IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jedbes/v34y2009i2p267-287.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Sensitive Attributes Using the Randomized Response Technique: Evidence for the Importance of Response Symmetry

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Ostapczuk
  • Morten Moshagen
  • Zengmei Zhao
  • Jochen Musch

Abstract

Randomized response techniques (RRTs) aim to reduce social desirability bias in the assessment of sensitive attributes but differ regarding privacy protection. The less protection a design offers, the more likely respondents cheat by disobeying the instructions. In asymmetric RRT designs, respondents can play safe by giving a response that is never associated with the sensitive attribute. Symmetric RRT designs avoid the incentive to cheat by not allowing such responses. We tested whether a symmetric variant of a cheating detection model (CDM) increases compliance with the instructions in a survey of academic dishonesty among 2,254 Chinese students. As we observed more noncompliance in the asymmetric than symmetric variant, we recommend the use of symmetric CDMs, which can easily be tested within multinomial models.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Ostapczuk & Morten Moshagen & Zengmei Zhao & Jochen Musch, 2009. "Assessing Sensitive Attributes Using the Randomized Response Technique: Evidence for the Importance of Response Symmetry," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 34(2), pages 267-287, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jedbes:v:34:y:2009:i:2:p:267-287
    DOI: 10.3102/1076998609332747
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/1076998609332747
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3102/1076998609332747?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.

    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:sae:jedbes:v:34:y:2009:i:2:p:267-287. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.