Methods of Coping With Social Desirability Bias a Review

When writing the questionnaire intendance must be taken to identify question areas that are possible sources of SDB. If the questions ask nigh attitudes or behaviour on any subject that has a social responsibleness component, then consideration should be given to how all-time to minimize any possible bias. Just asking respondents to be honest has very little effect (Phillips and Clancy, 1972; Chocolate-brown, Copeland and Millward, 1973).

Inquiry carried out under the MRS or ESOMAR or CASRO lawmaking of carry should anyway tell respondents that their responses will be treated confidentially. This could be reinforced with a restatement of confidentiality every bit part of the introduction to the sensitive questions. Withal, the effect of this appears to be slight (Singer, Von Thurn and Miller, 1995; Dillman et al, 1996) or even to reduce the level of cooperation (Vocalist, Hippler and Schwarz, 1992). This reduction in cooperation could exist because the additional accent on confidentiality highlights to respondents that the questions are particularly sensitive, and so increases their nervousness nearly answering them. And, except for self-completion surveys, at that place is even so the interviewer, who will exist aware of the responses. Appealing for honesty and assurances of confidentiality are bereft. Measures that are more than positive are therefore required.

1. Removing the interviewer

With face management, respondents are trying to create an impression that they are more socially responsible than they already are. They may be trying to create that impression for the interviewer or for the unseen researcher. Many respondents will not appreciate that their responses are likely to be seen at an identifiable level by only the interviewer and, if using a newspaper questionnaire, by the person inbound or editing the data. That may non matter in the sense that they just want to be 'known' as responsible people. Withal, the most obvious person for whom they want to create a proficient impression is the interviewer. Using a self­completion questionnaire, by removing the interviewer from the inter­confront, should therefore eliminate much, but probably non all, of this item problem. However, information technology will not eliminate ego defence force/cocky- deception or instrumentation. Earlier work published on this topic (Lautenschlager and Flaherty, 1990; Booth-Kewley, Edwards and Rosenfeld, 1992) had been inconclusive regarding whether removing the interviewer reduces SDB. More than recently Poynter and Comley (2003), Duffy et al (2005) and Bronner and Kuijlen (2007) have all demonstrated that the admission of socially undesirable behaviour is greater with online surveys than with interviewer-administered surveys, so demon­strating the greater honesty that is achieved with this medium. In addi­tion, Kellner (2004) demonstrated that there was less pressure on respondents to appear knowledgeable.

Cocky-completion questionnaires are likewise good to apply where the subject area is potentially embarrassing for the respondent, and they eliminate much of the bias that would otherwise occur. Both mail surveys and internet-based surveys do good in this respect, with internet-based surveys possibly being seen by respondents as the most anonymous form of interview.

ii. Random response technique

The randomized response technique was first developed by Warner (1965). Information technology provides a machinery for respondents to be truthful near embarrassing or even illegal acts without anyone being able to identify that they have admitted to such an human action.

This is accomplished considering the respondent is presented with ii alterna­tive questions, one of which is sensitive and the other not sensitive. No one other than the respondent knows which question has been answered.

To reach this, two questions with the same gear up of response codes are presented for self-completion. One of these is the sensitive or threatening question, and the other is the non-threatening and innocuous one. Respondents are allocated to respond one of these questions in a random way, the outcome of which is unknown to the interviewer. This can be past having balls of ii different colours in a bag and asking the respondent to draw one out without showing it to the interviewer, or tossing a coin out of sight of the interviewer. Withal, this can exist a cumbersome procedure in about interview situations.

An alternative method, which would besides work in online self-comple­tion interviews, is presented in Figure 12.1. Nosotros know from other sources that 17 per cent of the population take their birthday in November or December and, given a sufficiently large sample, nosotros can reasonably utilise this proportion.

So, of a sample of i,000, it tin can be assumed that 830 volition take answered the threatening question and 170 the non-threatening question. Of the 170, half (85) will have answered 'Aye' to the question about their tele­phone number.

If X out of the total sample accept answered 'Yep' at all, we can deduce that, of the people who answered the threatening question, X – 85 answered 'Yes' to the threatening question. We tin can therefore arrive at an estimate of the proportion of the population who have used marijuana in the last 12 months, which is (X – 85)/830.

