How Indirect Questioning Techniques May Promote Democracy: A Preelection Polling Experiment

Puiseau, Berenike Waubert de; Hoffmann, Adrian; Musch, Jochen

doi:10.1080/01973533.2017.1331351

Cited by 12 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Fig 1 shows the CWM as a tree diagram. Significantly higher and thus presumably more valid prevalence estimates have been obtained via the CWM as compared to DQ for sensitive attributes such as xenophobia [10,11], plagiarism [12], tax evasion [13,14], distrust in the Trust Game [14], crossing the street on a red light in plain view of children [15], the use of anabolic steroids among bodybuilders [16], intention to vote for the far-right German party Alternative for Germany [17], and prejudice against female leaders [18]. Moreover, in one strong validation study, the CWM accurately estimated the prevalence of experimentally induced cheating behavior, while DQ led to a severe underestimation [19].…”

Section: The Crosswise Model: a Promising Alternative To Conventionalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can detailed instructions and comprehension checks increase the validity of crosswise model estimates?

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The crosswise model is an indirect questioning technique designed to control for socially desirable responding. Although the technique has delivered promising results in terms of improved validity in survey studies of sensitive issues, recent studies have indicated that the crosswise model may sometimes produce false positives. Hence, we investigated whether an insufficient understanding of the crosswise model instructions might be responsible for these false positives and whether ensuring a deeper understanding of the model and surveying more highly educated respondents reduces the problem of false positives. To this end, we experimentally manipulated the amount of information respondents received in the crosswise model instructions. We compared a crosswise model condition with only brief instructions and a crosswise model condition with detailed instructions and additional comprehension checks. Additionally, we compared the validity of crosswise model estimates between a higher-and a lower-educated subgroup of respondents. Our results indicate that false positives among highly educated respondents can be reduced when detailed instructions and comprehension checks are employed. Since false positives can also occur in direct questioning, they do not appear to be a specific flaw of the crosswise model, but rather a more general problem of self-reports on sensitive topics. False negatives were found to occur for all questioning techniques, but were less prevalent in the crosswise model than in the direct questioning condition. We highlight the importance of comprehension checks when applying indirect questioning and emphasize the necessity of developing instructions suitable for lower-educated respondents.

show abstract

Section: The Crosswise Model: a Promising Alternative To Conventionalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can detailed instructions and comprehension checks increase the validity of crosswise model estimates?

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis as well as quality assessment of empirical applications of CM Coutts et al, 2011;Jann et al, 2012;Korndörfer et al, 2014;Hoffmann et al, 2015Hoffmann et al, , 2017Höglinger et al, 2016;Kundt et al, 2017;Heck et al, 2018;Nasirian et al, 2018;Hopp and Speil, 2019;Lehrer et al, 2019;Safiri et al, 2019;Schnapp, 2019;Walzenbach and Hinz, 2019;Meisters et al, 2020b;Özgül, 2020Özgül, k = 7 Kundt, 2014Höglinger and Diekmann, 2017;Höglinger and Jann, 2018;Atsusaka and Stevenson, 2020;Hoffmann et al, 2020;Meisters et al, 2020a;Jerke et al, 2021 CM prevalence (k =18) Nakhaee et al, 2013;Kazemzadeh et al, 2016k = 9 Eslami et al, 2013Waubert de Puiseau et al, 2017;Banayejeddi et al, 2019;Klimas et al, 2019;Vakilian et al, 2019;Jensen, 2020;Lacker et al, 2020;Mieth et al, 2021k = 7 Shamsipour et al, 2014Vakilian et al, 2014Vakilian et al, , 2016Gingerich et al, 2015;…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Online questionnaires (k = 21) Korndörfer et al, 2014;Kundt, 2014;Hoffmann et al, 2015Hoffmann et al, , 2017Höglinger et al, 2016;Höglinger and Diekmann, 2017;Waubert de Puiseau et al, 2017;Höglinger and Jann, 2018;Hopp and Speil, 2019;Klimas et al, 2019;Lehrer et al, 2019;Schnapp, 2019;Walzenbach and Hinz, 2019;Atsusaka and Stevenson, 2020;Jensen, 2020;Lacker et al, 2020;Meisters et al, 2020a;Canan et al, 2021;Jerke et al, 2021;Mieth et al, 2021 Paper questionnaires (k = 18) Coutts et al, 2011;Jann et al, 2012;Nakhaee et al, 2013;Shamsipour et al, 2014;Vakilian et al, 2014Vakilian et al, , 2016Vakilian et al, , 2019Khosravi et al, 2015;Kazemzadeh et al, 2016;Heck et al, 2018;Mirzazadeh et al, 2018;Nasirian et al, 2018;Banayejeddi et al, 2019;Safiri et al, 2019;Hoffmann et al, 2020;Meisters et al, 2020b;Özgül, 2020 Interviews (k = 4) Gingerich et al, 2015;Kundt et al, 2017;Oliveros and Gingerich, 2020 Interviews and questionnaires (k = 2) Eslami et al, 2013;Jerke e...…”

