Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Duesseldorf, Universitaetsstrasse 1, Building 23.03, Floor 00, Room 27, 40225, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Behav Res Methods. 2020 Aug;52(4):1768-1782. doi: 10.3758/s13428-020-01349-9.
Non-randomized response techniques (NRRTs) such as the crosswise model and the triangular model (CWM and TRM; Yu et al. Metrika, 67, 251-263, 2008) have been developed to control for socially desirable responding in surveys on sensitive personal attributes. We present the first study to directly compare the validity of the CWM and TRM and contrast their performance with a conventional direct questioning (DQ) approach. In a paper-pencil survey of 1382 students, we obtained prevalence estimates for two sensitive attributes (xenophobia and rejection of further refugee admissions) and one nonsensitive control attribute with a known prevalence (the first letter of respondents' surnames). Both NRRTs yielded descriptively higher prevalence estimates for the sensitive attributes than DQ; however, only the CWM estimates were significantly higher. We attribute the higher prevalence estimates for the CWM to its response symmetry, which is lacking in the TRM. Only the CWM provides symmetric answer options, meaning that there is no "safe" alternative respondents can choose to distance themselves from being carriers of the sensitive attribute. Prevalence estimates for the nonsensitive control attribute with known prevalence confirmed that neither method suffered from method-specific bias towards over- or underestimation. Exploratory moderator analyses further suggested that the sensitive attributes were perceived as more sensitive among politically left-oriented than among politically right-oriented respondents. Based on our results, we recommend using the CWM over the TRM in future studies on sensitive personal attributes.
非随机响应技术(NRRTs),如交叉模型和三角模型(CWM 和 TRM;Yu 等人,Metrika,67,251-263,2008)已经被开发出来,以控制调查中对敏感个人属性的社会期望反应。我们首次直接比较了 CWM 和 TRM 的有效性,并将它们的性能与传统的直接询问(DQ)方法进行了对比。在一项针对 1382 名学生的纸笔调查中,我们获得了两个敏感属性(仇外心理和拒绝进一步接纳难民)和一个已知流行率的非敏感控制属性(受访者姓氏的首字母)的流行率估计。两种 NRRTs 对敏感属性的描述性流行率估计都高于 DQ;然而,只有 CWM 的估计值显著更高。我们将 CWM 的更高流行率估计归因于其响应对称性,而 TRM 则缺乏这种对称性。只有 CWM 提供了对称的答案选项,这意味着没有“安全”的选择,受访者可以选择与敏感属性的携带者保持距离。对具有已知流行率的非敏感控制属性的流行率估计证实,这两种方法都没有受到特定方法的偏见,即高估或低估。探索性的调节分析进一步表明,在政治上倾向左派的受访者中,敏感属性被认为比政治上倾向右派的受访者更敏感。基于我们的结果,我们建议在未来的敏感个人属性研究中使用 CWM 而不是 TRM。