IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v53y2019i1d10.1007_s11135-018-0751-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A discussion of the two different aspects of privacy protection in indirect questioning designs

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas Quatember

    (Johannes Kepler University JKU Linz)

Abstract

The motivation behind considering the use of indirect questioning designs is their possible positive effect on the respondents’ willingness to cooperate. Whereas the privacy protection objectively offered by these methods has a direct effect on the estimator’s efficiency, it is the subjectively perceived protection which affects the respondents’ willingness to cooperate. For the discussion of these different aspects of privacy protection, a family of randomized response techniques enabling the tailoring of the design’s privacy protection to the respondents is presented as representative of indirect questioning designs. Measures are suggested that formalize how the objectively offered and subjectively perceived privacy protection may differ. Different features of randomized response questioning designs, influencing the perceived privacy protection, are discussed particularly for the “crosswise model” in order to avoid underestimations of the true levels of privacy protection, which would be counter-productive with regard to the respondents’ cooperation propensity.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:53:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s11135-018-0751-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-018-0751-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-018-0751-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-018-0751-4?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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Ardo van den Hout & Ulf Böckenholt & Peter G. M. Van Der Heijden, 2010. "Estimating the prevalence of sensitive behaviour and cheating with a dual design for direct questioning and randomized response," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 59(4), pages 723-736, August.
    4. Andreas Diekmann, 2012. "Making Use of “Benford’s Law†for the Randomized Response Technique," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 41(2), pages 325-334, May.
    5. Andreas Quatember, 2012. "An extension of the standardized randomized response technique to a multi-stage setup," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 21(4), pages 475-484, November.
    6. Andreas Diekmann, 2007. "Not the First Digit! Using Benford's Law to Detect Fraudulent Scientif ic Data," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(3), pages 321-329.
    7. 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.
    8. Marc Höglinger & Ben Jann & Andreas Diekmann, 2014. "Sensitive Questions in Online Surveys: An Experimental Evaluation of the Randomized Response Technique and the Crosswise Model," University of Bern Social Sciences Working Papers 9, University of Bern, Department of Social Sciences, revised 24 Jun 2014.
    9. 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. Zhengtao Li & Henk Folmer, 2023. "Air pollution and perception-based averting behaviour in the Jinchuan mining area, China," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 70(2), pages 477-505, April.

    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. 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. Liu, Yin & Tian, Guo-Liang, 2013. "A variant of the parallel model for sample surveys with sensitive characteristics," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 115-135.
    4. Kundt, Thorben, 2014. "Applying “Benford’s law” to the Crosswise Model: Findings from an online survey on tax evasion," Working Paper 148/2014, Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg.
    5. Marc Höglinger & Ben Jann & Andreas Diekmann, 2014. "Online Survey on "Exams and Written Papers". Documentation," University of Bern Social Sciences Working Papers 8, University of Bern, Department of Social Sciences, revised 06 Oct 2014.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    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. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Ivar Krumpal & Thomas Voss, 2020. "Sensitive Questions and Trust: Explaining Respondents’ Behavior in Randomized Response Surveys," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(3), pages 21582440209, July.
    13. 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.
    14. 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, June.
    15. Groenitz, Heiko, 2016. "A covariate nonrandomized response model for multicategorical sensitive variables," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 124-138.
    16. 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.
    17. Gueorguiev, Dimitar & Malesky, Edmund, 2012. "Foreign investment and bribery: A firm-level analysis of corruption in Vietnam," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 111-129.
    18. Carlos Barros, 2012. "Sustainable Tourism in Inhambane-Mozambique," CEsA Working Papers 105, CEsA - Centre for African and Development Studies.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:qualqt:v:53:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s11135-018-0751-4. 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.