IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/stpapr/v64y2023i5d10.1007_s00362-022-01352-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the effectiveness of indirect questioning techniques by detecting liars

Author

Listed:
  • Pier Francesco Perri

    (University of Calabria)

  • Eleni Manoli

    (University of Cyprus)

  • Tasos C. Christofides

    (University of Cyprus)

Abstract

In many fields of applied research, mostly in sociological, economic, demographic and medical studies, misreporting due to untruthful responding represents a nonsampling error that frequently occurs especially when survey participants are presented with direct questions about sensitive, highly personal or embarrassing issues. Untruthful responses are likely to affect the overall quality of the collected data and flaw subsequent analyses, including the estimation of salient characteristics of the population under study such as the prevalence of people possessing a sensitive attribute. The problem may be mitigated by adopting indirect questioning techniques which guarantee privacy protection and enhance respondent cooperation. In this paper, making use of direct and indirect questions, we propose a procedure to detect the presence of liars in sensitive surveys which allows researchers to evaluate the impact of untruthful responses on the estimation of the prevalence of a sensitive attribute. We first introduce the theoretical framework, then apply the proposal to the Warner randomized response method, the unrelated question model, the item count technique, the crosswise model and the triangular model. To assess the effectiveness of the procedure, a simulation study is carried out. Finally, the presence and the amount of liars is discussed in two real studies concerning racism and workplace mobbing.

Suggested Citation

  • Pier Francesco Perri & Eleni Manoli & Tasos C. Christofides, 2023. "Assessing the effectiveness of indirect questioning techniques by detecting liars," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 64(5), pages 1483-1506, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:stpapr:v:64:y:2023:i:5:d:10.1007_s00362-022-01352-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s00362-022-01352-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00362-022-01352-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00362-022-01352-6?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bryn Rosenfeld & Kosuke Imai & Jacob N. Shapiro, 2016. "An Empirical Validation Study of Popular Survey Methodologies for Sensitive Questions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 60(3), pages 783-802, July.
    2. Marc Höglinger & Ben Jann, 2018. "More is not always better: An experimental individual-level validation of the randomized response technique and the crosswise model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-22, August.
    3. Blair, Graeme & Imai, Kosuke, 2012. "Statistical Analysis of List Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 47-77, January.
    4. Rueda, M. & Cobo, B. & Perri, P.F., 2021. "New estimation techniques for ordinal sensitive variables," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 62-70.
    5. Jun-Wu Yu & Guo-Liang Tian & Man-Lai Tang, 2008. "Two new models for survey sampling with sensitive characteristic: design and analysis," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 67(3), pages 251-263, 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. Burgstaller, Lilith & Feld, Lars P. & Pfeil, Katharina, 2022. "Working in the shadow: Survey techniques for measuring and explaining undeclared work," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 661-671.
    2. Ó Ceallaigh, Diarmaid & Timmons, Shane & Robertson, Deirdre & Lunn, Pete, 2023. "Problem gambling: A narrative review of important policy-relevant issues," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number SUSTAT119, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Heiko Groenitz, 2018. "Analyzing efficiency for the multi-category parallel method," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 76(2), pages 231-250, August.
    5. Chuang, Erica & Dupas, Pascaline & Huillery, Elise & Seban, Juliette, 2021. "Sex, lies, and measurement: Consistency tests for indirect response survey methods," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    6. Ó Ceallaigh, Diarmaid & Timmons, Shane & Robertson, Deirdre & Lunn, Pete, 2023. "Measures of problem gambling, gambling behaviours and perceptions of gambling in Ireland," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number RS169, June.
    7. Chapkovski, Philipp & Schaub, Max, 2022. "Solid support or secret dissent? A list experiment on preference falsification during the Russian war against Ukraine," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 9(2), pages 1-6.
    8. Lai, Yufeng & Boaitey, Albert & Minegishi, Kota, 2022. "Behind the veil: Social desirability bias and animal welfare ballot initiatives," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    9. Walzenbach, Sandra & Hinz, Thomas, 2022. "Puzzling Answers to Crosswise Questions - Examining Overall Prevalence Rates, Primacy Effects and Learning Effects," EconStor Preprints 249353, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    10. Ulrich Thy Jensen, 2020. "Is self-reported social distancing susceptible to social desirability bias? Using the crosswise model to elicit sensitive behaviors," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(2).
    11. Garay, Candelaria & Palmer-Rubin, Brian & Poertner, Mathias, 2020. "Organizational and partisan brokerage of social benefits: Social policy linkages in Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    12. Ivar Krumpal & Thomas Voss, 2020. "Sensitive Questions and Trust: Explaining Respondents’ Behavior in Randomized Response Surveys," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(3), pages 21582440209, July.
    13. Olivia Bertelli & Thomas Calvo & Emmanuelle Lavallée & Marion Mercier & Sandrine Mesplé-Somps, 2023. "Measuring insecurity-related experiences and preferences in a fragile State. A list experiment in Mali," Working Papers DT/2023/01, DIAL (Développement, Institutions et Mondialisation).
    14. Groenitz, Heiko, 2016. "A covariate nonrandomized response model for multicategorical sensitive variables," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 124-138.
    15. Adetola Adedamola Adediran & Femi Barnabas Adebola & Olusegun Sunday Ewemooje, 2020. "Unbiased estimator modeling in unrelated dichotomous randomized response," Statistics in Transition New Series, Polish Statistical Association, vol. 21(5), pages 119-132, December.
    16. Höglinger, Marc & Diekmann, Andreas, 2017. "Uncovering a Blind Spot in Sensitive Question Research: False Positives Undermine the Crosswise-Model RRT," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 131-137, January.
    17. Barrera, Oscar & Guriev, Sergei & Henry, Emeric & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2020. "Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    18. Ronconi, Lucas & Zarazaga S.J., Rodrigo, 2015. "Labor Exclusion and the Erosion of Citizenship Responsibilities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 453-461.
    19. Carlos Barros, 2012. "Sustainable Tourism in Inhambane-Mozambique," CEsA Working Papers 105, CEsA - Centre for African and Development Studies.
    20. Andreas Lagerås & Mathias Lindholm, 2020. "How to ask sensitive multiple‐choice questions," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 47(2), pages 397-424, June.

    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:spr:stpapr:v:64:y:2023:i:5:d:10.1007_s00362-022-01352-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.