IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/polals/v17y2009i01p45-63_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sensitive Questions, Truthful Answers? Modeling the List Experiment with LISTIT

Author

Listed:
  • Corstange, Daniel

Abstract

Standard estimation procedures assume that empirical observations are accurate reflections of the true values of the dependent variable, but this assumption is dubious when modeling self-reported data on sensitive topics. List experiments (a.k.a. item count techniques) can nullify incentives for respondents to misrepresent themselves to interviewers, but current data analysis techniques are limited to difference-in-means tests. I present a revised procedure and statistical estimator called LISTIT that enable multivariate modeling of list experiment data. Monte Carlo simulations and a field test in Lebanon explore the behavior of this estimator.

Suggested Citation

  • Corstange, Daniel, 2009. "Sensitive Questions, Truthful Answers? Modeling the List Experiment with LISTIT," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 45-63, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:17:y:2009:i:01:p:45-63_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1047198700002382/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Tadesse, Getaw & Abate, Gashaw T. & Zewdie, Tadiwos, 2020. "Biases in self-reported food insecurity measurement: A list experiment approach," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    2. Tobias H. Stark & Floor M. van Maaren & Jon A. Krosnick & Gaurav Sood, 2022. "The Impact of Social Desirability Pressures on Whites’ Endorsement of Racial Stereotypes: A Comparison Between Oral and ACASI Reports in a National Survey," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 51(2), pages 605-631, May.
    3. Ravanilla, Nico & Hicken, Allen, 2023. "Poverty, social networks, and clientelism," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Asma Halim & Irshad Ahmad Arshad & Summaira Haroon & Waqas Shair, 2022. "A Comparative Study of Modified Hidden Logits Using Randomized Response Techniques," Journal of Policy Research (JPR), Research Foundation for Humanity (RFH), vol. 8(4), pages 447-461, December.
    6. Julian Jamison & Dean Karlan & Pia Raffler, 2013. "Mixed Method Evaluation of a Passive mHealth Sexual Information Testing Service in Uganda," Working Papers 1025, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    7. Elisabetta de Cao & Clemens Lutz, 2015. "Measuring attitudes regarding female genital mutilation through a list experiment," CSAE Working Paper Series 2015-20, Centre for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford.
    8. Gallego, Jorge & Wantchekon, Leonard, 2012. "Experiments on Clientelism and Vote Buying," MPRA Paper 97060, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. repec:dgr:rugsom:14017-eef is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Cullen,Claire Alexis, 2020. "Method Matters : Underreporting of Intimate Partner Violence in Nigeria and Rwanda," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9274, The World Bank.
    11. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina & Juan Felipe Riaño, 2018. "I Sell My Vote, and So What? Incidence, Social Bias, and Correlates of Clientelism in Colombia," Economía Journal, The Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association - LACEA, vol. 0(Fall 2018), pages 181-218, November.
    12. Julian Jamison, Dean Karlan, Pia Raffler, 2013. "Mixed Method Evaluation of a Passive Health Sexual Information Texting Service in Uganda-Working Paper 332," Working Papers 332, Center for Global Development.
    13. Shu-Hui Hsieh & Shen-Ming Lee & Chin-Shang Li, 2022. "A Two-stage Multilevel Randomized Response Technique With Proportional Odds Models and Missing Covariates," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 51(1), pages 439-467, February.
    14. 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.
    15. Richard Traunmüller & Sara Kijewski & Markus Freitag, 2019. "The Silent Victims of Sexual Violence during War: Evidence from a List Experiment in Sri Lanka," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(9), pages 2015-2042, October.
    16. Carole Treibich & Aurélia Lépine, 2019. "Estimating misreporting in condom use and its determinants among sex workers: Evidence from the list randomisation method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 144-160, January.
    17. Irfan Nooruddin, 2014. "Making Surveys Work Better: Experiments in Public Opinion Research," Studies in Indian Politics, , vol. 2(1), pages 105-108, June.
    18. De Cao, Elisabetta & Lutz, Clemens, 2014. "Sensitive survey questions," Research Report 14017-EEF, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    19. Lai, Yufeng & Minegishi, Kota & Boaitey, Albert K., 2020. "Social Desirability Bias in Farm Animal Welfare Preference Research," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304375, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. James G. Gimpel & Iris Hui, 2017. "Inadvertent and intentional partisan residential sorting," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 58(3), pages 441-468, May.

    More about this item

    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:cup:polals:v:17:y:2009:i:01:p:45-63_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pan .

    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.