IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  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)


  • Peter Preisendörfer


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.)

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Preisendörfer, 2008. "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 Stud," ETH Zurich Sociology Working Papers 6, ETH Zurich, Chair of Sociology.
  • Handle: RePEc:ets:wpaper:6

    Download full text from publisher

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. 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.
    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)

    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. Ivar Krumpal, 2013. "Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 2025-2047, June.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Geist, Monica R., 2010. "Using the Delphi method to engage stakeholders: A comparison of two studies," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 147-154, May.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Malesky, Edmund J. & Nguyen, Cuong Viet & Tran, Anh, 2014. "The Impact of Recentralization on Public Services: A Difference-in-Differences Analysis of the Abolition of Elected Councils in Vietnam," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 108(1), pages 144-168, February.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Jarl Kampen, 2007. "The Impact of Survey Methodology and Context on Central Tendency, Nonresponse and Associations of Subjective Indicators of Government Performance," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 41(6), pages 793-813, December.
    18. Araceli Mateos & Margarita Corral, 2022. "Partial non-response in political elite studies: an approach to parliamentary elites in Latin America," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(6), pages 4089-4106, December.
    19. 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.
    20. 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


    sensitive questions; face-to-face survey; wording/framing techniques; sealed envelope technique; randomized response technique; methodological study;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C42 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Survey Methods
    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access


    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: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: . General contact details of provider: .

    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: Heidi Bruderer The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Heidi Bruderer to update the entry or send us the correct address (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 hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.