IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpd/articl/v3y2020i2jbpa.32.164.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Survey Estimates of the Public’s Compliance with COVID-19 Regulations Suffer from Social Desirability Bias?

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Larsen

    (Aarhus University)

  • Jacob Nyrup

    (Aarhus University)

  • Michael Bang Petersen

    (Aarhus University)

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has led governments to instate a large number of restrictions on and recommendations for citizens’ behavior. One widely used tool for measuring compliance with these strictures are nationally representative surveys that ask citizens to self-report their behavior. But if respondents avoid disclosing socially undesirable behaviors, such as not complying with government strictures in a public health crisis, estimates of compliance will be biased upwards. To assess the magnitude of this problem, this study compares measures of compliance from direct questions to those estimated from list-experiments - a response technique that allows respondents to report illicit behaviors without individual-level detection. Implementing the list-experiment in two separate surveys of Danish citizens (n>5,000), we find no evidence that citizens under-report non-compliant behavior. We therefore conclude that survey estimates of compliance with COVID-19 regulations do not suffer from social desirability bias.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Larsen & Jacob Nyrup & Michael Bang Petersen, 2020. "Do Survey Estimates of the Public’s Compliance with COVID-19 Regulations Suffer from Social Desirability Bias?," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(2).
    • Handle: RePEc:bpd:articl:v:3:y:2020:i:2:jbpa.32.164
    DOI: 10.30636/jbpa.32.164
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journal-bpa.org/index.php/jbpa/article/download/164/85
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.30636/jbpa.32.164?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Blair, Graeme & Imai, Kosuke, 2012. "Statistical Analysis of List Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 47-77, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Seres, Gyula & Balleyer, Anna & Cerutti, Nicola & Friedrichsen, Jana & Süer, Müge, 2021. "Face mask use and physical distancing before and after mandatory masking: No evidence on risk compensation in public waiting lines," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 765-781.
    2. Schuessler, Julian & Dinesen, Peter Thisted & Østergaard, Søren Dinesen & Sønderskov, Kim Mannemar, 2022. "Public support for unequal treatment of unvaccinated citizens: Evidence from Denmark," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    3. Seres, Gyula & Balleyer, Anna Helen & Cerutti, Nicola & Danilov, Anastasia & Friedrichsen, Jana & Liu, Yiming & Süer, Müge, 2021. "Face masks increase compliance with physical distancing recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 7(2), pages 139-158.
    4. Seres, Gyula & Balleyer, Anna & Cerutti, Nicola & Friedrichsen, Jana & Süer, Müge, 2020. "Face mask use and physical distancing before and after mandatory masking: Evidence from public waiting lines," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economics of Change SP II 2020-305, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    5. Galdikiene, Laura & Jaraite, Jurate & Kajackaite, Agne, 2022. "Trust and vaccination intentions: Evidence from Lithuania during the COVID-19 pandemic," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 17(11), pages 1-1.
    6. Justin Sulik & Ophelia Deroy & Guillaume Dezecache & Martha Newson & Yi Zhao & Marwa El Zein & Bahar Tunçgenç, 2021. "Facing the pandemic with trust in science," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    7. Lin, Tian & Harris, Elizabeth A. & Heemskerk, Amber & Van Bavel, Jay J. & Ebner, Natalie C., 2021. "A multi-national test on self-reported compliance with COVID-19 public health measures: The role of individual age and gender demographics and countries’ developmental status," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 286(C).
    8. De Witte, Dries & Delporte, Margaux & Molenberghs, Geert & Verbeke, Geert & Demarest, Stefaan & Hoorens, Vera, 2023. "Self-uniqueness beliefs and adherence to recommended precautions. A 5-wave longitudinal COVID-19 study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 317(C).
    9. Anna Petherick & Rafael Goldszmidt & Eduardo B. Andrade & Rodrigo Furst & Thomas Hale & Annalena Pott & Andrew Wood, 2021. "A worldwide assessment of changes in adherence to COVID-19 protective behaviours and hypothesized pandemic fatigue," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(9), pages 1145-1160, September.
    10. Daoust, Jean-François & Bélanger, Éric & Dassonneville, Ruth & Lachapelle, Erick & Nadeau, Richard & Becher, Michael & Brouard, Sylvain & Foucault, Martial & Hönnige, Christoph & Stegmueller, Daniel, 2020. "Face-Saving Strategies Increase Self-Reported Non-Compliance with COVID-19 Preventive Measures: Experimental Evidence from 12 Countries," SocArXiv tkrs7, Center for Open Science.
    11. J -F Daoust, 2020. "Elderly people and responses to COVID-19 in 27 Countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-13, July.
    12. Daoust, Jean-François & Nadeau, Richard & Dassonneville, Ruth & Lachapelle, Erick & Bélanger, Éric & Savoie, Justin & van der Linden, Clifton, 2020. "How to survey citizens’ compliance with COVID-19 public health measures? Evidence from three survey experiments," SocArXiv gursd, Center for Open Science.
