Estimating the prevalence of xenophobia and anti-Semitism in Germany: A comparison of randomized response and direct questioning.

An experimental CATI-survey (N=2041), asking sensitive questions about xenophobia and anti-Semitism in Germany, was conducted to compare the randomized response technique (RRT) and the direct questioning technique. Unlike the vast majority of RRT surveys measuring the prevalence of socially undesirable behaviors, only few studies have explored the effectiveness of the RRT with respect to the disclosure of socially undesirable opinions. Results suggest that the RRT is an effective method eliciting more socially undesirable opinions and yielding more valid prevalence estimates of xenophobia and anti-Semitism than direct questioning ('more-is-better' assumption). Furthermore, the results indicate that with increasing topic sensitivity, the benefits of using the RRT also increase. Finally, adapted logistic regression analyses show that several covariates such as education and generalized trust are related to the likelihood of being prejudiced towards foreigners and Jews.

[1]  Marek Fuchs,et al.  Pre-Call Validation of RDD Cell Phone Numbers A Field Experiment , 2011 .

[2]  Ivar Krumpal,et al.  „Aber es gibt keine Antisemiten mehr“: Eine experimentelle Studie zur Kommunikationslatenz antisemitischer Einstellungen , 2010 .

[3]  Ulf Böckenholt,et al.  Do randomized-response designs eliminate response biases? An empirical study of non-compliance behavior , 2009 .

[4]  Robert F. Boruch,et al.  Maintaining confidentiality on data in educational research: A systemic analysis. , 1971 .

[5]  Johannes A. Landsheer,et al.  Trust and Understanding, Two Psychological Aspects of Randomized Response , 1999 .

[6]  C. Ellertson,et al.  The Measure of Induced Abortion Levels in Mexico Using Random Response Technique , 2006 .

[7]  K. Reuband.  ON THIRD PERSONS IN THE INTERVIEW SITUATION AND THEIR IMPACT ON RESPONSES , 1992 .

[8]  P. Schmidt,et al.  Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. , 1984 .

[9]  W. Bergmann,et al.  Anti-Semitism and Xenophobia in Germany after Unification. , 1998 .

[10]  R. Putnam.  Making Democracy Work , 1993 .

[11]  J. Strickler,et al.  Measuring Induced Abortion in Mexico , 2004 .

[12]  J. S. Long,et al.  Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata, 2nd Edition , 2005 .

[13]  Floyd J. Fowler,et al.  Improving Survey Questions: Design and Evaluation , 1995 .

[14]  N. C. Schaeffer,et al.  The Science of Asking Questions , 2003 .

[15]  Jon A. Krosnick,et al.  Measuring Voter Turnout By Using The Randomized Response Technique , 2010 .

[16]  Siegfried Gabler,et al.  Überlegungen zu einem Stichprobendesign für Telefonumfragen in Deutschland , 1997 .

[17]  R. Steer,et al.  Estimating illicit drug use through telephone interviews and the randomized response technique. , 1986, Drug and alcohol dependence.

[18]  J. Hox,et al.  A Comparison of Randomized Response, Computer-Assisted Self-Interview, and Face-to-Face Direct Questioning , 2000 .

[19]  Jochen Musch,et al.  A randomized‐response investigation of the education effect in attitudes towards foreigners , 2009 .

[20]  Volker Stocké.  Entstehungsbedingungen von Antwortverzerrungen durch soziale Erwünschtheit. Ein Vergleich der Prognosen der Rational-Choice Theorie und des Modells der Frame-Selektion , 2003 .

[21]  Antisemitismus in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1996 , 2000 .

[22]  Robert Cameron Mitchell,et al.  The Impact of "No Opinion" Response Options on Data Quality: Non-Attitude Reduction or an Invitation to Satisfice? , 2001 .

[23]  E. Brähler,et al.  Vom Rand zur Mitte. Rechtsextreme Einstellungen und ihre Einflussfaktoren in Deutschland , 2006 .

[24]  T. Adorno.  The Authoritarian Personality , 1950 .

[25]  Neal J. Roese,et al.  Twenty years of bogus pipeline research : a critical review and meta-analysis , 1993 .

