IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pbs/ecofin/2023-05.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Confessions of a pirate: Gender difference in survey prime to increase honest reporting

Author

Listed:
  • Kate Whitman

    (University of Portsmouth)

  • Zahra Murad

    (University of Portsmouth)

  • Joe Cox

    (University of Portsmouth)

Abstract

Survey data is essential for marketing and scientific research. However, recent evidence suggests that men and women may underreport undesirable behavior to different degrees and for different motivations, making it difficult for marketers to trust consumer data. Two survey experiments were conducted to test priming effects aimed at minimizing social desirability bias, hypothesizing a gender difference in efficacy. Using digital piracy as an example of an underreported behavior, Study 1 shows that a positive cues condition, which is designed to provide respondents with convenient rationalizations, increases undesirable behavior reporting. Negative primes have a greater inhibitory effect on men’s reporting of undesirable behavior compared to women’s, thus reversing the gender reporting gap. Study 2 explores the relationship between measured social desirability bias, positive cues, and gender. We find that the treatment has the strongest effect on men and only significantly affects participants with high social desirability bias. When considering both studies (N = 1,734) we estimate that the positive cues treatment increases the amount of piracy participants are willing to report by 42%. Market researchers are recommended to add positive cues before questions about undesirable behavior, especially in the case of men. Furthermore, sequential undesirable behavior questions are likely to increasingly inhibit men’s reporting, suggesting that market researchers should randomize these sensitive questions.

Suggested Citation

  • Kate Whitman & Zahra Murad & Joe Cox, 2023. "Confessions of a pirate: Gender difference in survey prime to increase honest reporting," Working Papers in Economics & Finance 2023-05, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth Business School, Economics and Finance Subject Group.
    • Handle: RePEc:pbs:ecofin:2023-05
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repec.port.ac.uk/EconFinance/PBSEconFin_2023_05.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Bernardi, 2006. "Associations between Hofstede’s Cultural Constructs and Social Desirability Response Bias," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 65(1), pages 43-53, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Cornelissen, Gert & Pandelaere, Mario & Warlop, Luk & Dewitte, Siegfried, 2008. "Positive cueing: Promoting sustainable consumer behavior by cueing common environmental behaviors as environmental," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 46-55.
    4. Derek Dalton & Marc Ortegren, 2011. "Gender Differences in Ethics Research: The Importance of Controlling for the Social Desirability Response Bias," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 103(1), pages 73-93, September.
    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. Raymond Fisman & Ilyana Kuziemko & Silvia Vannutelli, 2021. "Distributional Preferences in Larger Groups: Keeping up with the Joneses and Keeping Track of the Tails," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 1407-1438.
    2. Ilyana Kuziemko & Michael I. Norton & Emmanuel Saez & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2015. "How Elastic Are Preferences for Redistribution? Evidence from Randomized Survey Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(4), pages 1478-1508, April.
    3. Foster Frempong, 2019. "Gender and Ethical Conduct of Hotel Employees in Kumasi Metropolis, Ghana," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(3), pages 721-731, February.
    4. Raymond Fisman & Ilyana Kiziemko & Silvia Vannutelli, 2018. "Distributional preferences in larger groups: Keeping up with the Joneses and keeping track of the tails," Boston University - Department of Economics - Working Papers Series dp-301, Boston University - Department of Economics.
    5. Saar Bossuyt & Patrick Kenhove, 2018. "Assertiveness Bias in Gender Ethics Research: Why Women Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 727-739, July.
    6. Manit Mishra, 2016. "Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) as an Analytical Technique to Assess Measurement Error in Survey Research," Paradigm, , vol. 20(2), pages 97-112, December.
    7. Fisman, Raymond & Gladstone, Keith & Kuziemko, Ilyana & Naidu, Suresh, 2020. "Do Americans want to tax wealth? Evidence from online surveys," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    8. Raymond Fisman & Keith Gladstone & Ilyana Kuziemko & Suresh Naidu, 2017. "Do Americans Want to Tax Capital? Evidence from Online Surveys," NBER Working Papers 23907, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Domingo Gil-Giménez & Gladys Rolo-González & Ernesto Suárez & Gabriel Muinos, 2021. "The Influence of Environmental Self-Identity on the Relationship between Consumer Identities and Frugal Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-15, August.
    10. Stephanie Kelley, 2022. "Employee Perceptions of the Effective Adoption of AI Principles," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 178(4), pages 871-893, July.
    11. Cattaneo, Cristina & D’Adda, Giovanna & Tavoni, Massimo & Bonan, Jacopo, 2019. "Can We Make Social Information Programs More Effective? The Role of Identity and Values," RFF Working Paper Series 19-21, Resources for the Future.
    12. Sharp, Anne & Wheeler, Meagan, 2013. "Reducing householders’ grocery carbon emissions: Carbon literacy and carbon label preferences," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 240-249.
    13. Khadija Alsarhi & Rahma & Mariëlle J. L. Prevoo & Lenneke R. A. Alink & Judi Mesman, 2019. "Maternal Harsh Physical Parenting and Behavioral Problems in Children in Religious Families in Yemen," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-15, April.
    14. Zhe Zhang & Siyu Peng, 2022. "Licensing Effect in Sustainable Charitable Behaviors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-16, December.
    15. Natalia M. Mintchik & Timothy A. Farmer, 2009. "Associations Between Epistemological Beliefs and Moral Reasoning: Evidence from Accounting," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 84(2), pages 259-275, January.
    16. Panzone, Luca A. & Ulph, Alistair & Zizzo, Daniel John & Hilton, Denis & Clear, Adrian, 2021. "The impact of environmental recall and carbon taxation on the carbon footprint of supermarket shopping," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    17. Fiona Wilson, 2016. "Making Loan Decisions in Banks: Straight from the Gut?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 137(1), pages 53-63, August.
    18. Chad M. Baum & Christian Gross, 2017. "Sustainability policy as if people mattered: developing a framework for environmentally significant behavioral change," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 53-95, April.
    19. Ximena Garcia-Rada & Heather E. Mann & Lars Hornuf & Matthias Sohn & Juan Tafurt & Edwin S. Iversen Jr & Dan Ariely, 2018. "The Adaptive Liar: An Interactionist Approach of Multiple Dishonesty Domains," CESifo Working Paper Series 7215, CESifo.
    20. Ada L. Garcia & Rebecca Reardon & Elizabeth Hammond & Alison Parrett & Anne Gebbie-Diben, 2017. "Evaluation of the “Eat Better Feel Better” Cooking Programme to Tackle Barriers to Healthy Eating," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-18, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Social Desirability Bias; Digital Piracy; Survey Primes; Cognitive Dissonance; Moral Decision Making; Response Bias; Survey Methodology;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • 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:

    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:pbs:ecofin:2023-05. 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: Shuonan Zhang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/depbsuk.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.