IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpd/articl/v3y2020i2jbpa.32.182.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is self-reported social distancing susceptible to social desirability bias? Using the crosswise model to elicit sensitive behaviors

Author

Listed:
  • Ulrich Thy Jensen

    (Arizona State University)

Abstract

Sensitive behaviors such as self-reported performance or (un)ethical behaviors often carry strong social connotations of appropriate or inappropriate conduct. In return, social norms can artificially inflate or deflate individuals’ responses and bias scientific results on their prevalence and effects. As a core part of governments’ mitigation strategy against the outbreak of COVID-19, social distancing might represent one of these behaviors. Can researchers expect honest responses when surveying citizens about their social distancing behaviors? This question is examined using the sensitive survey technique, “the crosswise model†, to elicit aggregate-level prevalence estimates of (1) self-reported social distancing, and (2) honest reporting in a prediction dice game. Since the number of wins in the dice game follows a known probability distribution, it offers an excellent setting for illustrating the utility of the crosswise model before applying it to self-reported social distancing. In a survey of 1,059 adults living in the US, the crosswise model outperforms direct questioning in revealing respondents’ dishonest behavior in the dice game. While the crosswise model also indicates some social desirability bias when asking respondents directly about their social distancing behaviors, the extent of this bias seems small and does not appear to overtly inflate individuals’ self-reported measures of social distancing.

Suggested Citation

  • Ulrich Thy Jensen, 2020. "Is self-reported social distancing susceptible to social desirability bias? Using the crosswise model to elicit sensitive behaviors," 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.32.182
    DOI: 10.30636/jbpa.32.182
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journal-bpa.org/index.php/jbpa/article/download/182/84
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.30636/jbpa.32.182?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. Mullinix, Kevin J. & Leeper, Thomas J. & Druckman, James N. & Freese, Jeremy, 2015. "The Generalizability of Survey Experiments," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 109-138, January.
    2. Korndörfer, Martin & Krumpal, Ivar & Schmukle, Stefan C., 2014. "Measuring and explaining tax evasion: Improving self-reports using the crosswise model," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 18-32.
    3. Marc Höglinger & Ben Jann, 2018. "More is not always better: An experimental individual-level validation of the randomized response technique and the crosswise model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-22, August.
    4. Jun-Wu Yu & Guo-Liang Tian & Man-Lai Tang, 2008. "Two new models for survey sampling with sensitive characteristic: design and analysis," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 67(3), pages 251-263, April.
    5. James Alm, 2012. "Measuring, explaining, and controlling tax evasion: lessons from theory, experiments, and field studies," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 19(1), pages 54-77, February.
    6. Coppock, Alexander, 2019. "Generalizing from Survey Experiments Conducted on Mechanical Turk: A Replication Approach," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 613-628, July.
    7. Rema Hanna & Shing-Yi Wang, 2017. "Dishonesty and Selection into Public Service: Evidence from India," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 262-290, August.
    8. Sebastian Barfort & Nikolaj A. Harmon & Frederik Hjorth & Asmus Leth Olsen, 2019. "Sustaining Honesty in Public Service: The Role of Selection," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 11(4), pages 96-123, November.
    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. Briscese, Guglielmo & Lacetera, Nicola & Macis, Mario & Tonin, Mirco, 2023. "Expectations, reference points, and compliance with COVID-19 social distancing measures," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    2. Fang, Ximeng & Freyer, Timo & Ho, Chui-Yee & Chen, Zihua & Goette, Lorenz, 2022. "Prosociality predicts individual behavior and collective outcomes in the COVID-19 pandemic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 308(C).
    3. Sarah Kelley & M. D. R. Evans & Jonathan Kelley, 2023. "Happily Distant or Bitter Medicine? The Impact of Social Distancing Preferences, Behavior, and Emotional Costs on Subjective Wellbeing During the Epidemic," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 18(1), pages 115-162, February.
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. Mindy Shoss & Anahí Van Hootegem & Eva Selenko & Hans De Witte, 2023. "The job insecurity of others: On the role of perceived national job insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic," Economic and Industrial Democracy, Department of Economic History, Uppsala University, Sweden, vol. 44(2), pages 385-409, May.

    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. 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.
    2. Walzenbach, Sandra & Hinz, Thomas, 2022. "Puzzling Answers to Crosswise Questions - Examining Overall Prevalence Rates, Primacy Effects and Learning Effects," EconStor Preprints 249353, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    3. Lamberova, Natalia, 2021. "The puzzling politics of R&D: Signaling competence through risky projects," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 801-818.
    4. Brassiolo, Pablo & Estrada, Ricardo & Fajardo, Gustavo & Vargas, Juan, 2021. "Self-Selection into corruption: Evidence from the lab," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 799-812.
    5. Bauer, Kevin & Kosfeld, Michael & von Siemens, Ferdinand, 2021. "Incentives, Self-Selection, and Coordination of Motivated Agents for the Production of Social Goods," IZA Discussion Papers 14595, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Yamen, Ahmed & Allam, Amir & Bani-Mustafa, Ahmed & Uyar, Ali, 2018. "Impact of institutional environment quality on tax evasion: A comparative investigation of old versus new EU members," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 17-29.
    7. Petr Houdek & Štěpán Bahník & Marek Hudík & Marek Vranka, 2021. "Selection effects on dishonest behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(2), pages 238-266, March.
    8. Rustagi, Devesh & Kroell, Markus, 2022. "Measuring honesty and explaining adulteration in naturally occurring markets," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    9. Beata Woźniak-Jęchorek, 2023. "Experiments in Modern Economics – Expansion and Technological and Institutional Innovations in the U.S," Ekonomista, Polskie Towarzystwo Ekonomiczne, issue 1, pages 78-101.
    10. Thorben C. Kundt & Florian Misch & Birger Nerré, 2017. "Re-assessing the merits of measuring tax evasion through business surveys: an application of the crosswise model," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 24(1), pages 112-133, February.
    11. 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.
    12. Marc Höglinger & Ben Jann, 2018. "More is not always better: An experimental individual-level validation of the randomized response technique and the crosswise model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-22, August.
    13. Lang, Matthias & Schudy, Simeon, 2023. "(Dis)honesty and the value of transparency for campaign promises," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:238-266 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Stoll, Julius, 2022. "The cost of honesty: Field evidence☆," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    16. Vranka, Marek & Hudík, Marek & Frollová, Nikola & Bahník, Štěpán & Sýkorová, Markéta & Houdek, Petr, 2021. "Honesty of online workers: A field experiment shows no evidence of self-selection of cheaters to a cheating-enabling work environment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    17. Julia Meisters & Adrian Hoffmann & Jochen Musch, 2020. "Can detailed instructions and comprehension checks increase the validity of crosswise model estimates?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-19, June.
    18. Andrej Gill & Matthias Heinz & einer Schumacher & Matthias Sutter, 2020. "Trustworthiness in the Financial Industry," Working Papers 2020-28, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    19. Gill, Andrej & Heinz, Matthias & Schumacher, Heiner & Sutter, Matthias, 2020. "Trustworthiness in the Financial Industry," IZA Discussion Papers 13583, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Andrej Gill & Matthias Heinz & Heiner Schumacher & Matthias Sutter, 2023. "Social Preferences of Young Professionals and the Financial Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(7), pages 3905-3919, July.
    21. Korndörfer, Martin & Krumpal, Ivar & Schmukle, Stefan C., 2014. "Measuring and explaining tax evasion: Improving self-reports using the crosswise model," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 18-32.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    COVID-19; Social distancing; Cheating; Survey sensitivity; Crosswise model;
    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.32.182. 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.