Social desirability bias in voter turnout reports Tests using the item count technique

By Allyson Holbrook, J. Krosnick. 2010

518 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Political Science and International Relations, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5da6b9faee6fa9698866e1804c7602c8b19477a4

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Political Science and International Relations

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Complete anonymity compromises the accuracy of self-reports (2012, methodology): “Tools such as the item count technique (Droitcour et al., 1991; Holbrook & Krosnick, 2010), the bogus pipeline (Jones & Sigall, 1971), the randomized response technique (Fox & Tracy, 1986; Himmelfarb & Lickteig, 1982; Lensvelt-Mulders, Hox, Van Der Heijden, & Maas, 2005; Warner, 1965), or simply…”
National Culture and Social Desirability Bias in Measuring Public Service Motivation (2016, methodology): “The comparative investigation of voting participation shows that while the experimental telephone survey reduces bias, there is hardly any bias in an online survey (Holbrook & Krosnick, 2010).”
The moral behavior of ethics professors: Relationships among self-reported behavior, expressed normative attitude, and directly observed behavior (2014, background): “Despite a tendency for Americans in general to substantially overreport voting (Holbrook & Krosnick, 2010), we found no such tendency among our respondents.”
Statistical Analysis of List Experiments (2012, methodology): “Although some have begun to apply multivariate regression techniques such as linear regression with interaction terms (e.g.,Holbrook and Krosnick 2010; Glynn 2010; Coutts and Jann 2011) and an 1A variant of this technique was originally proposed byRaghavarao and Federer(1979), who called it…”
Comparing and Combining List and Endorsement Experiments: Evidence from Afghanistan (2014, methodology): “…popular as survey methodology to overcome this measurement problem (see for example references in Tsuchiya, Hirai and Ono, 2007; Corstange, 2009; Holbrook and Krosnick, 2010; Glynn, 2010; Bullock, Imai and Shapiro, 2011; Gonzalez-Ocantos et al., 2012; Blair and Imai, 2012).1 These survey…”
Controlling social desirability bias (2018, methodology): “This technique helped reduce overreporting of voting (Comsa & Postelnicu, 2013; Holbrook & Krosnick, 2010).”
Using the Predicted Responses from List Experiments as Explanatory Variables in Regression Models (2015, methodology): “2, we assume no design effects and no liars; these assumptions are formally described in Imai (2011) and Blair and Imai (2012).”
A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Service-Learning on Students (2011, methodology): “New approaches are being developed, such as the item count technique, to correct for the social desirability bias with self-report measures (Holbrook & Krosnick, 2010).”
Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes (2011, background): “In five recent papers, Internet was found to give lower degree of socially desirable responding compared to telephone interviewing (Kreuter et al., 2008; Chang and Krosnick, 2009, 2010; Holbrook and Krosnick, 2010) and f2f interviews (Heerwegh, 2009).”
Civic (Re)socialisation: The Educative Effects of Deliberative Participation (2015, background): “…surveys were conducted over the phone, 62 per cent of short-term CIR, 86 per cent of year-later CIR and all ACP surveys were self-administered, either online or through the mail, which may reduce over-reporting due to social desirability (Holbrook and Krosnick, 2010; Tourangeau and Smith, 1996).”
Multivariate Regression Analysis for the Item Count Technique (2011, background): “Statistical efficiency is an important concern for the item count technique because indirect questioning means loss of information.”