It is a risky assumption that respondents are honest, both nigh which question they choose to answer and about the way in which they reply the threatening question. If people wish to avoid answering the threatening question, they only have to pretend to themselves that their altogether falls when information technology does not, and in that location is zippo to stop them simply ignoring the educational activity and answering the non-threatening question. Some people may not be convinced that the researcher will not be able to make up one's mind which question they take answered so prevarication well-nigh their behaviour anyway. Whether respondents accept either understood or followed the instructions cannot exist straight checked. Some may also gauge the question to exist pointless as they cannot understand how information technology works. They may then not answer the question or, if they do, not follow the instructions.

It has been shown (Sudman and Bradburn, 1982) that the technique works finer for subjects that are relatively unthreatening, eg having been involved in a case in a bankruptcy court, just that with more threat­ening subjects, eg drunken driving, it however significantly underestimates levels of behaviour.

This approach is express to providing an gauge of the proportions answering 'Yes' and 'No' to the threatening question amidst the full sample, or among sub-groups that are of sufficiently big sample size for the assumptions regarding the proportions answering the non-threaten­ing question still to hold. As it is not possible to distinguish individual respondents who answered the threatening question, information technology is not possible to cross-analyse them confronting whatsoever other variables from the survey in order to establish, say, the profile of those who admit to the behaviour and that of those who do not.

What the technique achieves is providing an opportunity for the respondent to answer honestly. This ways that, while it addresses 'impression management', information technology can do nothing about 'self-deception'.

This technique would therefore appear to be a useful, if limited, tool provided that the subject area is not too threatening. The difficulty is in determining when a topic is too threatening for this arroyo to be successful.

three. Face-saving questions

Face-saving questions give respondents an adequate way of admitting to socially undesirable behaviour, by including in the question a reason why they might carry in that mode. For case, if the questionnaire author wishes to measure how many people have read the new edition of the Highway Code, instead of asking 'Have yous read the latest edition of the Highway Code?' the writer could ask 'Have you had time yet to read the latest edition of the Highway Lawmaking?'

The beginning question tin audio confrontational, with an implication that respondents ought to have read the latest edition and exist aware of electric current driving rules. This tin force respondents on to the defensive, or to feel guilty about non having read it, and hence to lie and say that they accept read it. The 2nd question carries an assumption that respondents know that they ought to read it and will when they take the time. This is less confrontational, eases any guilt about not having read information technology and makes information technology easier for respondents to admit that they have not.

Piece of work carried out in the USA (Holtgraves, Eck and Lasky, 1997) has consistently demonstrated over a series of studies that questions of this type can significantly reduce over-claiming of socially desirable knowl­border (eg global warming, health intendance legislation, trade agreements and electric current affairs) and reduce under-claiming of socially undesirable behav­iour (eg cheating, shoplifting, vandalism, littering). However, the work is inconclusive regarding the impact of such questions when applied to socially desirable behaviour (eg recycling, studying, attention concerts). Questionnaire writers therefore can employ this technique confident that information technology reduces SDB where knowledge is being asked nigh, or where the chore is to get respondents to admit to undesirable behaviour. However, caution should be applied before using this technique to reduce over-challenge of desirable behaviour.

Care must besides be taken with face-saving questions so equally not to create a truly double-barrelled question. The question 'Practice you lot read a newspaper on a daily ground?' might exist expected to lead to over-challenge of a socially desirable behaviour. It would and so be replaced with the question 'Exercise you have the time to read a newspaper on a daily basis?' This, however, now contains ii clear elements – reading the newspaper and having the time. Some respondents may answer positively on the grounds that, although they do not read a newspaper daily, they do take the time to do so. Other respondents might give a negative answer considering, although they do read a newspaper each day, they practice non feel that they have plenty fourth dimension.

Some other technique that has the effect of reducing threat in questions of noesis is to use the phrase 'Do you lot happen to know…' at the begin­ning of the question. Rather than ask 'How many kilometres are there in a mile?' or 'Practice yous know how many kilometres there are in a mile?' the question should be 'Do yous happen to know how many kilometres there are in a mile?' This softens the question and makes it less confrontational and has been shown to lead to an increase in the level of 'Don't know' responses, suggesting that respondents find it easier to admit their igno­rance rather than guess.

