IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Heikle Fragen in mündlichen Interviews: Ergebnisse einer Methodenstudie im studentischen Milieu (Sensitive Questions in Face-to-Face Interviews: Findings of a Methodological Study with University Students)

Listed author(s):
  • Peter Preisendörfer
Registered author(s):

    In einem "sensitive topic survey" mit Studierenden der Universität Mainz (n=578) wurde die Brauchbarkeit von drei Techniken zur Erhebung heikler Sachverhalte untersucht: Wording/Framing-Techniken, die Technik des vertraulichen Kuverts und die Randomized-Response-Technik. Bezüglich Wording/Framing bestätigt sich der Verdacht, dass diese in der Lehrbuchliteratur viel zitierten Techniken oft nicht halten, was sie versprechen. Demgegenüber erweist sich die Technik des vertraulichen Kuverts im Anwendungsfall der Erhebung sexuellen Verhaltens als hilfreich. Die eingesetzte Randomized-Response-Technik in der Variante von "forced response" brachte nicht die erwarteten Ergebnisse. Der Beitrag ist insgesamt ein erster Schritt im Rahmen eines breiteren Forschungsprogramms zur Thematik heikler Fragen in verschiedenen Arten von Befragungen. (A "sensitive topic survey" among students of the University of Mainz (n=578) was conducted to evaluate the merits of three techniques to investigate sensitive behavior: wording/framing techniques, the sealed envelope technique, and the randomized response technique. Concerning wording/framing, the results show that these techniques, which can be found in all textbooks of social research methods, often do not meet their expectations. The sealed envelope technique proved to be useful in asking questions about sexual behavior. Not at all successful was the randomized response technique in the form of "forced response", developed and tested in the student survey. The article is a first contribution to a broader research programme about sensitive topics in different survey modes.)

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    File Function: First version, 2008
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by ETH Zurich, Chair of Sociology in its series ETH Zurich Sociology Working Papers with number 6.

    in new window

    Length: 23 pages
    Date of creation: Jul 2008
    Handle: RePEc:ets:wpaper:6
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. Elisabeth Coutts & Ben Jann, 2008. "Sensitive Questions in Online Surveys: Experimental Results for the Randomized Response Technique (RRT) and the Unmatched Count Technique (UCT)," ETH Zurich Sociology Working Papers 3, ETH Zurich, Chair of Sociology.
    2. Edith de Leeuw, 2001. "Reducing Missing Data in Surveys: An Overview of Methods," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 147-160, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ets:wpaper:6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Heidi Bruderer)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.