IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0243384.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Controlling social desirability bias: An experimental investigation of the extended crosswise model

Author

Listed:
  • Julia Meisters
  • Adrian Hoffmann
  • Jochen Musch

Abstract

Indirect questioning techniques such as the crosswise model aim to control for socially desirable responding in surveys on sensitive personal attributes. Recently, the extended crosswise model has been proposed as an improvement over the original crosswise model. It offers all of the advantages of the original crosswise model while also enabling the detection of systematic response biases. We applied the extended crosswise model to a new sensitive attribute, campus islamophobia, and present the first experimental investigation including an extended crosswise model, and a direct questioning control condition, respectively. In a paper-pencil questionnaire, we surveyed 1,361 German university students using either a direct question or the extended crosswise model. We found that the extended crosswise model provided a good model fit, indicating no systematic response bias and allowing for a pooling of the data of both groups of the extended crosswise model. Moreover, the extended crosswise model yielded significantly higher estimates of campus Islamophobia than a direct question. This result could either indicate that the extended crosswise model was successful in controlling for social desirability, or that response biases such as false positives or careless responding have inflated the estimate, which cannot be decided on the basis of the available data. Our findings highlight the importance of detecting response biases in surveys implementing indirect questioning techniques.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0243384
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243384
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243384
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243384&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0243384?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. Thorben C. Kundt & Florian Misch & Birger Nerré, 2017. "Re-assessing the merits of measuring tax evasion through business surveys: an application of the crosswise model," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 24(1), pages 112-133, February.
    2. 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.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:5:p:527-536 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Ivar Krumpal & Thomas Voss, 2020. "Sensitive Questions and Trust: Explaining Respondents’ Behavior in Randomized Response Surveys," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(3), pages 21582440209, July.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Sylvain Chassang & Christian Zehnder, 2019. "Secure Survey Design in Organizations: Theory and Experiments," Working Papers 2019-22, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    8. 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.
    9. Ning Ding & Xinnan Zhang & Yiming Zhai & Chenglong Li, 2021. "Risk assessment of VAT invoice crime levels of companies based on DFPSVM: a case study in China," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 23(1), pages 75-96, June.
    10. Era Dabla-Norris & Mark Gradstein & Fedor Miryugin & Florian Misch, 2019. "Productivity and Tax Evasion," CESifo Working Paper Series 8002, CESifo.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Joseph Nyamapheni & Zurika Robinson, 2021. "Determinants of Tax Morale: Cross-Sectional Evidence from Africa," The Journal of Accounting and Management, Danubius University of Galati, issue 3(11), pages 84-99, December.
    14. James Alm & Yongzheng Liu & Kewei Zhang, 2019. "Financial constraints and firm tax evasion," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 26(1), pages 71-102, February.
    15. 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.
    16. Sylvain Chassang & Christian Zehnder, 2019. "Secure Survey Design in Organizations: Theory and Experiments," NBER Working Papers 25918, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. 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).
    18. Carroll, Eamonn & Timmons, Shane & McGinnity, Frances, 2023. "Experimental tests of public support for disability policy," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number RS159, June.
    19. McGinnity, Frances & Creighton, Mathew & Fahey, Éamonn, 2020. "Hidden versus revealed attitudes: a list experiment on support for minorities in Ireland," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number BKMNEXT372, June.
    20. Heng Xu & Nan Zhang, 2022. "Implications of Data Anonymization on the Statistical Evidence of Disparity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2600-2618, April.

    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:pone00:0243384. 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.