IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jcjust/v63y2019icp41-48.html

Estimating the sex buying behavior of adult males in the United States: List experiment and direct question estimates

Author

Listed:
  • Roe-Sepowitz, Dominique
  • Bontrager, Stephanie
  • Pickett, Justin T.
  • Kosloski, Anna E.

Abstract

Estimating the size of the sex buyer market in the United States has been stymied by methodological and sampling challenges. Given known methodological issues in self-reporting and the sensitive nature of purchasing sex, current research faces challenges in providing estimates of demand for purchasing sex. This study used a unique approach to estimate the prevalence of sex buying by men over the age of 18 in the United States.

Suggested Citation

  • Roe-Sepowitz, Dominique & Bontrager, Stephanie & Pickett, Justin T. & Kosloski, Anna E., 2019. "Estimating the sex buying behavior of adult males in the United States: List experiment and direct question estimates," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 41-48.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jcjust:v:63:y:2019:i:c:p:41-48
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2019.04.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235219300595
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2019.04.005?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Imai, Kosuke, 2011. "Multivariate Regression Analysis for the Item Count Technique," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 106(494), pages 407-416.
    2. Hunt Allcott, 2011. "Consumers' Perceptions and Misperceptions of Energy Costs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(3), pages 98-104, May.
    3. 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.
    4. Imai, Kosuke & Park, Bethany & Greene, Kenneth F., 2015. "Using the Predicted Responses from List Experiments as Explanatory Variables in Regression Models," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 180-196, 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. John List, 2025. "Valuing Non-Marketed Goods and Services Using a List Field Experiment," Framed Field Experiments 00809, The Field Experiments Website.
    2. 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.
    3. Alina Greiner & Maximilian Filsinger, 2022. "(Dis)Trust in the Aftermath of Sexual Violence: Evidence from Sri Lanka," HiCN Working Papers 377, Households in Conflict Network.
    4. Jouni Kuha & Jonathan Jackson, 2014. "The item count method for sensitive survey questions: modelling criminal behaviour," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 63(2), pages 321-341, February.
    5. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina & Juan Felipe Ria�o, 2019. "Consumers as VAT “Evaders”: Incidence, Social Bias, and Correlates in Colombia," Economía Journal, The Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association - LACEA, vol. 0(Spring 20), pages 21-67.
    6. Abate, Gashaw T. & Abay, Kibrom A. & Chamberlin, Jordan & Sebsibie, Samuel, 2024. "Measuring land rental market participation in smallholder agriculture can survey design innovations improve land market participation statistics?," IFPRI discussion papers 2255, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    7. David Boto‐García & Federico Perali, 2024. "The association between marital locus of control and break‐up intentions," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 83(1), pages 35-57, January.
    8. Carole Treibich & Aurélia Lépine, 2019. "Estimating misreporting in condom use and its determinants among sex workers: Evidence from the list randomisation method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 144-160, January.
    9. 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.
    10. Yonghong An & Pengfei Liu, 2020. "Eliciting Information from Sensitive Survey Questions," Papers 2009.01430, arXiv.org.
    11. Cosmo, Valeria Di & O’Hora, Denis, 2017. "Nudging electricity consumption using TOU pricing and feedback: evidence from Irish households," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1-14.
    12. 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.
    13. Vincenzo Galasso & Vincent Pons & Paola Profeta & Michael Becher & Sylvain Brouard & Martial Foucault, 2020. "Gender Differences in COVID-19 Related Attitudes and Behavior: Evidence from a Panel Survey in Eight OECD Countries," Sciences Po Economics Publications (main) hal-03594437, HAL.
    14. Fischbacher, Urs & Schudy, Simeon & Teyssier, Sabrina, 2021. "Heterogeneous preferences and investments in energy saving measures," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    15. Wu, Libo & Zhou, Yang, 2025. "Social norms and energy conservation in China," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    16. Stefano Ceolotto & Eleanor Denny, 2021. "Putting a new 'spin' on energy labels: measuring the impact of reframing energy efficiency on tumble dryer choices in a multi-country experiment," Trinity Economics Papers tep1521, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    17. Samdruk Dharshing & Stefanie Lena Hille, 2017. "The Energy Paradox Revisited: Analyzing the Role of Individual Differences and Framing Effects in Information Perception," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 485-508, December.
    18. Alberini, Anna & Bezhanishvili, Levan & Ščasný, Milan, 2022. "“Wild” tariff schemes: Evidence from the Republic of Georgia," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    19. Hongli Feng & Tong Wang & David A. Hennessy & Gaurav Arora, 2022. "Over-Perception about Land Use Changes: Assessing Empirical Evidence and Linkage with Decisions and Motivated Beliefs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 98(2), pages 254-273.
    20. repec:plo:pone00:0193985 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. repec:dgr:rugsom:14017-eef is not listed on IDEAS
    22. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:jcjust:v:63:y:2019:i:c:p:41-48. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jcrimjus .

    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.