Asking Sensitive Questions Using the Crosswise Model An Experimental Survey Measuring Plagiarism

Yu, Tian, and Tang (2008) proposed two new techniques for asking questions on sensitive topics in population surveys: the triangular model (TM) and the crosswise model (CM). The two models can be used as alternatives to the well-known randomized response technique (RRT) and are meant to overcome some of the drawbacks of the RRT. Although Yu, Tian, and Tang provide a promising theoretical analysis of the proposed models, they did not test them. We therefore provide results from an experimental survey in which the crosswise model was implemented and compared to direct questioning. To our knowledge, this is the first empirical evaluation of the crosswise model. We focused on the crosswise model because it seems better suited than the triangular model to overcome the self-protective ‘‘no’’ bias observed for the RRT. This paper-and-pencil survey on plagiarism was administered to Swiss and German students in university classrooms. Results suggest that the CM is a promising data-collection instrument eliciting more socially undesirable answers than direct questioning. BEN JANN is an Associate Professor at the Institute of Sociology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. JULIA JERKE is a graduate student at the Institute of Sociology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. IVAR KRUMPAL is a senior researcher at the Institute of Sociology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. The authors thank Debra Hevenstone and the anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft of this article. Furthermore, the authors thank Norman Braun, Jochen Groß, and Matthias Naef for their assistance with the data collection. This work was supported by the German Research Foundation [DI 292/5 to Andreas Diekmann, VO 684/11 to Thomas Voss and Karl-Dieter Opp]. *Address correspondence to Ben Jann, University of Bern, Institute of Sociology, Lerchenweg 36, 3000 Bern 9, Switzerland; e-mail: jann@soz.unibe.ch; or Ivar Krumpal, University of Leipzig, Institute of Sociology, Beethovenstrasse 15, 04107 Leipzig, Germany; e-mail: krumpal@sozio.uni-leipzig.de. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfr036 Advance Access publication November 2, 2011 The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com

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

[2]  Jon A. Krosnick,et al.  Social desirability bias in voter turnout reports Tests using the item count technique , 2010 .

[3]  James T. Neill,et al.  Who cheats at university? A self-report study of dishonest academic behaviours in a sample of Australian university students , 2005 .

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

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

[6]  Ulf Böckenholt,et al.  Log-Linear Randomized-Response Models Taking Self-Protective Response Behavior Into Account , 2007 .

[7]  G. Tian,et al.  Two new models for survey sampling with sensitive characteristic: design and analysis , 2008 .

[8]  J. A. Calvin.  Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables , 1998 .

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

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

[11]  Chris J. Park,et al.  In Other (People's) Words: Plagiarism by university students--literature and lessons , 2003 .

[12]  U. N. Umesh,et al.  Randomized Response: A Method for Sensitive Surveys , 1986 .

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

[14]  Fintan Culwin,et al.  An active introduction to academic misconduct and the measured demographics of misconduct , 2006 .

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

[16]  C. Mood.  Logistic Regression: Why We Cannot Do What We Think We Can Do, and What We Can Do About It , 2010 .

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

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

[19]  Gerty J. L. M. Lensvelt-Mulders,et al.  Evaluating compliance with a computer assisted randomized response technique: a qualitative study into the origins of lying and cheating , 2007, Comput. Hum. Behav..

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