IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v53y2024i1p296-327.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Self-protecting responses in randomized response designs: A survey on intimate partner violence during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic

Author

Listed:
  • Fabiola Reiber
  • Donna Bryce
  • Rolf Ulrich

Abstract

Randomized response techniques (RRTs) are applied to reduce response biases in self-report surveys on sensitive research questions (e.g., on socially undesirable characteristics). However, there is evidence that they cannot completely eliminate self-protecting response strategies. To address this problem, there are RRTs specifically designed to measure the extent of such strategies. Here we assessed the recently devised unrelated question model—cheating extension (UQMC) in a preregistered online survey on intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization and perpetration during the first contact restrictions as containment measures for the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in Germany in early 2020. The UQMC accounting for self-protecting responses described the data better than its predecessor model which assumes instruction adherence. The resulting three-month prevalence estimates were about 10% and we found a high proportion of self-protecting responses in the group of female participants queried about IPV victimization. However, unexpected results concerning the differences in prevalence estimates across the groups queried about victimization and perpetration highlight the difficulty of investigating sensitive research questions even using methods that guarantee anonymity and the importance of interpreting the respective estimates with caution.

Suggested Citation

  • Fabiola Reiber & Donna Bryce & Rolf Ulrich, 2024. "Self-protecting responses in randomized response designs: A survey on intimate partner violence during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 53(1), pages 296-327, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:53:y:2024:i:1:p:296-327
    DOI: 10.1177/00491241211043138
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00491241211043138
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00491241211043138?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
    ---><---

    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:53:y:2024:i:1:p:296-327. 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.