IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/10124.html

Private but Misunderstood ? Evidence on Measuring Intimate Partner Violence viaSelf-Interviewing in Rural Liberia and Malawi : null

Author

Listed:
  • Park,David Sungho
  • Aggarwal,Shilpa
  • Jeong,Dahyeon
  • Kumar,Naresh
  • Robinson,Jonathan M.
  • Spearot,Alan

Abstract

Women may under-report intimate partner violence (IPV) due to several social andpsychological factors. This study conducts a measurement experiment in rural Liberia and Malawi in which women wereasked IPV questions via self-interviewing (SI) or face-to-face interviewing. About a third of womenincorrectly answer basic screening questions in SI, and SI generates placebo effects on innocuous questions even forthose who “pass” screening. Because the probability of responding “yes” to any specific IPV question is less than50 percent, and that IPV is typically reported as an index (reporting yes to at least one question), suchmisunderstanding increases IPV reporting. In Malawi, SI increases the reported incidence of any type of IPV by 13percentage points on a base of 20 percent; in Liberia, the study finds an insignificant increase of 4 percentage pointson a base of 38 percent. Our results suggest SI may spuriously increase reported IPV rates.

Suggested Citation

  • Park,David Sungho & Aggarwal,Shilpa & Jeong,Dahyeon & Kumar,Naresh & Robinson,Jonathan M. & Spearot,Alan, 2022. "Private but Misunderstood ? Evidence on Measuring Intimate Partner Violence viaSelf-Interviewing in Rural Liberia and Malawi : null," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10124, The World Bank.
    • Handle: RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:10124
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099328207202220249/pdf/IDU1d73051aa141f71445619b6f18a510d510c67.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    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. Chuang, Erica & Dupas, Pascaline & Huillery, Elise & Seban, Juliette, 2021. "Sex, lies, and measurement: Consistency tests for indirect response survey methods," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    3. Cullen,Claire Alexis, 2020. "Method Matters : Underreporting of Intimate Partner Violence in Nigeria and Rwanda," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9274, The World Bank.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. von Russdorf, Sophie & Ahlborn, Laura & Hidalgo-Arestegui, Alessandra & McQuade, Gerald & Favara, Marta, 2024. "A sound methodology: Measuring experiences of violent conflict through audio self-interviews," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 242(C).
    2. Jeong, Dahyeon & Aggarwal, Shilpa & Robinson, Jonathan & Kumar, Naresh & Spearot, Alan & Park, David Sungho, 2023. "Exhaustive or exhausting? Evidence on respondent fatigue in long surveys," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    3. Carolyn Chisadza & Matthew Clance & Nicky Nicholls & Tendai Zawaira, 2025. "Public Transport, Sexual Harassment, and Social Norms:Some Evidence from South Africa∗," ERSA Working Paper Series, Economic Research Southern Africa, vol. 0.
    4. Beam, Emily A., 2023. "Social media as a recruitment and data collection tool: Experimental evidence on the relative effectiveness of web surveys and chatbots," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    5. Assefa, Thomas W. & Kadam, Aditi & Magnan, Nicholas & McCullough, Ellen & McGavock, Tamara, 2022. "Who is asking and how? The effects of enumerator gender and survey method in measuring intimate partner violence," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322543, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Rebecca Walcott & Isabelle Cohen & Denise Ferris, 2024. "When Who Matters: Interviewer Effects and Survey Modality," Evaluation Review, , vol. 48(6), pages 1024-1049, December.
    7. Carolina Castilla & David M. A. Murphy, 2023. "Bidirectional intimate partner violence: Evidence from a list experiment in Kenya," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(1), pages 175-193, January.
    8. Iqbal,Nasir & Jalal,Amen & Mahmud,Mahreen & Kate Vyborny, 2025. "Collecting Accurate Data on Intimate Partner Violence : Learnings from Pakistan," Policy Research Working Paper Series 11077, The World Bank.

