IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mnh/spaper/2601.html

Trust in surveys and the respondents' susceptibility to item nonresponse

Author

Listed:
  • Stocké, Volker
  • Stark, Tobias

Abstract

We test the hypothesis that respondents with a strong attitude that surveys in general cannot be trusted are more susceptible to item nonresponse. This is done separately for the don’t know and refusal rate observed for subjective and factual questions. In a comparative perspective, using data from the ten new member states of the European Union, we firstly find substantial between-country and sociodemographic differences in all four types of nonresponse. A series of negative-binomial regressions shows secondly that lacking trust in surveys significantly increases the rate of unanswered questions, but this negative effect is restricted on the subsample of respondents who consistently reported this attitude in multiple questions. This is equally the case for don’t knows as well as refusals on subjective as well as factual questions. Thirdly, the between-country differences in nonresponse rates are only partly due to the national samples, having differently strong faith in surveys.

Suggested Citation

  • Stocké, Volker & Stark, Tobias, 2006. "Trust in surveys and the respondents' susceptibility to item nonresponse," Papers 06-06, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    • Handle: RePEc:mnh:spaper:2601
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://madoc.bib.uni-mannheim.de/2601/1/dp06_06.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dickinson, John R. & Kirzner, Eric, 1985. "Questionnaire item omission as a function of within-group question position," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 71-75, February.
    2. Kroneberg, Clemens, 2006. "The Definition of the Situation and Variable Rationality: The Model of Frame Selection as a General Theory of Action," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 06-05, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    3. Lothar Essig & Joachim K. Winter, 2009. "Item Non-Response to Financial Questions in Household Surveys: An Experimental Study of Interviewer and Mode Effects," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 30(Special I), pages 367-390, December.
    4. Stocké, Volker & Stark, Tobias, 2005. "Stichprobenverzerrung durch Item-Nonresponse in der international vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft," Papers 05-43, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    5. Jan Pickery & Geert Loosveldt, 1998. "The Impact of Respondent and Interviewer Characteristics on the Number of “No Opinion” Answers," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 31-45, February.
    6. Axel Franzen, 2003. "Environmental Attitudes in International Comparison: An Analysis of the ISSP Surveys 1993 and 2000," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 84(2), pages 297-308, June.
    7. King, Gary & Honaker, James & Joseph, Anne & Scheve, Kenneth, 2001. "Analyzing Incomplete Political Science Data: An Alternative Algorithm for Multiple Imputation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(1), pages 49-69, March.
    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. Stocké, Volker & Stark, Tobias, 2005. "Stichprobenverzerrung durch Item-Nonresponse in der international vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 05-43, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    2. Stocké, Volker & Stark, Tobias, 2005. "Stichprobenverzerrung durch Item-Nonresponse in der international vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft," Papers 05-43, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    3. Henning Silber & Joss Roßmann & Tobias Gummer & Stefan Zins & Kai Willem Weyandt, 2021. "The effects of question, respondent and interviewer characteristics on two types of item nonresponse," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(3), pages 1052-1069, July.
    4. Stocké, Volker, 2004. "Attitudes toward surveys, attitude accessibility and the effect on respondents' susceptibility to nonresponse," Papers 04-30, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    5. Volker Hüfken, 2010. "Supplementary questionnaire and nonresponse-results from the German ISSP survey," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 607-622, June.
    6. Scott Gehlbach & Konstantin Sonin & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya, 2010. "Businessman Candidates," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 718-736, July.
    7. Matthew Blackwell & James Honaker & Gary King, 2017. "A Unified Approach to Measurement Error and Missing Data: Overview and Applications," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 46(3), pages 303-341, August.
    8. Cohen, Joseph N, 2010. "Neoliberalism’s relationship with economic growth in the developing world: Was it the power of the market or the resolution of financial crisis?," MPRA Paper 24527, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Adrian Fernández-Pérez & Marta Gómez-Puig & Simón Sosvilla-Rivero, 2025. "El Clasico of Housing: Bubbles in Madrid and Barcelona’s Real Estate Markets," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2025-03, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico.
    10. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas, 2013. "The political economics of social health insurance: the tricky case of individuals’ preferences," MPRA Paper 44534, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Long Niu & Chuntian Lu & Lijuan Fan, 2023. "Social Class and Private-Sphere Green Behavior in China: The Mediating Effects of Perceived Status and Environmental Concern," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-15, February.
    12. Sergei Guriev & Daniel Treisman, 2020. "The Popularity of Authoritarian Leaders: A cross-national investigation," Sciences Po Economics Publications (main) hal-03878626, HAL.
    13. Chen, Andrew Y. & McCoy, Jack, 2024. "Missing values handling for machine learning portfolios," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    14. Vainio, Annukka & Paloniemi, Riikka, 2014. "The complex role of attitudes toward science in pro-environmental consumption in the Nordic countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 18-27.
    15. Sebastian Barfort & Nikolaj Harmon & Frederik Hjorth & Asmus Leth Olsen, 2015. "Dishonesty and Selection into Public Service in Denmark: Who Runs the World’s Least Corrupt Public Sector?," Discussion Papers 15-12, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    16. Alessandro Bitetto & Paola Cerchiello & Charilaos Mertzanis, 2021. "A data-driven approach to measuring epidemiological susceptibility risk around the world," DEM Working Papers Series 200, University of Pavia, Department of Economics and Management.
    17. Daniel Schunk, 2007. "A Markov Chain Monte Carlo Multiple Imputation Procedure for Dealing with Item Nonresponse in the German SAVE Survey," MEA discussion paper series 07121, Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA) at the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy.
    18. Iddisah Sulemana, 2016. "Are Happier People More Willing to Make Income Sacrifices to Protect the Environment?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 127(1), pages 447-467, May.
    19. Benjamin Michallet & Giuseppe Lucio Gaeta & François Facchini, 2015. "Greening Up or Not? The Determinants Political Parties’ Environmental Concern: An Empirical Analysis Based on European Data (1970-2008)," Working Papers 2015.25, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    20. Iacoella, Francesco & Dehingia, Nabamallika & Almanzar, Miguel & Huynh, Uyen Kim & Bruckauf, Zlata, 2025. "Healthcare access in humanitarian settings: Mobile services successes and limits in Afghanistan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 364(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:mnh:spaper:2601. 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: Katharina Rautenberg (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sfmande.html .

    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.