    13. Vincenzo Carrieri & Maria De Paola & Francesca Gioia, 2021. "The health-economy trade-off during the Covid-19 pandemic: Communication matters," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-25, September.
    14. Farjam, Mike & Bravo, Giangiacomo, 2023. "Do you really believe that? The effect of economic incentives on the acceptance of real-world data in a polarized context," OSF Preprints sdmhw, Center for Open Science.
    15. Michael Becher & Daniel Stegmueller & Sylvain Brouard & Eric Kerrouche, 2021. "Ideology and compliance with health guidelines during the COVID‐19 pandemic: A comparative perspective," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2106-2123, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Barrera, Oscar & Guriev, Sergei & Henry, Emeric & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2020. "Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    2. Ronconi, Lucas & Zarazaga S.J., Rodrigo, 2015. "Labor Exclusion and the Erosion of Citizenship Responsibilities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 453-461.
    3. Esther Atukunda & Anne Fitzpatrick, 2015. "An Evaluation of Factors Affecting Drug Quality: Evidence from the Antimalarial Market in Uganda," Working Papers 2015_03, University of Massachusetts Boston, Economics Department.
    4. Granja, Cintia & Visentin, Fabiana & Carneiro, Ana Maria, 2023. "Can international mobility shape students' attitudes toward inequality?," MERIT Working Papers 2023-001, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    5. Burgstaller, Lilith & Feld, Lars P. & Pfeil, Katharina, 2022. "Working in the shadow: Survey techniques for measuring and explaining undeclared work," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 661-671.
    6. Blattman, Christopher & Jamison, Julian & Koroknay-Palicz, Tricia & Rodrigues, Katherine & Sheridan, Margaret, 2016. "Measuring the measurement error: A method to qualitatively validate survey data," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 99-112.
    7. Ezequiel Gonzalez-Ocantos & Chad Kiewiet de Jonge & Carlos Meléndez & David Nickerson & Javier Osorio, 2020. "Carrots and sticks: Experimental evidence of vote-buying and voter intimidation in Guatemala," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(1), pages 46-61, January.
    8. De Cao, Elisabetta & Lutz, Clemens, 2014. "Sensitive survey questions," Research Report 14017-EEF, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    9. Lara Marie Berger & Anna Kerkhof & Felix Mindl & Johannes Münster, 2023. "Debunking “Fake News” on Social Media: Short-Term and Longer-Term Effects of Fact Checking and Media Literacy Interventions," CESifo Working Paper Series 10576, CESifo.
    10. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/1dhd1b1s319fbai85khk40fudc is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Lata Gangadharan & Tarun Jain & Pushkar Maitra & Joe Vecci, 2022. "Lab-in-the-field experiments: perspectives from research on gender," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 73(1), pages 31-59, January.
    12. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos A. Molina & James A. Robinson, 2022. "The Weak State Trap," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 89(354), pages 293-331, April.
    13. Ronconi, Lucas, 2019. "From Citizen's Rights to Civic Responsibilities," IZA Discussion Papers 12457, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Pier Francesco Perri & Eleni Manoli & Tasos C. Christofides, 2023. "Assessing the effectiveness of indirect questioning techniques by detecting liars," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 64(5), pages 1483-1506, October.
    15. S. Rinken & S. Pasadas-del-Amo & M. Rueda & B. Cobo, 2021. "No magic bullet: estimating anti-immigrant sentiment and social desirability bias with the item-count technique," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(6), pages 2139-2159, December.
    16. Harris, Adam S. & Sigman, Rachel & Meyer-Sahling, Jan-Hinrik & Mikkelsen, Kim Sass & Schuster, Christian, 2020. "Oiling the bureaucracy? political spending, bureaucrats and the resource curse," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    17. Jouni Kuha & Jonathan Jackson, 2014. "The item count method for sensitive survey questions: modelling criminal behaviour," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 63(2), pages 321-341, February.
    18. Humphreys, Macartan & Sánchez de la Sierra, Raúl & Van der Windt, Peter, 2019. "Exporting democratic practices: Evidence from a village governance intervention in Eastern Congo," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 279-301.
    19. Heiko Groenitz, 2018. "Analyzing efficiency for the multi-category parallel method," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 76(2), pages 231-250, August.
    20. Chuang, Erica & Dupas, Pascaline & Huillery, Elise & Seban, Juliette, 2021. "Sex, lies, and measurement: Consistency tests for indirect response survey methods," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    21. Katherine B. Coffman & Lucas C. Coffman & Keith M. Marzilli Ericson, 2017. "The Size of the LGBT Population and the Magnitude of Antigay Sentiment Are Substantially Underestimated," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(10), pages 3168-3186, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    COVID-19; Compliance; Co-production; List-experiment; Social desirability bias;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • Z00 - Other Special Topics - - General - - - General
    • D90 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpd:articl:v:3:y:2020:i:2:jbpa.32.164. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sebastian Jilke (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://journal-bpa.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.