IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v42y2013i3p321-353.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Asking Sensitive Questions

Author

Listed:
  • Felix Wolter
  • Peter Preisendörfer

Abstract

This article is an empirical contribution to the evaluation of the randomized response technique (RRT), a prominent procedure to elicit more valid responses to sensitive questions in surveys. Based on individual validation data, we focus on two questions: First, does the RRT lead to higher prevalence estimates of sensitive behavior than direct questioning (DQ)? Second, are there differences in the effects of determinants of misreporting according to question mode? The data come from 552 face-to-face interviews with subjects who had been convicted by a court for minor criminal offences in a metropolitan area in Germany. For the first question, the answer is negative. For the second, it is positive, that is, effects of individual and situational determinants of misreporting differ between the two question modes. The effect of need for social approval, for example, tends to be stronger in RRT than in DQ mode. Interviewer experience turns out to be positively related to answer validity in DQ and negatively in RRT mode. Our findings support a skeptical position toward RRT, shed new light on long-standing debates within survey methodology, and stimulate theoretical reasoning about response behavior in surveys.

Suggested Citation

  • Felix Wolter & Peter Preisendörfer, 2013. "Asking Sensitive Questions," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 42(3), pages 321-353, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:42:y:2013:i:3:p:321-353
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124113500474
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124113500474
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124113500474?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. Johannes Landsheer & Peter Van Der Heijden & Ger Van Gils, 1999. "Trust and Understanding, Two Psychological Aspects of Randomized Response," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 1-12, February.
    2. Gerty Lensvelt-Mulders & Joop Hox & Peter Heijden, 2005. "How to Improve the Efficiency of Randomised Response Designs," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 253-265, June.
    3. Timothy Johnson & Michael Fendrich & Mary Mackesy-Amiti, 2012. "An evaluation of the validity of the Crowne–Marlowe need for approval scale," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1883-1896, October.
    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. Ivar Krumpal & Thomas Voss, 2020. "Sensitive Questions and Trust: Explaining Respondents’ Behavior in Randomized Response Surveys," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(3), pages 21582440209, July.
    2. Kajal Dihidar & Joydeep Chowdhury, 2013. "Enhancing a Randomized Response Model to Estimate Population Means to Sensitive Questions," Mathematical Population Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 123-136, July.
    3. Coutts Elisabethen & Jann Ben & Krumpal Ivar & Näher Anatol-Fiete, 2011. "Plagiarism in Student Papers: Prevalence Estimates Using Special Techniques for Sensitive Questions," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 231(5-6), pages 749-760, October.
    4. Pavel Dietz & Anne Quermann & Mireille Nicoline Maria van Poppel & Heiko Striegel & Hannes Schröter & Rolf Ulrich & Perikles Simon, 2018. "Physical and cognitive doping in university students using the unrelated question model (UQM): Assessing the influence of the probability of receiving the sensitive question on prevalence estimation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-12, May.
    5. Gerty J. L. M. Lensvelt-Mulders & Joop J. Hox & Peter G. M. van der Heijden & Cora J. M. Maas, 2005. "Meta-Analysis of Randomized Response Research," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 33(3), pages 319-348, February.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Katherine B. Coffman & Lucas C. Coffman & Keith M. Marzilli Ericson, 2017. "The Size of the LGBT Population and the Magnitude of Antigay Sentiment Are Substantially Underestimated," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(10), pages 3168-3186, October.
    9. PETER G. M. van der HEIJDEN & GER van GILS & JAN BOUTS & JOOP J. HOX, 2000. "A Comparison of Randomized Response, Computer-Assisted Self-Interview, and Face-to-Face Direct Questioning," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 28(4), pages 505-537, May.
    10. Kirchner Antje, 2015. "Validating Sensitive Questions: A Comparison of Survey and Register Data," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 31(1), pages 31-59, March.
    11. Ivar Krumpal, 2013. "Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 2025-2047, June.
    12. Diana Lara & Jennifer Strickler & Claudia Díaz Olavarrieta & Charlotte Ellertson, 2004. "Measuring Induced Abortion in Mexico," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 32(4), pages 529-558, May.
    13. Kuo-Chung Huang & Chun-Hsiung Lan & Mei-Pei Kuo, 2005. "Detecting Untruthful Answering in Randomized Response Sampling," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 39(5), pages 659-669, October.
    14. Jintao Li & Lei Chu, 2024. "Spatiotemporal Evolution and Transformation Regulation Strategies of Rural Residential Land on the Grand Canal (China)," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-24, April.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.

    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:42:y:2013:i:3:p:321-353. 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.