Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 96, Issue 3, pp 551–565 | Cite as

Direct Versus Indirect Questioning: An Application to the Well-Being of Farm Animals

  • Jayson L. LuskEmail author
  • F. Bailey Norwood
Article

Abstract

Recent events suggest people are increasingly concerned not just with their own well-being but that of animals as well. However, there is little systematic evidence on people’s willingness-to-trade their own well-being and quality of life for improvements in the well-being of farm animals. In this paper, we utilize a straightforward and unobtrusive technique to mitigate socially desirability effects and gage the publics’ opinion about farm animal welfare: indirect questioning. In survey of United States households, we find sharp differences between direct and indirect questions related to farm animal welfare. For example, whereas only 15.6% of the public said they think low meat prices are more important than the well-being of farm animals, 67.5% said the average American thinks low meat prices are more important than the well-being of farm animals. This finding, coupled with the extant literature on indirect questioning, suggests that people’s concerns for farm animal welfare are actually much lower than what they say they are.

Keywords

Animal welfare Indirect questioning Social desirability bias 

References

  1. Broom, D. M., & Johnson, K. G. (1993). Stress and animal welfare. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  2. Chung, J., & Monroe, G. S. (2003). Exploring social desirability bias. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 291–302. doi: 10.1023/A:1023648703356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, J. F., Pant, L. W., & Sharp, D. J. (2001). An examination of differences in ethical decision-making between Canadian business students and accounting professionals. Journal of Business Ethics, 30, 319–336. doi: 10.1023/A:1010745425675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathalogy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–350. doi: 10.1037/h0047358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2002). Will money increase subjective well-being? Social Indicators Research, 57, 119–169. doi: 10.1023/A:1014411319119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Epley, N., & Dunning, D. (2000). Feeling ‘holier than thou’: Are self-serving assessments produced by errors in self- or social prediction? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 861–875. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Farm Foundation (2006). Future of animal agriculture in North America. Oak Brook, IL: Farm Foundation. Available online at (Last accessed 8/17/07): http://www.farmfoundation.org/projects/documents/AnimalWelfare_000.pdf.
  8. Fields, J.M., & Schuman, H. (1976–1977). Public beliefs about the beliefs of the public. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40, 427–448. doi: 10.1086/268330.
  9. Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. The Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 303–315. doi: 10.1086/209351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fisher, R. J., & Katz, J. E. (2000). Social-desirability bias and the validity of self-reported values. Psychology and Marketing, 17, 105–120. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200002)17:2<105::AID-MAR3>3.0.CO;2-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greene, W. H. (2000). Econometric analysis (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Herbert, J. R., Clemow, L., Pbert, L., Ockene, I. S., & Ockene, J. K. (1995). Social desirability bias in dietary self-report may compromise the validity of dietary intake measures. International Journal of Epidemiology, 24, 389–398. doi: 10.1093/ije/24.2.389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Herbert, J. R., Ma, Y., Clemow, L., Ockene, I., Saperia, G., Stanek, E. J., et al. (1997). Gender differences in social desirability and social approval bias in dietary self-report. American Journal of Epidemiology, 146, 1046–1055.Google Scholar
  14. Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Shachat, K., & Smith, V. (1996). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games. The American Economic Review, 86, 653–660.Google Scholar
  15. Huppert, F. A., Marks, N., Clark, A. E., Siegrist, J., Stutzer, A., Vittersø, J., & Wahrendorf, M. (2009). Measuring well-being across Europe: Description of the ESS well-being module and preliminary findings. Social Indicators Research, 91, 301–315. doi: 10.1007/s11205-008-9346-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johansson-Stenman, O., & Martinsson, P. (2006). Honestly, what are you driving a BMW? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 60, 129–146. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2004.08.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lusk, J. L., & Norwood, F. B. (2009a). An inferred valuation method. Land Economics, (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  18. Lusk, J. L., & Norwood, F. B. (2009b). Bridging the gap between laboratory experiments and naturally occurring markets: An inferred valuation method. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2008.12.003.Google Scholar
  19. Maccoby, E. E., & Maccoby, N. (1954). The interview: A tool of social science. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 449–487). Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  20. Pronin, E. (2006). Perception and misperception of bias in human judgment. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 37–43. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Reagan, T. (2004). The case of animal rights. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  22. Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The ‘false consensus effect’: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279–301. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(77)90049-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Singer, P. (2002). Animal liberation. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  24. Streb, M. J., Burrell, B., Fredrick, B., & Genovese, M. A. (2008). Social desirable effects and support for a female American president. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 76–89. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfm035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sunstein, C. R., & Nussbaum, M. C. (2004). Animal rights: Current debates and new directions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Van Boven, L., Dunning, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2000). Egocentric empathy gaps between owners and buyers: Misperceptions of the endowment effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 66–76. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.1.66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Van Boven, L., Loewenstein, G., & Dunning, D. (2003). Mispredicting the endowment effect: Underestimation of owner’s selling prices by buyer’s agents. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 51, 351–365. doi: 10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00150-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Van Boven, L., Loewenstein, G., & Dunning, D. (2005). The illusion of courage in social predictions: Underestimating the impact of fear of embarrassment on other people. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96(2), 130–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Warner, S. (1965). Randomized response: A survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 60, 63–69. doi: 10.2307/2283137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Westfall, R. L., Boyd, H. W., & Campbell, D. T. (1957). The use of structured techniques in motivation research. Journal of Marketing, 22, 134–139. doi: 10.2307/1247209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural EconomicsOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA

Personalised recommendations