[26]  Peter G. M. van der Heijden,et al.  How to Improve the Efficiency of Randomised Response Designs , 2005 .

[27]  R. Tourangeau,et al.  Sensitive questions in surveys. , 2007, Psychological bulletin.

[28]  Ben Jann.  RRLOGIT: Stata module to estimate logistic regression for randomized response data , 2005 .

[29]  P. Schmidt,et al.  The Syndrome of Group-Focused Enmity: The Interrelation of Prejudices Tested with Multiple Cross-Sectional and Panel Data , 2008 .

[30]  Dagmar Krebs,et al.  Gewichtung in der Umfragepraxis , 1994 .

[31]  Ulrich Wagner,et al.  The relation of formal education to ethnic prejudice: Its reliability, validity and explanation , 1995 .

[32]  E. Brähler,et al.  Rechtsextreme Einstellungen in Deutschland , 2002 .

[33]  Peter G. M. van der Heijden,et al.  A validation of a computer‐assisted randomized response survey to estimate the prevalence of fraud in social security , 2006 .

[34]  Ben Jann,et al.  Plagiarism in Student Papers: Prevalence Estimates Using Special Techniques for Sensitive Questions , 2011 .

[35]  W. Bergmann,et al.  «Mir ist das Thema Juden irgendwie unangenehm» : Kommunikationslatenz und die Wahrnehmung des Meinungsklimas im Fall des Antisemitismus , 1991 .

[36]  Donald E. Stem,et al.  Telephone Interview and Mail Questionnaire Applications of the Randomized Response Model , 1984 .

[37]  W. Aquilino,et al.  Response Effects Due to Bystander Presence in CASI and Paper-and-Pencil Surveys of Drug Use and Alcohol Use , 2000, Substance use & misuse.

[38]  Siegfried Gabler,et al.  Idiosyncrasies in Telephone Sampling—The Case of Germany , 2002 .

[39]  Ulf Böckenholt,et al.  Estimating the prevalence of sensitive behaviour and cheating with a dual design for direct questioning and randomized response , 2010, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, Applied statistics.

[40]  S L Warner,et al.  Randomized response: a survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. , 1965, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[41]  Ben Jann,et al.  Asking Sensitive Questions Using the Crosswise Model An Experimental Survey Measuring Plagiarism , 2012 .

[42]  Peter G. M. van der Heijden,et al.  Meta-Analysis of Randomized Response Research , 2005 .

[43]  Maria Krysan,et al.  Privacy and the expression of white racial attitudes : A comparison across three contexts , 1998 .

[44]  W. Bergmann,et al.  Kommunikationslatenz, Moral und Öffentliche Meinung , 1986 .

[45]  S. M. Rogers,et al.  Impact of T-ACASI on Survey Measurements of Subjective Phenomena. , 2009, Public opinion quarterly.

[46]  C. Mitchell Dayton,et al.  Covariate Randomized Response Models , 1988 .

[47]  W. Bergmann,et al.  Antisemitismus in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland , 1991 .

[48]  E. Brähler,et al.  Vom Rand zur Mitte , 2006 .

[49]  Dietlind Stolle,et al.  Trusting strangers - the concept of generalized trust in perspective , 2002 .

[50]  Paul E. Tracy,et al.  Randomized Response: A Method for Sensitive Surveys , 1986 .

[51]  Volker Stocké.  The interdependence of determinants for the strength and direction of social desirability in racial attitude surveys , 2004 .

[52]  Ben Jann,et al.  Sensitive Questions in Online Surveys: Experimental Results for the Randomized Response Technique (RRT) and the Unmatched Count Technique (UCT) , 2011 .

[53]  Ivar Krumpal,et al.  Asking sensitive questions: the impact of forgiving wording and question context on social desirability bias , 2012 .

[54]  Karl-Heinz Reuband.  Unerwünschte Dritte beim Interview , 1987 .

[55]  Ivar Krumpal.  Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review , 2013 .

[56]  C. Spino,et al.  Assessment of drug abuser treatment needs in Rhode Island. , 1991, American journal of public health.