IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Online Survey on "Exams and Written Papers". Documentation


  • Marc Höglinger
  • Ben Jann
  • Andreas Diekmann


In spring 2011, the students of the University of Bern and ETH Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Switzerland were invited to participate in an online survey called "Exams and written papers" ("Prüfungen und schriftliche Arbeiten an der Universität Bern" at the University of Bern and "Prüfungen und schriftliche Arbeiten an der ETH Zürich" at the ETH Zurich). The goal of the survey was to estimate the prevalence of various forms of student misconduct such as plagiarizing or cheating in exams. Because students might be reluctant to reveal information on such behaviors, special techniques for sensitive questions were employed in addition to direct questioning. Respondents were randomly assigned to direct questioning or one of five different sensitive question techniques. A comparison of the techniques' results indicates whether direct questioning is affected by social desirability bias and whether students are more inclined to provide honest answers if interviewed by so-called dejeopardizing questioning techniques. Sensitive question techniques evaluated in this survey are three different implementations of the Randomized Response Technique as well as two variants of the recently proposed Crosswise Model. Since the survey was conducted via the internet, special effort was put into developing implementations of the RRT and the CM suitable for self-administered online interviews. This document describes the design of the survey and the questionnaire and provides details on the different implementations of the RRT and the CM, the field work, and the resulting dataset. The appendix contains a codebook of the data and facsimiles of the questionnaire pages and other survey materials.

Suggested Citation

  • Marc Höglinger & Ben Jann & Andreas Diekmann, 2014. "Online Survey on "Exams and Written Papers". Documentation," University of Bern Social Sciences Working Papers 8, University of Bern, Department of Social Sciences, revised 06 Oct 2014.
  • Handle: RePEc:bss:wpaper:8

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: documentation
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    File Function: data file (Stata 13)
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    File Function: raw data and do-files
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Ben Jann, 2005. "RRLOGIT: Stata module to estimate logistic regression for randomized response data," Statistical Software Components S456203, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 12 May 2011.
    2. Andreas Diekmann, 2012. "Making Use of “Benford’s Law†for the Randomized Response Technique," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 41(2), pages 325-334, May.
    3. Elisabeth Coutts & Ben Jann, 2011. "Sensitive Questions in Online Surveys: Experimental Results for the Randomized Response Technique (RRT) and the Unmatched Count Technique (UCT)," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 40(1), pages 169-193, February.
    4. Carel F. W. Peeters & Gerty J. L. M. Lensvelt-Mulders & Karin Lasthuizen, 2010. "A Note on a Simple and Practical Randomized Response Framework for Eliciting Sensitive Dichotomous and Quantitative Information," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 39(2), pages 283-296, November.
    5. Ben Jann, 2008. "RRREG: Stata module to estimate linear probability model for randomized response data," Statistical Software Components S456962, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 12 May 2011.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Marc Höglinger & Ben Jann, 2016. "MTurk Survey on "Mood and Personality". Documentation," University of Bern Social Sciences Working Papers 17, University of Bern, Department of Social Sciences.

    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. 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.
    2. Andreas Quatember, 2019. "A discussion of the two different aspects of privacy protection in indirect questioning designs," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(1), pages 269-282, January.
    3. Kundt, Thorben, 2014. "Applying “Benford’s law” to the Crosswise Model: Findings from an online survey on tax evasion," Working Paper 148/2014, Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg.
    4. Gueorguiev, Dimitar & Malesky, Edmund, 2012. "Foreign investment and bribery: A firm-level analysis of corruption in Vietnam," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 111-129.
    5. 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.
    6. Wu, Tao & Delios, Andrew & Chen, Zhaowei & Wang, Xin, 2023. "Rethinking corruption in international business: An empirical review," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 58(2).
    7. Monika Frenger & Eike Emrich & Werner Pitsch, 2019. "Corruption in Olympic Sports: Prevalence Estimations of Match Fixing Among German Squad Athletes," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(3), pages 21582440198, July.
    8. James E. Prieger, 2023. "Tax noncompliance: The role of tax morale in smokers' behavior," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 41(4), pages 653-673, October.
    9. Vincenzo Galasso & Vincent Pons & Paola Profeta & Michael Becher & Sylvain Brouard & Martial Foucault, 2020. "Gender Differences in COVID-19 Related Attitudes and Behavior: Evidence from a Panel Survey in Eight OECD Countries," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03594437, HAL.
    10. Klaus Friesenbichler & George Clarke & Michael Wong, 2014. "Price competition and market transparency: evidence from a random response technique," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 41(1), pages 5-21, February.
    11. Thorben C. Kundt & Florian Misch & Birger Nerré, 2017. "Re-assessing the merits of measuring tax evasion through business surveys: an application of the crosswise model," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 24(1), pages 112-133, February.
    12. Friesenbichler, Klaus S. & Selenko, Eva & Clarke, George R.G., 2015. "How much of a nuisance is greasing the palms? A study on job dedication and attitudes towards corruption reports under answer bias control," MPRA Paper 67331, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. 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.
    14. Andrew Delios & Edmund J. Malesky & Shu Yu & Griffin Riddler, 2024. "Methodological errors in corruption research: Recommendations for future research," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 55(2), pages 235-251, March.
    15. Katherine B. Coffman & Lucas C. Coffman & Keith M. Marzilli Ericson, 2017. "The Size of the LGBT Population and the Magnitude of Antigay Sentiment Are Substantially Underestimated," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(10), pages 3168-3186, October.
    16. 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.
    17. Katherine I. Tierney, 2019. "Abortion Underreporting in Add Health: Findings and Implications," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 38(3), pages 417-428, June.
    18. Liu, Yin & Tian, Guo-Liang, 2013. "A variant of the parallel model for sample surveys with sensitive characteristics," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 115-135.
    19. Andreas Quatember, 2023. "Efficient item count techniques with one or two lists," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 81(1), pages 5-19, April.
    20. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/30j8b527qi94hpffbv52bsav72 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Anatol-Fiete Näher & Ivar Krumpal, 2012. "Asking sensitive questions: the impact of forgiving wording and question context on social desirability bias," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 1601-1616, August.

    More about this item


    online survey; sensitive questions; plagiarism; exam cheating; randomized response technique; crosswise model;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:bss:wpaper:8. 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: Ben Jann (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.