IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/soinre/v111y2013i3p713-724.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Informational Ambiguity and Survey Bias: Husbands’ and Wives’ Reports on Their Contribution to Their Families

Author

Listed:
  • Hung-Lin Tao

Abstract

The present study uses panel data models to control unobserved characteristics and to investigate how the presence of spouses in interviews influences reports regarding housework and earnings contributions. Both husbands and wives relatively overreport their housework contributions but do not overreport their earnings contributions. The amount of time spent doing housework lacks a precise measure and involves more subjective estimates than earnings reports. It is argued that the ambiguity of the housework contribution mitigates the guilt felt by overreporting the housework contribution. In addition, without controlling for unobserved characteristics, OLS models overstate the influence of the presence of spouses in the interviews. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Hung-Lin Tao, 2013. "Informational Ambiguity and Survey Bias: Husbands’ and Wives’ Reports on Their Contribution to Their Families," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 111(3), pages 713-724, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:soinre:v:111:y:2013:i:3:p:713-724
    DOI: 10.1007/s11205-012-0029-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11205-012-0029-5
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11205-012-0029-5?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hsee, Christopher K., 1995. "Elastic Justification: How Tempting but Task-Irrelevant Factors Influence Decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 330-337, June.
    2. Hsee, Christopher K., 1996. "Elastic Justification: How Unjustifiable Factors Influence Judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 122-129, April.
    3. Schweitzer, Maurice E & Hsee, Christopher K, 2002. "Stretching the Truth: Elastic Justification and Motivated Communication of Uncertain Information," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 185-201, September.
    4. Cameron,A. Colin & Trivedi,Pravin K., 2005. "Microeconometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521848053, October.
    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. Gundula Fischer & Nicolas Patt & Justus Ochieng & Henry Mvungi, 2020. "Participation in and Gains from Traditional Vegetable Value Chains: a Gendered Analysis of Perceptions of Labour, Income and Expenditure in Producers’ and Traders’ Households," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 32(4), pages 1080-1104, September.
    2. Matthijs Kalmijn, 2019. "The Effects of Ageing on Intergenerational Support Exchange: A New Look at the Hypothesis of Flow Reversal," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 35(2), pages 263-284, May.

    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. Shalvi, Shaul & Dana, Jason & Handgraaf, Michel J.J. & De Dreu, Carsten K.W., 2011. "Justified ethicality: Observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 181-190, July.
    2. Jun Han & Hun‐Tong Tan, 2010. "Investors' Reactions to Management Earnings Guidance: The Joint Effect of Investment Position, News Valence, and Guidance Form," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1), pages 81-104, March.
    3. Jeffrey Hales, 2007. "Directional Preferences, Information Processing, and Investors' Forecasts of Earnings," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(3), pages 607-628, June.
    4. Mayorga, Diane & Trotman, Ken T., 2016. "The effects of a reasonable investor perspective and firm's prior disclosure policy on managers' disclosure judgments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 50-62.
    5. DeKay, Michael L. & Patiño-Echeverri, Dalia & Fischbeck, Paul S., 2009. "Distortion of probability and outcome information in risky decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 79-92, May.
    6. Rafael Di Tella & Ricardo Pérez-Truglia, 2010. "Conveniently Upset: Avoiding Altruism by Distorting Beliefs About Others," NBER Working Papers 16645, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2002. "Rational actors or rational fools: implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 329-342.
    8. Arleta Rasmußen, 2015. "Reporting behavior: a literature review of experimental studies," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(2), pages 283-311, June.
    9. Exley, Christine L. & Petrie, Ragan, 2018. "The impact of a surprise donation ask," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 152-167.
    10. Noval, Laura J. & Molinsky, Andrew & Stahl, Günter K., 2018. "Motivated dissimilarity construal and self-serving behavior: How we distance ourselves from those we harm," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 145-158.
    11. Joanna Ho & L. Keller & Pamela Keltyka, 2005. "How Do Information Ambiguity and Timing of Contextual Information Affect Managers’ Goal Congruence in Making Investment Decisions in Good Times vs. Bad Times?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 163-186, September.
    12. Mulder, Laetitia B. & Rink, Floor & Jordan, Jennifer, 2020. "Constraining temptation: How specific and general rules mitigate the effect of personal gain on unethical behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    13. Piercey, M. David, 2009. "Motivated reasoning and verbal vs. numerical probability assessment: Evidence from an accounting context," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 330-341, March.
    14. Westaby, James D., 2005. "Behavioral reasoning theory: Identifying new linkages underlying intentions and behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 97-120, November.
    15. Eric Schniter & Roman M. Sheremeta & Timothy W. Shields, 2013. "Limitations to Signaling Trust with All or Nothing Investments," Working Papers 13-24, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    16. Barlas, Sema, 2003. "When choices give in to temptations: Explaining the disagreement among importance measures," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 310-321, July.
    17. Mulder, Laetitia B. & Jordan, Jennifer & Rink, Floor, 2015. "The effect of specific and general rules on ethical decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 115-129.
    18. Li, Xilin & Hsee, Christopher K., 2021. "Free-riding and cost-bearing in discrimination," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 80-90.
    19. Li, Xilin & Hsee, Christopher K., 2019. "Beyond preference reversal: Distinguishing justifiability from evaluability in joint versus single evaluations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 63-74.
    20. Nathan F. Dieckmann & Robin Gregory & Ellen Peters & Robert Hartman, 2017. "Seeing What You Want to See: How Imprecise Uncertainty Ranges Enhance Motivated Reasoning," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 471-486, March.

    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:spr:soinre:v:111:y:2013:i:3:p:713-724. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.