IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v28y2000i4p505-537.html

A Comparison of Randomized Response, Computer-Assisted Self-Interview, and Face-to-Face Direct Questioning

Author

Listed:
  • PETER G. M. van der HEIJDEN

    (Utrecht University)

  • GER van GILS

    (BeleidsOnderzoek en Advies)

  • JAN BOUTS

    (Nederlands Instituut voor de Publieke Opinie en het Marktonderzoek)

  • JOOP J. HOX

    (Utrecht University)

Abstract

This article assesses the validity of responses to sensitive questions using four different methods. In an experimental setting, the authors compared a computer-assisted self-interview (CASI), face-to-face direct questioning, and two different varieties of randomized response. All respondents interviewed had been identified as having committed welfare and unemployment benefit fraud. The interviewers did not know that respondents had been caught for fraud, and the respondents did not know that the researchers had this information. The results are evaluated by comparing the percentage of false negatives. The authors also looked for variables that might explain why some respondents admit fraud and others do not. The proportions of respondents admitting fraud are relatively low, between 19 percent and 49 percent. The two randomized response conditions were superior in eliciting admissions of fraud. A number of background variables, notably gender, age, still receiving benefit, and duration and perception of fraud, are related to admitting fraud. Although the randomized response conditions performed much better than face-to-face direct questioning and CASI, the percentage of respondents admitting fraud is only around 50 percent. Some possible reasons for this are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • PETER G. M. van der HEIJDEN & GER van GILS & JAN BOUTS & JOOP J. HOX, 2000. "A Comparison of Randomized Response, Computer-Assisted Self-Interview, and Face-to-Face Direct Questioning," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 28(4), pages 505-537, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:28:y:2000:i:4:p:505-537
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124100028004005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124100028004005
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124100028004005?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. Johannes Landsheer & Peter Van Der Heijden & Ger Van Gils, 1999. "Trust and Understanding, Two Psychological Aspects of Randomized Response," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 1-12, February.
    2. Elffers, Henk & Robben, Henry S. J. & Hessing, Dick J., 1992. "On measuring tax evasion," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 545-567, December.
    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. Pier Francesco Perri & Elvira Pelle & Manuela Stranges, 2016. "Estimating Induced Abortion and Foreign Irregular Presence Using the Randomized Response Crossed Model," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 129(2), pages 601-618, November.
    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.

    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. Christoph Engel, 2016. "Experimental Criminal Law. A Survey of Contributions from Law, Economics and Criminology," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2016_07, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    2. Puklavec, Žiga & Kogler, Christoph & Stavrova, Olga & Zeelenberg, Marcel, 2023. "What we tweet about when we tweet about taxes: A topic modelling approach," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 1242-1254.
    3. 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.
    4. Gerxhani, Klarita & Schram, Arthur, 2006. "Tax evasion and income source: A comparative experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 402-422, June.
    5. Orviska, Marta & Hudson, John, 2003. "Tax evasion, civic duty and the law abiding citizen," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 83-102, March.
    6. Marco Gregori & Martijn G. Jong & Rik Pieters, 2024. "The Crosswise Model for Surveys on Sensitive Topics: A General Framework for Item Selection and Statistical Analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 89(3), pages 1007-1033, September.
    7. Wenzel, Michael, 2004. "An analysis of norm processes in tax compliance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 213-228, April.
    8. Batrancea, Larissa M. & Kudła, Janusz & Błaszczak, Barbara & Kopyt, Mateusz, 2022. "Differences in tax evasion attitudes between students and entrepreneurs under the slippery slope framework," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 464-482.
    9. Sokolovskyi, Dmytro, 2018. "Game-theoretic model of tax evasion: analysis of agents’ interaction and optimization of tax burden," MPRA Paper 86415, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Eisenhauer, Joseph G., 2008. "Ethical preferences, risk aversion, and taxpayer behavior," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 45-63, February.
    11. Figari, Francesco & Paulus, Alari & Sutherland, Holly, 2014. "Microsimulation and policy analysis," ISER Working Paper Series 2014-23, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    12. Antonides, Gerrit & Robben, Henry S. J., 1995. "True positives and false alarms in the detection of tax evasion," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 617-640, December.
    13. Klarita Gërxhani, 2007. "“Did You Pay Your Taxes?” How (Not) to Conduct Tax Evasion Surveys in Transition Countries," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 80(3), pages 555-581, February.
    14. Müller, Martin & Olsen, Jerome & Kirchler, Erich & Kogler, Christoph, 2023. "How explicit expected value information affects tax compliance decisions and information acquisition," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    15. Diana Lara & Jennifer Strickler & Claudia Díaz Olavarrieta & Charlotte Ellertson, 2004. "Measuring Induced Abortion in Mexico," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 32(4), pages 529-558, May.
    16. Ronconi, Lucas, 2019. "From Citizen's Rights to Civic Responsibilities," IZA Discussion Papers 12457, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Diana Onu & Lynne Oats & Erich Kirchler & Andre Julian Hartmann, 2019. "Gaming the System: An Investigation of Small Business Owners’ Attitudes to Tax Avoidance, Tax Planning, and Tax Evasion," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, November.
    18. Diana Onu & Lynne Oats, 2018. "Tax Talk: An Exploration of Online Discussions Among Taxpayers," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 149(4), pages 931-944, June.
    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

    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:sae:somere:v:28:y:2000:i:4:p:505-537. 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: 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.