 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirken M.: Household surveys with multiplicity. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 65, 257–266 (1970)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • 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)

  • Sirken M., Willis G.B., Nathan G.: Cognitive aspects of answering sensitive survey questions. Bull. Int. Stat. Inst. 48, 628–629 (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stocké V.: Determinants and consequences of survey respondents’ social desirability beliefs about racial attitudes. Methodology 3, 125–138 (2007a)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Stocké V., Hunkler C.: Measures of desirability beliefs and their validity as indicators for socially desirable responding. Field Methods 19, 313–336 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sudman S., Bradburn N.M.: Response Effects in Surveys: A Review and Synthesis. Aldine, Chicago (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sudman S., Bradburn N.M.: Asking Questions: A Practical Guide to Questionnaire Design. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sudman S., Blair E., Bradburn N., Stocking C.: Estimates of threatening behavior based on reports of friends. Publ. Opin. Q. 41, 261–264 (1977b)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tamhane A.C.: Randomized response techniques for multiple sensitive attributes. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 76, 916–923 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tentler T.N.: Sin and Confession on the Eve of the Reformation. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Tourangeau R., Rips L.J., Rasinski K.A.: The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau R., Yan T.: Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychol. Bull. 133, 859–883 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tracy P.S., Fox J.A.: The validity of randomized response for sensitive measurements. Am. Sociol. Rev. 46, 187–200 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsuchiya T.: Domain estimators for the item count technique. Survey Methodol. 31, 41–51 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsuchiya T., Hirai Y., Ono S.: A study of the properties of the item count technique. Publ. Opin. Q. 71, 253–272 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner S.L.: Randomized response: a survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 60, 63–69 (1965)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • Wimbush J.C., Dalton D.R.: Base rate for employee theft: convergence of multiple methods. J. Appl. Psychol. 82, 756–763 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiseman F., Moriarty M., Schafer M.: Estimating public-opinion with randomized response model. Publ. Opin. Q. 39, 507–513 (1976)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zdep S.M., Rhodes I.N.: Making the randomized response technique work. Publ. Opin. Q. 40, 513–537 (1976)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, University of Leipzig, Beethovenstr. 15, 04107, Leipzig, Germany

    Ivar Krumpal

Authors
  1. Ivar Krumpal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivar Krumpal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Krumpal, I. Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review. Qual Quant 47, 2025–2047 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation