Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Asking sensitive questions: the impact of forgiving wording and question context on social desirability bias

  • Published:
Quality & Quantity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sensitive questions are prone to systematic measurement error due to the respondents’ social desirability concerns. Literature on empirical social research often recommends either positive “loading” of sensitive questions, e.g. using “forgiving” wording, or manipulating the question context to reduce social desirability bias. We derive theoretical explanations of how manipulations of question wording and context could elicit more socially undesirable answers in sensitive surveys. In an experimental online survey (N = 1,176), we evaluate the effects of (1) forgiving wording and (2) question context on social desirability bias in different sensitive questions. The empirical evidence on the assumed bias-reducing effects shows inconsistent results. It is indicated however, that the perceived social norm has the strongest and most consistent effect on the respondents’ propensity to self-report socially undesirable behavior.

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

  • 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 

  • Aronson E.: Dissonance, hypocrisy and the self-concept. In: Harmon-Jones, E., Mills, J. (eds) Cognitive Dissonance: Progress on a Pivotal Theory in Social Psychology, pp. 103–106. APA, Washington (1999)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Aronson E., Fried C.B., Stone J.: Overcoming denial and increasing the intention to use condoms through the induction of hypocrisy. Am. J. Public Health 81, 1636–1638 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton A.H.: Asking the embarrassing question. Public 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 

  • Belli R.F., Traugott M.W., Beckmann M.N.: What leads to voting overreports? Contrasts of overreporters to validated votes and admitted nonvoters in the American national election studies. J. Off. Stat. 21, 287–308 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  • Belli R.F., Moore S.E., VanHoewyk J.: An experimental comparison of question forms used to reduce vote overreporting. Elect. Stud. 25, 751–759 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beuer-Krüssel M., Krumpal I.: Der Einfluss von Häufigkeitsformaten auf die Messung von subjektiven Wahrscheinlichkeiten. Methoden, Daten, Analysen: Zeitschrift für empirische Sozialforschung 3, 31–58 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyer H., Krumpal I.: “Aber es gibt keine Antisemiten mehr”: Eine experimentelle Studie zur Kommunikationslatenz antisemitischer Einstellungen. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 62, 681–705 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair E., Sudman S., Bradburn N.M., Stocking C.: How to ask questions about drinking and sex: response effects in measuring consumer behavior. J. Mark. Res. 14, 316–321 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantril H., Wilks S.S.: Problems and techniques. Public Opin. Q. 4, 330–338 (1940)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catania J.A., Binson D., Canchola J., Pollack L.M., Hauck W.: Effects of interviewer gender, interviewer choice, and item wording on responses to questions concerning sexual behavior. Public Opin. Q. 60, 345–375 (1996)

    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) Working paper. Working paper, ETH Zürich (2008)

    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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diekmann A.: Empirische Sozialforschung. Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen. Rowohlt Taschenbuch, Reinbek (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards A.L.: The relationship between the judged desirability of a trait and the probability that the trait will be endorsed. J. Appl. Psychol. 2, 90–93 (1953)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger L.: A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press, Stanford (1957)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fointiat V.: Being together in a situation of induced hypocrisy. Curr. Res. Soc. Psychol. 13, 145–153 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler F.J.: Improving Survey Questions. Design and Evaluation. Sage Publications, London (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey D., Gaska A.: Die Theorie der kognitiven Dissonanz. In: Frey, D., Irle, M. (eds) Theorien der Sozialpsychologie, pp. 274–324. Hans Huber, Bern (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu, H., Darroch, J.E., Henshaw, S.K., Kolb, E.: Measuring the extent of abortion underreporting in the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Fam. Plan. Perspect. 30, 128–133, 138 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves R.M., Fowler F.J., 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. Public Opin. Res. 7, 383–390 (1995)

    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 

  • Huang C., Liao H., Chang S.-H.: Social desirability and the clinical self-report inventory: methodological reconsideration. J. Clin. Psychol. 54, 517–528 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jann, B., Jerke, J., Krumpal, I.: Asking sensitive questions using the crosswise model: an experimental survey measuring plagiarism. Public Opin. Q. (forthcoming)

  • Johnson T.J., van de ijver F.J.: Social desirability in cross-cultural research. In: Harness, J., van de ijver, F.J., Mohler, P. (eds) Cross-Cultural Survey Methods, pp. 193–202. Wiley, New York (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Krumpal, I.: Evaluation of the effectiveness of the Randomized Response Technique and the Item Count Method in the telephone survey mode. In: Balbi, S., Scepi, G., Russolillo, G., Stawinoga, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Social Science Methodology, RC33—Logic and Methodology in Sociology (ISA). Jovene Editore, Napoli (2008)

  • Krumpal, I., Rauhut, H., Böhr, D., Naumann. E.: The framing of risks and the communication of subjective probabilities for victimizations. Qual. Quant. (forthcoming)

  • Nicotera A.M.: An assessment of the argumentativeness scale for social desirability bias. Commun. Rep. 9, 23–26 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opp K.-D.: Norms. In: Baltes, P.B., Smelser, N.J. (eds) International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences, pp. 10714–10720. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2001a)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Opp K.-D.: Social networks and the emergence of protest norms. In: Hechter, M., Opp, K.-D. (eds) Social Norms, pp. 234–273. Russell Sage Foundation, New York (2001b)

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus D.L.: Two-component models of socially desirable responding. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 46, 598–609 (1984)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus D.L.: Socially desirable responding: the evolution of a construct. In: Braun, H.I., Jackson, D.N., Wiley, D.E. (eds) The Role of Constructs in Psychological and Educational Measurement, pp. 49–69. Erlbaum, Mahwah (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Preisendörfer, P.: Heikle Fragen in mündlichen Interviews: Ergebnisse einer Methodenstudie im studentischen Milieu. Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz. Institute for Sociology. Working Paper (2008)

  • Presser S.: Can changes in context reduce vote overreporting in surveys?. Public Opin. Q. 54, 586–593 (1990)

    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 

  • Reuband K.H.: Unerwünschte Dritte beim Interview: Erscheinungsformen und Folgen. Z. für Soziol. 16, 303–308 (1987)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz N., Bless H.: Scandals and the public trust in politicians: assimilation and contrast effects. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 18, 574–579 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz N., Bless H.: Mental construal processes: the inclusion/exclusion model. In: Stapel, D.A., Suls, J. (eds) Assimilation and Contrast in Social Psychology, pp. 119–141. Psychology Press, Philadelphia (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Stapel D.A., Koomen W.: Impact of interpretation versus comparison mindsets on knowledge accessibility effects. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 37, 134–149 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stapel D.A., Koomen W., van der ligt J.: Categories of category accessibility: the impact of trait concept versus exemplar priming on person judgements. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 33, 47–76 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stocké V.: Deutsche Kurzskala des Bedürfnisses nach sozialer Anerkennung. In: Glöckner-Rist, A. (eds) Elektronisches Handbuch sozialwissenschaftlicher Erhebungsinstrumente. ZIS-Version 11.0, GESIS, Bonn (2007)

    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 

  • Stone J., Wiegand A.W., Cooper J., Aronson E.: When exemplification fails: hypocrisy and the motive for self-integrity. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 72, 54–65 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strack F., Schwarz N., Wänke M.: Semantic and pragmatic aspects of context effects in social and psychological research. Soc. Cogn. 9, 111–125 (1991)

    Article  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., Schwarz N.: Thinking about Answers. The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau R., Smith T.W.: Asking sensitive questions: the impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opin. Q. 60, 275–304 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau R., Rasinski K., Bradburn N.M., D’Andrade R.: Carry-over effects in attitude surveys. Public Opin. Q. 53, 495–524 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Traugott M.P., Katosh J.P.: Response validity in surveys of voting behavior. Public Opin. Q. 43, 359–377 (1979)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voss T.: Game-theoretical perspectives on the emergence of social norms. In: Hechter, M., Opp, K.-D. (eds) Social Norms, pp. 105–136. Russell Sage Foundation, New York (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolter, F.: Sensitive questions in surveys: an evaluation of the Randomized Response Technique in face-to-face-interviews. Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz. Institute for Sociology. Working Paper (2008)

  • Wyner, G.A.: Response errors in self-reported number of arrests. Sociol. Methods Res. 9: 161–177 (1980)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Anatol-Fiete Näher & Ivar Krumpal

Authors
  1. Anatol-Fiete Näher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. 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

Näher, AF., Krumpal, I. Asking sensitive questions: the impact of forgiving wording and question context on social desirability bias. Qual Quant 46, 1601–1616 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9469-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9469-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation