IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v36y2007i2p266-282.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Log-Linear Randomized-Response Models Taking Self-Protective Response Behavior Into Account

Author

Listed:
  • Maarten J. L. F. Cruyff

    (Utrecht University, Netherlands, m.cruyff@uu.nl)

  • Ardo van den Hout

    (MRC Biostatistic Unit, Cambridge, United Kingdom)

  • Peter G. M. van der Heijden

    (Utrecht University, Netherlands)

  • Ulf Böckenholt

    (McGill University, Montreal, Canada)

Abstract

Randomized response (RR) is an interview technique designed to eliminate response bias when sensitive questions are asked. In RR the answer depends partly on the true status of the respondent and partly on the outcome of a randomizing device. Although RR elicits more honest answers than direct questions do, it is susceptible to self-protective response behavior; that is, the respondent gives an evasive answer irrespective of the outcome of the randomizing device. The authors present a log-linear RR model that accounts for this kind of self-protection (SP). The main results of this SP model are estimates of (1) the probability of SP, (2) the log-linear parameters describing the associations between the sensitive characteristics, and (3) the prevalence of the sensitive characteristics that are corrected for SP. The model is illustrated with two examples from a Dutch survey measuring noncompliance with social welfare rules.

Suggested Citation

  • Maarten J. L. F. Cruyff & Ardo van den Hout & Peter G. M. van der Heijden & Ulf Böckenholt, 2007. "Log-Linear Randomized-Response Models Taking Self-Protective Response Behavior Into Account," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 36(2), pages 266-282, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:36:y:2007:i:2:p:266-282
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124107301944
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124107301944
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124107301944?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. Gerty J. L. M. Lensvelt‐Mulders & Peter G. M. Van Der Heijden & Olav Laudy & Ger Van Gils, 2006. "A validation of a computer‐assisted randomized response survey to estimate the prevalence of fraud in social security," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 169(2), pages 305-318, March.
    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. 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.
    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. Blume, Andreas & Lai, Ernest K. & Lim, Wooyoung, 2019. "Eliciting private information with noise: The case of randomized response," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 356-380.

    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. Elisabeth Coutts & Ben Jann, 2011. "Sensitive Questions in Online Surveys: Experimental Results for the Randomized Response Technique (RRT) and the Unmatched Count Technique (UCT)," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 40(1), pages 169-193, February.
    2. Ulf Böckenholt & Peter van der Heijden, 2007. "Item Randomized-Response Models for Measuring Noncompliance: Risk-Return Perceptions, Social Influences, and Self-Protective Responses," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 72(2), pages 245-262, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Sabrina Giordano & Pier Perri, 2012. "Efficiency comparison of unrelated question models based on same privacy protection degree," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 987-999, November.
    5. Carel F. W. Peeters & Gerty J. L. M. Lensvelt-Mulders & Karin Lasthuizen, 2010. "A Note on a Simple and Practical Randomized Response Framework for Eliciting Sensitive Dichotomous and Quantitative Information," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 39(2), pages 283-296, November.
    6. Pier Francesco Perri & Elvira Pelle & Manuela Stranges, 2016. "Estimating Induced Abortion and Foreign Irregular Presence Using the Randomized Response Crossed Model," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 129(2), pages 601-618, November.
    7. van den Hout, Ardo & van der Heijden, Peter G.M. & Gilchrist, Robert, 2007. "The logistic regression model with response variables subject to randomized response," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(12), pages 6060-6069, August.
    8. Heiko Groenitz, 2015. "Using prior information in privacy-protecting survey designs for categorical sensitive variables," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 167-189, February.
    9. Truong-Nhat Le & Shen-Ming Lee & Phuoc-Loc Tran & Chin-Shang Li, 2023. "Randomized Response Techniques: A Systematic Review from the Pioneering Work of Warner (1965) to the Present," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-26, April.
    10. Andreas Quatember, 2019. "A discussion of the two different aspects of privacy protection in indirect questioning designs," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(1), pages 269-282, January.
    11. Leif Appelgren, 2019. "Optimal auditing of social benefit fraud: a case study," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 203-231, January.
    12. Groenitz, Heiko, 2016. "A covariate nonrandomized response model for multicategorical sensitive variables," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 124-138.

    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:sae:somere:v:36:y:2007:i:2:p:266-282. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.