IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i6p970-d214878.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Asking Sensitive Questions Using the Randomized Response Approach in Public Health Research: An Empirical Study on the Factors of Illegal Waste Disposal

Author

Listed:
  • Andy C. Y. Chong

    (School of Nursing and Health Studies, The Open University of Hong Kong, Ho Man Tin, Hong Kong)

  • Amanda M. Y. Chu

    (Department of Social Sciences, The Education University of Hong Kong, Tai Po, Hong Kong)

  • Mike K. P. So

    (Department of Information Systems, Business Statistics and Operations Management, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Hong Kong)

  • Ray S. W. Chung

    (Division of Environment and Sustainability, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Hong Kong)

Abstract

A survey study is a research method commonly used to quantify population characteristics in biostatistics and public health research, two fields that often involve sensitive questions. However, if answering sensitive questions could cause social undesirability, respondents may not provide honest responses to questions that are asked directly. To mitigate the response distortion arising from dishonest answers to sensitive questions, the randomized response technique (RRT) is a useful and effective statistical method. However, research has seldom addressed how to apply the RRT in public health research using an online survey with multiple sensitive questions. Thus, we help fill this research gap by employing an innovative unrelated question design method. To illustrate how the RRT can be implemented in a multivariate analysis setting, we conducted a survey study to examine the factors affecting the intention of illegal waste disposal. This study demonstrates an application of the RRT to investigate the factors affecting people’s intention of illegal waste disposal. The potential factors of the intention were adopted from the theory of planned behavior and the general deterrence theory, and a self-administered online questionnaire was employed to collect data. Using the RRT, a covariance matrix was extracted for examining the hypothesized model via structural equation modeling. The survey results show that people’s attitude toward the behavior and their perceived behavioral control significantly positively affect their intention. This paper is useful for showing researchers and policymakers how to conduct surveys in environmental or public health related research that involves multiple sensitive questions.