Section: Mode Referencesunclassified

Functionality of the Crosswise Model for Assessing Sensitive or Transgressive Behavior: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tools for reliable assessment of socially sensitive or transgressive behavior warrant constant development. Among them, the Crosswise Model (CM) has gained considerable attention. We systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed empirical applications of CM and addressed a gap for quality assessment of indirect estimation models. Guided by the PRISMA protocol, we identified 45 empirical studies from electronic database and reference searches. Thirty of these were comparative validation studies (CVS) comparing CM and direct question (DQ) estimates. Six prevalence studies exclusively used CM. One was a qualitative study. Behavior investigated were substance use and misuse (k = 13), academic misconduct (k = 8), and corruption, tax evasion, and theft (k = 7) among others. Majority of studies (k = 39) applied the “more is better” hypothesis. Thirty-five studies relied on birthday distribution and 22 of these used P = 0.25 for the non-sensitive item. Overall, 11 studies were assessed as high-, 31 as moderate-, and two as low quality (excluding the qualitative study). The effect of non-compliance was assessed in eight studies. From mixed CVS results, the meta-analysis indicates that CM outperforms DQ on the “more is better” validation criterion, and increasingly so with higher behavior sensitivity. However, little difference was observed between DQ and CM estimates for items with DQ prevalence estimate around 50%. Based on empirical evidence available to date, our study provides support for the superiority of CM to DQ in assessing sensitive/transgressive behavior. Despite some limitations, CM is a valuable and promising tool for population level investigation.

show abstract

“…where lCWM is the observed proportion of respondents choosing the first answer option ("both statements are true, or both statements are false"). The CWM has repeatedly been found to provide higher and, therefore, potentially more valid estimates for the prevalence of sensitive attributes than direct questions [e.g., 9,[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. Building on 45 empirical studies following this "more is better" validation approach, a recent meta-analysis supported the superiority of the CWM over DQ in controlling for the influence of socially desirable responses [29].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nothing but the truth? Effects of faking on the validity of the crosswise model

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In self-reports, socially desirable responding threatens the validity of prevalence estimates for sensitive personal attitudes and behaviors. Indirect questioning techniques such as the crosswise model attempt to control for the influence of social desirability bias. The crosswise model has repeatedly been found to provide more valid prevalence estimates than direct questions. We investigated whether crosswise model estimates are also less susceptible to deliberate faking than direct questions. To this end, we investigated the effect of “fake good” instructions on responses to direct and crosswise model questions. In a sample of 1,946 university students, 12-month prevalence estimates for a sensitive road traffic behavior were higher and thus presumably more valid in the crosswise model than in a direct question. Moreover, “fake good” instructions severely impaired the validity of the direct questioning estimates, whereas the crosswise model estimates were unaffected by deliberate faking. Participants also reported higher levels of perceived confidentiality and a lower perceived ease of faking in the crosswise model compared to direct questions. Our results corroborate previous studies finding the crosswise model to be an effective tool for counteracting the detrimental effects of positive self-presentation in surveys on sensitive issues.

show abstract

How Indirect Questioning Techniques May Promote Democracy: A Preelection Polling Experiment

Cited by 12 publications

References 35 publications

Can detailed instructions and comprehension checks increase the validity of crosswise model estimates?

Can detailed instructions and comprehension checks increase the validity of crosswise model estimates?

Functionality of the Crosswise Model for Assessing Sensitive or Transgressive Behavior: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Nothing but the truth? Effects of faking on the validity of the crosswise model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About