    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. Assefa, Thomas W. & Kadam, Aditi & Magnan, Nicholas & McCullough, Ellen & McGavock, Tamara, 2022. "Who is asking and how? The effects of enumerator gender and survey method in measuring intimate partner violence," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322543, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Leonardo Bursztyn & Ingar Haaland & Nicolas Röver & Christopher Roth, 2025. "The Social Desirability Atlas," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 365, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    3. Kadam, Aditi & McCullough, Ellen B. & McGavock, Tamara J. & Magnan, Nicholas, 2025. "Who is asking and how? Effects of survey mode and enumerator gender on measuring women’s life experience," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    4. Carolina Castilla & David M. A. Murphy, 2023. "Bidirectional intimate partner violence: Evidence from a list experiment in Kenya," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(1), pages 175-193, January.
    5. Cyprien Batut & Caroline Coly & Sarah Schneider-Strawczynski, 2021. "It's a man's world: culture of abuse, #MeToo and worker flows," Working Papers halshs-03403513, HAL.
    6. Burgstaller, Lilith & Feld, Lars P. & Pfeil, Katharina, 2022. "Working in the shadow: Survey techniques for measuring and explaining undeclared work," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 661-671.
    7. Jorge M. Agüero & Veronica Frisancho, 2022. "Measuring Violence against Women with Experimental Methods," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 70(4), pages 1565-1590.
    8. Sarkar, Olivia & Dutta, Arijita, 2025. "Who prefers to buy improved period products in India? Evidence from list experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    9. Höglinger, Marc & Diekmann, Andreas, 2017. "Uncovering a Blind Spot in Sensitive Question Research: False Positives Undermine the Crosswise-Model RRT," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 131-137, January.
    10. Pier Francesco Perri & Eleni Manoli & Tasos C. Christofides, 2023. "Assessing the effectiveness of indirect questioning techniques by detecting liars," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 64(5), pages 1483-1506, October.
    11. S. Rinken & S. Pasadas-del-Amo & M. Rueda & B. Cobo, 2021. "No magic bullet: estimating anti-immigrant sentiment and social desirability bias with the item-count technique," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(6), pages 2139-2159, December.
    12. Rebecca G. Njuguna & Henry Cust & The POWER Team & Aurélia Lépine, 2025. "Does the Risk Premium Differ Between Women Engaging in Commercial and Transactional Sex? Evidence From Urban Cameroon," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(8), pages 1474-1486, August.
    13. repec:osf:socarx:tkrs7_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Walzenbach, Sandra & Hinz, Thomas, 2022. "Puzzling Answers to Crosswise Questions - Examining Overall Prevalence Rates, Primacy Effects and Learning Effects," EconStor Preprints 249353, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    15. Alina Greiner & Maximilian Filsinger, 2022. "(Dis)Trust in the Aftermath of Sexual Violence: Evidence from Sri Lanka," HiCN Working Papers 377, Households in Conflict Network.
    16. Sofia Amaral & Lelys Dinarte-Diaz & Patricio Dominguez & Steffanny Romero & Santiago M. Perez-Vincent, 2022. "Talk or Text? Evaluating Response Rates by Remote Survey Method during Covid-19," CESifo Working Paper Series 9517, CESifo.
    17. Ulrich Thy Jensen, 2020. "Is self-reported social distancing susceptible to social desirability bias? Using the crosswise model to elicit sensitive behaviors," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(2).
    18. Andreas Kotsadam & Mette Løvgren, 2025. "Is it Time to Put a Moratorium on List Experiments for Domestic Violence Elicitation?," CESifo Working Paper Series 12028, CESifo.
    19. Abate, Gashaw T. & Abay, Kibrom A. & Chamberlin, Jordan & Sebsibie, Samuel, 2024. "Measuring land rental market participation in smallholder agriculture can survey design innovations improve land market participation statistics?," IFPRI discussion papers 2255, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    20. Ivar Krumpal & Thomas Voss, 2020. "Sensitive Questions and Trust: Explaining Respondents’ Behavior in Randomized Response Surveys," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(3), pages 21582440209, July.
    21. Sophia Hatz & Hanne Fjelde & David Randahl, 2024. "Could vote buying be socially desirable? Exploratory analyses of a ‘failed’ list experiment," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(3), pages 2337-2355, June.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • I32 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Measurement and Analysis of Poverty
    • J16 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination
    • O12 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Microeconomic Analyses of Economic Development

    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:wbk:wbrwps:10124. 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: Roula I. Yazigi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dvewbus.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.