4. Indirect questioning

A technique sometimes used in qualitative research is not to ask respon­dents what they think virtually a subject, only to inquire them what they believe other people recollect. This allows them to put forward views that they would non admit to holding themselves, which can then exist discussed. Information technology can sometimes be possible to use a similar technique in a quantitative research questionnaire. However, in qualitative research the group moderator or interviewer tin discuss these views and utilise his or her own judgement as to whether or non respondents hold these views themselves or merely believe that other people hold them.

In quantitative research both the structured nature of the interview and the separation of respondents and researcher brand this far more than difficult to achieve. The researcher is therefore left with incertitude as to the proportion of respondents who projected their own feelings and the proportion who honestly reported their judgement of others.

v. Question enhancements

The questionnaire writer can accept a number of other simple steps in order to help minimize SDB.

5.1. Reassure that behaviour is not unusual

Where there is a business concern that people may misreport their behaviour, state­ments that certain types of behaviour are not unusual can exist built into the question, to reassure respondents that any option they cull, their behaviour will be considered by the interviewer or past the researcher to be normal. For example, 'Some people read a newspaper every solar day of the week, others read a paper some days a week, while others never read a newspaper at all. To which of these categories do you vest?'

five.2. Extended responses on prompts

In a similar way, extended responses on prompt material can advise that extreme behaviour is not unusual and encourage honest responses. For example, when request the corporeality of alcohol that people drinkable, the researcher can use prompts with categories that get well across normal behaviour, so that categories of mildly heavy drinkers appear mid-style on the list. This helps heavier drinkers to feel that their consumption might be of a more normal level than information technology actually is, and they may be more than likely to be honest and not nether-study. Care needs to be taken not to make light drinkers feel inadequate and so experience forced to over-report their weight of drinking. Having relatively small gradations at the lighter cease of the scale, thus helping the lighter drinkers to see that they take more options, tin assist this (run across Effigy 12.2).

An culling approach is to take broad categories, probably no more than than three in total, then that respondents do not have to identify the amount besides closely.

The 2d arroyo is likely to be preferred by respondents considering they do not accept to specify closely, which they may be reluctant to do either considering they exercise not want to admit information technology or because they find it difficult to calculate. However, for almost research purposes the broad categories supply insufficient data to the researcher for the required analyses.

This approach can be used as a showtime function of a two-function question. The first question is used to place which of the three broad categories the respondent falls into and a 2nd question is used to identify the amount more precisely within the category.

5.iii. Identifying responses by codes

So that respondents do not accept to articulate the response to the inter­viewer, code letters can be used against each of the prompted response categories and the respondent asked to read out the advisable code alphabetic character. Respondents therefore do not have to read aloud the respond, which helps them to feel that a degree of confidentiality is being maintained. The interviewer of course knows to which response category each code applies, but respondent and interviewer do non take to share the infor­mation overtly (meet Effigy 12.3).

6. Bogus pipeline

One other approach should be mentioned, though it has lilliputian awarding in normal market research surveys: that is the bogus pipeline.

Respondents are physically connected to an apparatus that they are told tin detect their true feelings and emotions. In that location is therefore no point in them non giving wholly true responses to the questions asked. This is, of course, not true, and the apparatus is artificial. This approach has been used and has been shown to reduce social desirability bias. At that place is concern though that, although the technique does affect responses, information technology may exist because respondents answer more advisedly and with more thought rather than because they are trying to be truthful.

However, because of the ethical bug it poses of deceiving members of the public about the capabilities of the apparatus and because of both the difficulty and cost of applying it, this is by and large not an advisable tech­nique to utilize in market research surveys.

Source: Brace Ian (2018), Questionnaire Blueprint: How to Programme, Construction and Write Survey Cloth for Effective Market place Research, Kogan Page; 4th edition.

harperhompsed.blogspot.com

Source: https://phantran.net/dealing-with-sdb-social-desirability-bias-of-questionnaire-survey/

Share this post