Suggested Citation

  • Andy C. Y. Chong & Amanda M. Y. Chu & Mike K. P. So & Ray S. W. Chung, 2019. "Asking Sensitive Questions Using the Randomized Response Approach in Public Health Research: An Empirical Study on the Factors of Illegal Waste Disposal," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-15, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:6:p:970-:d:214878
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/6/970/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/6/970/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gary S. Becker, 1974. "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach," NBER Chapters, in: Essays in the Economics of Crime and Punishment, pages 1-54, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Don Fullerton & Thomas C. Kinnaman, 2002. "Household Responses to Pricing Garbage by the Bag," Chapters, in: Don Fullerton & Thomas C. Kinnaman (ed.), The Economics of Household Garbage and Recycling Behavior, chapter 4, pages 88-101, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Samuel S. K. Kwan & Mike K. P. So & Kar Yan Tam, 2010. "Research Note ---Applying the Randomized Response Technique to Elicit Truthful Responses to Sensitive Questions in IS Research: The Case of Software Piracy Behavior," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 941-959, December.
    4. Yadav, Rambalak & Pathak, Govind S., 2017. "Determinants of Consumers' Green Purchase Behavior in a Developing Nation: Applying and Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 114-122.
    5. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    6. Gingerich, Daniel W., 2010. "Understanding Off-the-Books Politics: Conducting Inference on the Determinants of Sensitive Behavior with Randomized Response Surveys," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(3), pages 349-380, July.
    7. Amanda Chu & Patrick Chau & Mike So, 2015. "Explaining the Misuse of Information Systems Resources in the Workplace: A Dual-Process Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(1), pages 209-225, September.
    8. Diana Toledo & Nicole Aerny & Núria Soldevila & Maretva Baricot & Pere Godoy & Jesús Castilla & Susana García-Gutierrez & Núria Torner & Jenaro Astray & José María Mayoral & Sonia Tamames & Fernando G, 2015. "Managing an Online Survey about Influenza Vaccination in Primary Healthcare Workers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, January.
    9. Maria Triassi & Rossella Alfano & Maddalena Illario & Antonio Nardone & Oreste Caporale & Paolo Montuori, 2015. "Environmental Pollution from Illegal Waste Disposal and Health Effects: A Review on the “Triangle of Death”," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-21, January.
    10. Shirley Taylor & Peter A. Todd, 1995. "Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(2), pages 144-176, June.
    11. Graeme Blair & Kosuke Imai & Yang-Yang Zhou, 2015. "Design and Analysis of the Randomized Response Technique," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 110(511), pages 1304-1319, September.
    12. Geum-Soo Kim & Young-Jae Chang & David Kelleher, 2008. "Unit pricing of municipal solid waste and illegal dumping: an empirical analysis of Korean experience," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 9(3), pages 167-176, September.
    13. John, Leslie K. & Loewenstein, George & Acquisti, Alessandro & Vosgerau, Joachim, 2018. "When and why randomized response techniques (fail to) elicit the truth," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 101-123.
    14. John D'Arcy & Anat Hovav & Dennis Galletta, 2009. "User Awareness of Security Countermeasures and Its Impact on Information Systems Misuse: A Deterrence Approach," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 79-98, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Amanda M. Y. Chu & Mike K. P. So & Ray S. W. Chung, 2018. "Applying the Randomized Response Technique in Business Ethics Research: The Misuse of Information Systems Resources in the Workplace," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 151(1), pages 195-212, August.
    2. 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.
    3. Behzad Ranjbar & Amir Naeimi & Mohammad Badsar, 2022. "Designing an integrated model for strawberry growers’ behavior toward implementation of good agricultural practices in Iran," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 10924-10944, September.
    4. Katharina Stolz, 2022. "Why Do(n’t) We Buy Second-Hand Luxury Products?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-24, July.
    5. Leibao Zhang & Yanli Fan & Wenyu Zhang & Shuai Zhang, 2019. "Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior to Explain the Effects of Cognitive Factors across Different Kinds of Green Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-17, August.
    6. Ruijie Zhu & Guojing Zhao & Zehai Long & Yangjie Huang & Zhaoxin Huang, 2022. "Entrepreneurship or Employment? A Survey of College Students’ Sustainable Entrepreneurial Intentions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-15, May.
    7. Pan, Jing Yu & Liu, Dahai, 2022. "Mask-wearing intentions on airplanes during COVID-19 – Application of theory of planned behavior model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 32-44.
    8. Andreas Falke & Nadine Schröder & Claudia Hofmann, 2022. "The influence of values in sustainable consumption among millennials," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 92(6), pages 899-928, August.
    9. Hasan, Rajibul & Lowe, Ben & Petrovici, Dan, 2020. "Consumer adoption of pro-poor service innovations in subsistence marketplaces," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 461-475.
    10. Nketiah, Emmanuel & Song, Huaming & Cai, Xiang & Adjei, Mavis & Adu-Gyamfi, Gibbson & Obuobi, Bright, 2022. "Citizens’ intention to invest in municipal solid waste to energy projects in Ghana: The impact of direct and indirect effects," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 254(PC).
    11. Paul Juinn Bing Tan, 2013. "Applying the UTAUT to Understand Factors Affecting the Use of English E-Learning Websites in Taiwan," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(4), pages 21582440135, October.
    12. Chen, Shih-Chih & Hung, Chung-Wen, 2016. "Elucidating the factors influencing the acceptance of green products: An extension of theory of planned behavior," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 155-163.
    13. Venkatesh, Viswanath & Maruping, Likoebe M. & Brown, Susan A., 2006. "Role of time in self-prediction of behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 100(2), pages 160-176, July.
    14. Garima Malik & A. Sajeevan Rao, 2019. "Extended expectation-confirmation model to predict continued usage of ODR/ride hailing apps: role of perceived value and self-efficacy," Information Technology & Tourism, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 461-482, December.
    15. Sylvain Chassang & Christian Zehnder, 2024. "Secure Survey Design in Organizations: Theory and Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 16(4), pages 371-405, November.
    16. Borhan, Muhamad Nazri & Ibrahim, Ahmad Nazrul Hakimi & Miskeen, Manssour A. Abdulasalm, 2019. "Extending the theory of planned behaviour to predict the intention to take the new high-speed rail for intercity travel in Libya: Assessment of the influence of novelty seeking, trust and external inf," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 373-384.
    17. Li, Zhengtao & Hu, Bin, 2018. "Perceived health risk, environmental knowledge, and contingent valuation for improving air quality: New evidence from the Jinchuan mining area in China," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 54-68.
    18. Fernanda Leão Ramos & Jorge Brantes Ferreira & Angilberto Sabino de Freitas & Juliana Werneck Rodrigues, 2018. "The Effect of Trust in the Intention to Use m-banking," Brazilian Business Review, Fucape Business School, vol. 15(2), pages 175-191, March.
    19. Yu Hao & Yingting Wang & Qiuwei Wu & Shiwei Sun & Weilu Wang & Menglin Cui, 2020. "What affects residents' participation in the circular economy for sustainable development? Evidence from China," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(5), pages 1251-1268, September.
    20. Alfiero, Simona & Battisti, Enrico & Ηadjielias, Elias, 2022. "Black box technology, usage-based insurance, and prediction of purchase behavior: Evidence from the auto insurance sector," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).

    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:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:6:p:970-:d:214878. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.