IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/esprep/249353.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Puzzling Answers to Crosswise Questions - Examining Overall Prevalence Rates, Primacy Effects and Learning Effects

Author

Listed:
  • Walzenbach, Sandra
  • Hinz, Thomas

Abstract

This validation study on the crosswise model (CM) examines five survey experiments that were implemented in a general population survey. Our first crucial result is that in none of these experiments was the crosswise model able to verifiably reduce social desirability bias. In contrast to most previous CM applications, we use an experimental design that allows us to distinguish a reduction in social desirability bias from heuristic response behaviour, such as random ticking, leading to false positive or false negative answers. In addition, we provide insights on two potential explanatory mechanisms that have not yet received attention in empirical studies: primacy effects and panel conditioning. We do not find consistent primacy effects, nor does response quality improve due to learning when respondents have had experiences with crosswise models in past survey waves. We interpret our results as evidence that the crosswise model does not work in general population surveys and speculate that the question format causes mistrust in participants.

Suggested Citation

  • Walzenbach, Sandra & Hinz, Thomas, 2022. "Puzzling Answers to Crosswise Questions - Examining Overall Prevalence Rates, Primacy Effects and Learning Effects," EconStor Preprints 249353, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:esprep:249353
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/249353/1/walzenbach-hinz-puzzling-answers-to-crosswise-questions.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marc Höglinger & Ben Jann, 2018. "More is not always better: An experimental individual-level validation of the randomized response technique and the crosswise model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-22, August.
    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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Jun-Wu Yu & Guo-Liang Tian & Man-Lai Tang, 2008. "Two new models for survey sampling with sensitive characteristic: design and analysis," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 67(3), pages 251-263, April.
    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. 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.
    2. Ulrich Thy Jensen, 2020. "Is self-reported social distancing susceptible to social desirability bias? Using the crosswise model to elicit sensitive behaviors," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(2).
    3. Ivar Krumpal & Thomas Voss, 2020. "Sensitive Questions and Trust: Explaining Respondents’ Behavior in Randomized Response Surveys," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(3), pages 21582440209, July.
    4. 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.
    5. Pier Francesco Perri & Eleni Manoli & Tasos C. Christofides, 2023. "Assessing the effectiveness of indirect questioning techniques by detecting liars," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 64(5), pages 1483-1506, October.
    6. Marc Höglinger & Ben Jann, 2018. "More is not always better: An experimental individual-level validation of the randomized response technique and the crosswise model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-22, August.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Geoff Kaine & Vic Wright, 2024. "Social Desirability Bias and the Prevalence of Self-Reported Conservation Behaviour Among Farmers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-12, November.
    11. Julia Meisters & Adrian Hoffmann & Jochen Musch, 2020. "Controlling social desirability bias: An experimental investigation of the extended crosswise model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-13, December.
    12. Ó Ceallaigh, Diarmaid & Timmons, Shane & Robertson, Deirdre & Lunn, Pete, 2023. "Problem gambling: A narrative review of important policy-relevant issues," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number SUSTAT119.
    13. Adetola Adedamola Adediran & Femi Barnabas Adebola & Olusegun Sunday Ewemooje, 2020. "Unbiased estimator modeling in unrelated dichotomous randomized response," Statistics in Transition New Series, Polish Statistical Association, vol. 21(5), pages 119-132, December.
    14. Höglinger, Marc & Diekmann, Andreas, 2017. "Uncovering a Blind Spot in Sensitive Question Research: False Positives Undermine the Crosswise-Model RRT," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 131-137, January.
    15. Carlos Barros, 2012. "Sustainable Tourism in Inhambane-Mozambique," CEsA Working Papers 105, CEsA - Centre for African and Development Studies.
    16. Andreas Lagerås & Mathias Lindholm, 2020. "How to ask sensitive multiple‐choice questions," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 47(2), pages 397-424, June.
    17. Yamen, Ahmed & Allam, Amir & Bani-Mustafa, Ahmed & Uyar, Ali, 2018. "Impact of institutional environment quality on tax evasion: A comparative investigation of old versus new EU members," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 17-29.
    18. Kazuo Yamaguchi, 2016. "Cross-sectional and Panel Data Analyses of an Incompletely Observed Variable Derived From the Nonrandomized Method for Surveying Sensitive Questions," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 45(1), pages 41-68, February.
    19. 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.
    20. Horng-Jinh Chang & Mei-Pei Kuo, 2012. "Estimation of population proportion in randomized response sampling using weighted confidence interval construction," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 75(5), pages 655-672, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    crosswise model; randomized response; social desirability bias; primacy effects; learning effects; panel conditioning; privacy concerns;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:zbw:esprep:249353. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.html .

    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.