The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Social desirability bias in voter turnout reports: Tests using the item count technique
Open accessAbstract
Surveys usually yield rates of voting in elections that are higher than official turnout figures, a phenomenon often attributed to intentional misrepresentation by respondents who did not vote and would be embarrassed to admit that. The experiments reported here tested the social desirability response bias hypothesis directly by implementing a technique that allowed respondents to report secretly whether they voted: the “item count technique.” The item count technique significantly reduced turnout reports in a national telephone survey relative to direct self-reports, suggesting that social desirability response bias influenced direct self-reports in that survey. But in eight national surveys of American adults conducted via the Internet, the item count technique did not significantly reduce turnout reports. This mode difference is consistent with other evidence that the Internet survey mode may be less susceptible to social desirability response bias because of self-administration.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Psychology of Survey Response
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511819322 · Cited by 4,734
Randomized Response: A Survey Technique for Eliminating Evasive Answer Bias
Warner, S. L. (1965) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2283137 · Cited by 3,263
Sensitive questions in surveys.
Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.859 · Cited by 3,057
Two-component models of socially desirable responding.
Paulhus, D. L. (1984) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598 · Cited by 3,013
The Myth of the Vanishing Voter
McDonald, M. P., & Popkin, S. L. (2001) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055400400134 · Cited by 448
Cited by
Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review
Krumpal, I. (2013) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9 · Cited by 2,860
Field Experiments on Discrimination
(2017) · Handbook of Economic Field Experiments · doi:10.1016/bs.hefe.2016.08.004 · Cited by 910
Yeager, D. S., Krosnick, J. A., Chang, L., Javitz, H. S., Levendusky, M. S., Simpser, A., & Wang, R. (2011) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfr020 · Cited by 758
Self-citationStatistical Analysis of List Experiments
Blair, G., & Imai, K. (2012) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpr048 · Cited by 639
A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Service-Learning on Students
Celio, C. I., Durlak, J., & Dymnicki, A. (2011) · Journal of Experiential Education · doi:10.1177/105382591103400205 · Cited by 603
Metadata
- Authors
- Holbrook, A. L., & Krosnick, J. A.
- Venue
- Public Opinion Quarterly
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-03-01
- Volume
- 74
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 37-67
- ISSN
- 0033-362X (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5331
- OpenAlex
- W2041223402
- Cited by
- 539
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 71.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Social desirability bias in voter turnout reports: Tests using the item count technique. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/poq/nfp065
- The paper
- Holbrook, A. L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2010). Social desirability bias in voter turnout reports: Tests using the item count technique. Public Opinion Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp065
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.