CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,860Survey Methodology and NonresponseSurvey Sampling and Estimation TechniquesQualitative Research Methods and Ethics

Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review

Open access
Krumpal, Ivar·2013·Quality & Quantity
DOI 10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9

Cites

161 of 161 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The use of ordinal Likert scales for self-assessments and a pre-post-test study design limits statistical analysis and introduces potential social desirability bias.

    “the use of ordinal Likert scales for self-assessments and a pre-post-test study design limits statistical analysis and introduces potential social desirability bias [28].”

    From Development and evaluation of virtual simulation games to increase the confidence and self-efficacy of healthcare learners in vaccine communication, advocacy, and promotion (2024) · cites this paper as [28]

    Section 2 (page unavailable) says respondents may distort self-reports toward socially desirable answers, supporting the possibility of bias in self-assessments. The paper does not say that ordinal Likert scales or a pre-post-test design limit statistical analysis or themselves introduce that bias. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The ECV underreports smoking due to social desirability bias, and the data were adjusted using SCPS prevalence by age and gender.

    “Since ECV is a household survey, questions are asked to each respondent in presence of other household members, causing a significant underreport due to social desirability bias [27]; to correct for this bias, we adjust the data on whether the person smokes or not using smoking prevalence by age and gender from the Survey on Consumption of Psychoactive Substances (SCPS) in 2019 [28].”

    From Tobacco Taxes as the Unsung Hero: Impact of a Tax Increase on Advancing Sustainable Development in Colombia (2022) · cites this paper as [27]

    Section 3 says smoking is commonly underreported in sensitive surveys. Section 5.3 reports that parental presence can produce more socially desirable answers, but it does not establish that ECV respondents answer in front of household members or that ECV significantly underreports smoking. The adjustment using 2019 SCPS prevalence is attached to citation [28], not this source. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Many previous estimates of mental disorders in PSP may have been underestimated.

    “Accordingly, many previous estimates of mental disorders in PSP1,10,14–16,77 may have been underestimated.”

    From Mental Disorder Symptoms among Public Safety Personnel in Canada (2018) · cites this paper as [77]

    Section 5.1 (page not provided) reports that self-administered surveys often elicited more reports of anxiety, depression, and other psychiatric disorders than interviewer-administered surveys, supporting the possibility of underestimation. The review does not address PSP or establish that many previous estimates for that population were underestimated. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Most questionnaires were validated but social desirability still could have played a role.

    “Most questionnaires were validated but social desirability still could have played a role [53].”

    From Multidomain Dementia Risk Reduction in Primary Care is Feasible: A Proof-of-concept study (2024) · cites this paper as [53]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Crowne, D., Marlowe, D.: The Approval Motive. John Wiley, New York (1964)
  2. Groves, R.M., Fowler, F.J. Jr., Couper, M.P., Lepkowski, J.M., Singer, E., Tourangeau, R.: Survey Methodol- ogy. Wiley, Hoboken (2004)
  3. Horvitz, D.G., Shah, B.V., Simmons, W.R.: The unrelated question randomized response model. In: Proceed- ings of the Social Statistics Section, pp. 65-72. ASA (1967)
  4. Kish, L.: Survey Sampling. Wiley, New York (1965)
  5. Nathan, G., Sirken, M., Willis, G.B., Esposito, J.: Laboratory experiments on the cognitive aspects of sensitive questions. In: International Conference on Measurement Error in Surveys. Tuscon, Arizona (1990)
  6. Paulhus, D.L. : Self-presentation measurement. In: Fernandez-Ballesteros, R. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Psycho- logical Assessment, pp. 858-860. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2003)
  7. Rasinski, K.A., Baldwin, A.K., Willis, G.B., Jobe, J.B.: Risk and Loss Perceptions Associated with Survey Reporting of Sensitive Topics. pp. 497-502. National Opinion Research Center (NORC), Chicago (1994)
  8. Roese, N.J., Jamieson, D.W.: 20 years of bogus pipeline research-a critical-review and metaanalysis. Psychol. Bull. 114, 363-375 (1993)
  9. Sirken, M.: Network surveys of rare and sensitive conditions. In: Advances in Health Survey Research Meth- ods. National Center on Health Statistics Research Proceedings Series, pp. 31-32 (1975)
  10. Sirken, M., Indefurth, G.P., Burnham, C.E., Danchik, K.M.: Household sample surveys of diabetes: design effects of counting rules. In: Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, pp. 659-663. Social Statistics Section (1975)
  11. Smith, L.L., Federer, W.T., Raghavarao, D.: A comparison of three techniques for eliciting truthful answers to sensitive questions. In: Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, pp. 447-452. Social Statistics Section (1974)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Krumpal, I.
Affiliations
Leipzig University (DE)
Corresponding author
Krumpal, Ivar
ORCID
Krumpal, Ivar
Venue
Quality & Quantity
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2011-11-19
Volume
47
Issue
4
Pages
2025-2047
ISSN
  • 0033-5177 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7845
DOI
10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9
OpenAlex
W1966850535
Cited by
2,860
References
161
Citations by year
2026: 293 · 2025: 335 · 2024: 346 · 2023: 328 · 2022: 339 · 2021: 322 · 2020: 259 · 2019: 167 · 2018: 159 · 2017: 127 · 2016: 69 · 2015: 60 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 2
FWCI
55.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Quality & Quantity (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Survey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Keywords
social desirability bias, misreporting, self-presentation, survey design, interviewer characteristics, taboo topics, data collection strategies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review