Quality and Quantity

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 1–12 | Cite as

Trust and Understanding, Two Psychological Aspects of Randomized Response

  • Johannes A. Landsheer
  • Peter Van Der Heijden
  • Ger Van Gils
Article

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.

measures–instruments social service clients fraud estimates Netherlands 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Fox, J.A. & Tracy, P.E. (1980). The randomized response approach: applicability to criminal justice research and evaluation. Evaluation Review 4(5): 601–622.Google Scholar
  3. Fox, J.A. & Tracy, P.E. (1986). Randomized Response: AMethod for Sensitive Surveys. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Goodstadt, M.S. & Gruson, V. (1975). The randomized response technique: a test on drug use. Journal of the American Statistical Association 70: 814–818.Google Scholar
  5. Himmelfarb, S. & Lickteig, C. (1982). Social desirability and the randomized response technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43(4): 710–717.Google Scholar
  6. Kuk, A.Y.C. (1990). Asking sensitive questions indirectly. Biometrika 72(2): 436–438.Google Scholar
  7. Nathan, G. (1988). A bibliography on randomized response: 1965–1987. Survey Methodology 4(2): 331–346.Google Scholar
  8. Soeken, L. & MacReady, G.B. (1982). Respondents' perceived protection when using randomized response. Psychological Bulletin 92(2): 487–489.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Warner, S.L. (1965). Randomized response: a survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association 60: 63–69.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johannes A. Landsheer
  • Peter Van Der Heijden
  • Ger Van Gils

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations