IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpd/articl/v3y2020i2jbpa.32.182.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is self-reported social distancing susceptible to social desirability bias? Using the crosswise model to elicit sensitive behaviors

Author

Listed:
  • Ulrich Thy Jensen

    (Arizona State University)

Abstract

Sensitive behaviors such as self-reported performance or (un)ethical behaviors often carry strong social connotations of appropriate or inappropriate conduct. In return, social norms can artificially inflate or deflate individuals’ responses and bias scientific results on their prevalence and effects. As a core part of governments’ mitigation strategy against the outbreak of COVID-19, social distancing might represent one of these behaviors. Can researchers expect honest responses when surveying citizens about their social distancing behaviors? This question is examined using the sensitive survey technique, “the crosswise model†, to elicit aggregate-level prevalence estimates of (1) self-reported social distancing, and (2) honest reporting in a prediction dice game. Since the number of wins in the dice game follows a known probability distribution, it offers an excellent setting for illustrating the utility of the crosswise model before applying it to self-reported social distancing. In a survey of 1,059 adults living in the US, the crosswise model outperforms direct questioning in revealing respondents’ dishonest behavior in the dice game. While the crosswise model also indicates some social desirability bias when asking respondents directly about their social distancing behaviors, the extent of this bias seems small and does not appear to overtly inflate individuals’ self-reported measures of social distancing.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
  • Handle: RePEc:bpd:articl:v:3:y:2020:i:2:jbpa.32.182
    DOI: 10.30636/jbpa.32.182
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journal-bpa.org/index.php/jbpa/article/download/182/84
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.30636/jbpa.32.182?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. James Alm, 2012. "Measuring, explaining, and controlling tax evasion: lessons from theory, experiments, and field studies," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 19(1), pages 54-77, February.
    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. Sebastian Barfort & Nikolaj A. Harmon & Frederik Hjorth & Asmus Leth Olsen, 2019. "Sustaining Honesty in Public Service: The Role of Selection," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 11(4), pages 96-123, November.
    4. 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.
    5. Mullinix, Kevin J. & Leeper, Thomas J. & Druckman, James N. & Freese, Jeremy, 2015. "The Generalizability of Survey Experiments," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 109-138, January.
    6. 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.
    7. Coppock, Alexander, 2019. "Generalizing from Survey Experiments Conducted on Mechanical Turk: A Replication Approach," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 613-628, July.
    8. Rema Hanna & Shing-Yi Wang, 2017. "Dishonesty and Selection into Public Service: Evidence from India," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 262-290, August.
    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. Briscese, Guglielmo & Lacetera, Nicola & Macis, Mario & Tonin, Mirco, 2023. "Expectations, reference points, and compliance with COVID-19 social distancing measures," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    2. Fang, Ximeng & Freyer, Timo & Ho, Chui-Yee & Chen, Zihua & Goette, Lorenz, 2022. "Prosociality predicts individual behavior and collective outcomes in the COVID-19 pandemic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 308(C).
    3. Sarah Kelley & M. D. R. Evans & Jonathan Kelley, 2023. "Happily Distant or Bitter Medicine? The Impact of Social Distancing Preferences, Behavior, and Emotional Costs on Subjective Wellbeing During the Epidemic," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 18(1), pages 115-162, February.
    4. Galdikiene, Laura & Jaraite, Jurate & Kajackaite, Agne, 2022. "Trust and vaccination intentions: Evidence from Lithuania during the COVID-19 pandemic," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 17(11), pages 1-1.
    5. De Witte, Dries & Delporte, Margaux & Molenberghs, Geert & Verbeke, Geert & Demarest, Stefaan & Hoorens, Vera, 2023. "Self-uniqueness beliefs and adherence to recommended precautions. A 5-wave longitudinal COVID-19 study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 317(C).
    6. Mindy Shoss & Anahí Van Hootegem & Eva Selenko & Hans De Witte, 2023. "The job insecurity of others: On the role of perceived national job insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic," Economic and Industrial Democracy, Department of Economic History, Uppsala University, Sweden, vol. 44(2), pages 385-409, 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. 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. 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.
    3. Fries, Tilman, 2024. "Signaling motives in lying games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 338-376.
    4. Alessandro Fedele & Mirco Tonin & Daniel Wiesen, 2025. "Self-Selection Into Health Professions," CESifo Working Paper Series 11918, CESifo.
    5. Mario Bossler & Christopher Osiander & Julia Schmidtke & Mark Trappmann, 2023. "Free riding on short‐time work allowances? Results from an experimental survey design," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 76(4), pages 882-901, November.
    6. Leonardo Bursztyn & Ingar Haaland & Nicolas Röver & Christopher Roth & Ingar K. Haaland, 2025. "The Social Desirability Atlas," CESifo Working Paper Series 11911, CESifo.
    7. 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.
    8. Rubens Moura de Carvalho & Helena Coelho Inácio & Rui Pedro Marques, 2024. "An Empirical Analysis of Tax Evasion among Companies Engaged in Stablecoin Transactions," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-18, September.
    9. Bauer, Kevin & Kosfeld, Michael & von Siemens, Ferdinand, 2021. "Incentives, self-selection, and coordination of motivated agents for the production of social goods," SAFE Working Paper Series 318, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    10. 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.
    11. Lang, Matthias & Schudy, Simeon, 2023. "(Dis)honesty and the value of transparency for campaign promises," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    12. Stoll, Julius, 2022. "The cost of honesty: Field evidence☆," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    13. Vranka, Marek & Hudík, Marek & Frollová, Nikola & Bahník, Štěpán & Sýkorová, Markéta & Houdek, Petr, 2021. "Honesty of online workers: A field experiment shows no evidence of self-selection of cheaters to a cheating-enabling work environment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Bahník, Štěpán & Houdek, Petr & Hudík, Marek & Say, Nicolas, 2025. "The limited role of prosocial behavior in preventing others from being dishonest," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    16. Andrej Gill & Matthias Heinz & Heiner Schumacher & Matthias Sutter, 2023. "Social Preferences of Young Professionals and the Financial Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(7), pages 3905-3919, July.
    17. Arnab K. Basu & Nancy H. Chau & Anustup Kundu & Kunal Sen, 2024. "Dishonesty concessions in teams: Theory and experimental insights from local politicians in India," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2024-87, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    18. Brassiolo, Pablo & Estrada, Ricardo & Fajardo, Gustavo & Vargas, Juan, 2021. "Self-Selection into corruption: Evidence from the lab," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 799-812.
    19. Ivar Krumpal & Thomas Voss, 2020. "Sensitive Questions and Trust: Explaining Respondents’ Behavior in Randomized Response Surveys," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(3), pages 21582440209, July.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • Z00 - Other Special Topics - - General - - - General
    • D90 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - General

    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:bpd:articl:v:3:y:2020:i:2:jbpa.32.182. 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: Sebastian Jilke The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Sebastian Jilke to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://journal-bpa.org .

    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.