IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0193985.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Indirect questioning method reveals hidden support for female genital cutting in South Central Ethiopia

Author

Listed:
  • Mhairi A Gibson
  • Eshetu Gurmu
  • Beatriz Cobo
  • María M Rueda
  • Isabel M Scott

Abstract

Female genital cutting (FGC) has major implications for women’s physical, sexual and psychological health, and eliminating the practice is a key target for public health policy-makers. To date one of the main barriers to achieving this has been an inability to infer privately-held views on FGC within communities where it is prevalent. As a sensitive (and often illegal) topic, people are anticipated to hide their true support for the practice when questioned directly. Here we use an indirect questioning method (unmatched count technique) to identify hidden support for FGC in a rural South Central Ethiopian community where the practice is common, but thought to be in decline. Employing a socio-demographic household survey of 1620 Arsi Oromo adults, which incorporated both direct and indirect direct response (unmatched count) techniques we compare directly-stated versus privately-held views in support of FGC, and individual variation in responses by age, gender and education and target female (daughters versus daughters-in-law). Both genders express low support for FGC when questioned directly, while indirect methods reveal substantially higher acceptance (of cutting both daughters and daughters-in-law). Educated adults (those who have attended school) are privately more supportive of the practice than they are prepared to admit openly to an interviewer, indicating that education may heighten secrecy rather than decrease support for FGC. Older individuals hold the strongest views in favour of FGC (particularly educated older males), but they are also more inclined to conceal their support for FGC when questioned directly. As these elders represent the most influential members of society, their hidden support for FGC may constitute a pivotal barrier to eliminating the practice in this community. Our results demonstrate the great potential for indirect questioning methods to advance knowledge and inform policy on culturally-sensitive topics like FGC; providing more reliable data and improving understanding of the “true” drivers of FGC.

Suggested Citation

  • Mhairi A Gibson & Eshetu Gurmu & Beatriz Cobo & María M Rueda & Isabel M Scott, 2018. "Indirect questioning method reveals hidden support for female genital cutting in South Central Ethiopia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0193985
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193985
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193985
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193985&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0193985?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.
    2. 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.
    3. Imai, Kosuke, 2011. "Multivariate Regression Analysis for the Item Count Technique," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 106(494), pages 407-416.
    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. 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).
    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. 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.
    4. De Cao, Elisabetta & Lutz, Clemens, 2014. "Sensitive survey questions," Research Report 14017-EEF, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Heiko Groenitz, 2018. "Analyzing efficiency for the multi-category parallel method," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 76(2), pages 231-250, August.
    8. Lépine, Aurélia & Treibich, Carole & D’Exelle, Ben, 2020. "Nothing but the truth: Consistency and efficiency of the list experiment method for the measurement of sensitive health behaviours," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    9. Leonardo Bursztyn & Georgy Egorov & Ruben Enikolopov & Maria Petrova, 2019. "Social Media and Xenophobia: Evidence from Russia," NBER Working Papers 26567, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Marine JOUVIN, 2021. "Addressing social desirability bias in child labor measurement : an application to cocoa farms in Côte d’Ivoire," Bordeaux Economics Working Papers 2021-08, Bordeaux School of Economics (BSE).
    11. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina & Juan Felipe Riaño, 2019. "Consumers as VAT “Evaders”: Incidence, Social Bias, and Correlates in Colombia," Economía Journal, The Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association - LACEA, vol. 0(Spring 20), pages 21-67, April.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Detkova, Polina & Tkachenko, Andrey & Yakovlev, Andrei, 2021. "Gender heterogeneity of bureaucrats in attitude to corruption: Evidence from list experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 217-233.
    15. Lai, Yufeng & Boaitey, Albert & Minegishi, Kota, 2022. "Behind the veil: Social desirability bias and animal welfare ballot initiatives," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    16. M. Niaz Asadullah & Elisabetta De Cao & Fathema Zhura Khatoon & Zahra Siddique, 2021. "Measuring gender attitudes using list experiments," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 34(2), pages 367-400, April.
    17. Doerr, Annabelle & Hartmann, Carina & Sajons, Christoph, 2022. "Unregistered work among refugees: Evidence from a list experiment in Germany," Working papers 2022/01, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.
    18. María del Mar García Rueda & Pier Francesco Perri & Beatriz Rodríguez Cobo, 2018. "Advances in estimation by the item sum technique using auxiliary information in complex surveys," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 102(3), pages 455-478, July.
    19. repec:dgr:rugsom:14017-eef is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Marco Gregori & Martijn G. Jong & Rik Pieters, 2024. "The Crosswise Model for Surveys on Sensitive Topics: A General Framework for Item Selection and Statistical Analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 89(3), pages 1007-1033, September.
    21. Henry Cust & Aurélia Lépine & Carole Treibich & Timothy Powell‐Jackson & Rosalba Radice & Cheikh Tidiane Ndour, 2024. "Trading HIV for sheep: Risky sexual behavior and the response of female sex workers to Tabaski in Senegal," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(1), pages 153-193, January.

    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:plo:pone00:0193985. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.