IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v51y2022i2p605-631.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Social Desirability Pressures on Whites’ Endorsement of Racial Stereotypes: A Comparison Between Oral and ACASI Reports in a National Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Tobias H. Stark
  • Floor M. van Maaren
  • Jon A. Krosnick
  • Gaurav Sood

Abstract

In the last 60 years, the proportion of white Americans expressing anti-black prejudice in face-to-face survey interviews has declined dramatically. To test whether social desirability pressures affect the expression of anti-black prejudice, we analyzed a within-subjects experiment in the 2008 American National Election Study in which white respondents first reported their endorsement of stereotypes of blacks confidentially via audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) and weeks or months later orally during second interviews. Shifting to ACASI led to a small but significant increase in negative views of blacks. Unexpectedly, shifting to ACASI also led to a similarly large increase in negative views of whites. Furthermore, the ACASI reports had no more predictive validity than did the oral reports. This evidence suggests that social desirability pressures do not seriously compromise oral reports of racial stereotypes in face-to-face interviews.

Suggested Citation

  • Tobias H. Stark & Floor M. van Maaren & Jon A. Krosnick & Gaurav Sood, 2022. "The Impact of Social Desirability Pressures on Whites’ Endorsement of Racial Stereotypes: A Comparison Between Oral and ACASI Reports in a National Survey," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 51(2), pages 605-631, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:51:y:2022:i:2:p:605-631
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124119875959
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124119875959
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124119875959?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. Corstange, Daniel, 2009. "Sensitive Questions, Truthful Answers? Modeling the List Experiment with LISTIT," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 45-63, January.
    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. Irfan Nooruddin, 2014. "Making Surveys Work Better: Experiments in Public Opinion Research," Studies in Indian Politics, , vol. 2(1), pages 105-108, June.
    2. Jamison, Julian & Karlan, Dean & Raffler, Pia, 2013. "Mixed Method Evaluation of a Passive mHealth Sexual Information Texting Service in Uganda," Working Papers 116, Yale University, Department of Economics.
    3. De Cao, Elisabetta & Lutz, Clemens, 2014. "Sensitive survey questions," Research Report 14017-EEF, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    4. Lai, Yufeng & Minegishi, Kota & Boaitey, Albert K., 2020. "Social Desirability Bias in Farm Animal Welfare Preference Research," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304375, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. S. Rinken & S. Pasadas-del-Amo & M. Rueda & B. Cobo, 2021. "No magic bullet: estimating anti-immigrant sentiment and social desirability bias with the item-count technique," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(6), pages 2139-2159, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Gallego, Jorge & Wantchekon, Leonard, 2012. "Experiments on Clientelism and Vote Buying," MPRA Paper 97060, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina & Juan Felipe Riaño, 2018. "I Sell My Vote, and So What? Incidence, Social Bias, and Correlates of Clientelism in Colombia," Economía Journal, The Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association - LACEA, vol. 0(Fall 2018), pages 181-218, November.
    9. 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.
    10. James G. Gimpel & Iris Hui, 2017. "Inadvertent and intentional partisan residential sorting," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 58(3), pages 441-468, May.
    11. repec:dgr:rugsom:14017-eef is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Julian Jamison, Dean Karlan, Pia Raffler, 2013. "Mixed Method Evaluation of a Passive Health Sexual Information Texting Service in Uganda-Working Paper 332," Working Papers 332, Center for Global Development.
    13. Shu-Hui Hsieh & Shen-Ming Lee & Chin-Shang Li, 2022. "A Two-stage Multilevel Randomized Response Technique With Proportional Odds Models and Missing Covariates," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 51(1), pages 439-467, February.
    14. Richard Traunmüller & Sara Kijewski & Markus Freitag, 2019. "The Silent Victims of Sexual Violence during War: Evidence from a List Experiment in Sri Lanka," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(9), pages 2015-2042, October.
    15. Ravanilla, Nico & Hicken, Allen, 2023. "Poverty, social networks, and clientelism," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    16. Cullen,Claire Alexis, 2020. "Method Matters : Underreporting of Intimate Partner Violence in Nigeria and Rwanda," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9274, The World Bank.
    17. Tadesse, Getaw & Abate, Gashaw T. & Zewdie, Tadiwos, 2020. "Biases in self-reported food insecurity measurement: A list experiment approach," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    18. Asma Halim & Irshad Ahmad Arshad & Summaira Haroon & Waqas Shair, 2022. "A Comparative Study of Modified Hidden Logits Using Randomized Response Techniques," Journal of Policy Research (JPR), Research Foundation for Humanity (RFH), vol. 8(4), pages 447-461, December.
    19. Elisabetta de Cao & Clemens Lutz, 2015. "Measuring attitudes regarding female genital mutilation through a list experiment," CSAE Working Paper Series 2015-20, Centre for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford.

    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:51:y:2022:i:2:p:605-631. 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.