CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Survey Methodology and NonresponseSurvey Sampling and Estimation TechniquesNames, Identity, and Discrimination Research

The Social Desirability Atlas

Open access
Bursztyn, Leonardo, Haaland, Ingar, Röver, Nicolas, Roth, Christopher·2025·National Bureau of Economic Research
DOI 10.3386/w33920
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Social desirability bias (SDB) is a pervasive threat to the validity of survey and experimental data.Respondents might often misreport sensitive attitudes and behaviors to appear more socially acceptable.We begin by synthesizing empirical evidence on the prevalence and magnitude of SDB across various domains, focusing on studies with individual-level benchmarks.We then critically assess commonly used strategies to mitigate SDB, highlighting how they can sometimes fail by creating confusion or inadvertently increasing perceived sensitivity.To help researchers navigate these challenges, we offer practical guidance on selecting the most suitable tools for different research contexts.Finally, we examine how SDB can distort treatment effects in experiments and discuss mitigation strategies.

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 · 10.3386/w33920

Cites

5 of 5 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?

  • One limitation of contingent valuation (CV) studies is that stated willingness to pay (WTP) may overstate true WTP, as some respondents may feel social pressure to indicate support for policies, even if they would not do so in an actual decision-making context.

    “One limitation of contingent valuation (CV) studies is that stated willingness to pay (WTP) may overstate true WTP, as some respondents may feel social pressure to indicate support for policies, even if they would not do so in an actual decision-making context.(Diamond and Hausman, 1994;List, 2025;Bursztyn et al., 2025).”

    From What is the Best Response? Examining the Impact of Police and Their Alternatives (2025) · cites this paper as Bursztyn et al., 2025

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 98

  1. Alem, Yonas, Håkan Eggert, Martin G Kocher, and Remidius D Ruhinduka, "Why (field) experiments on unethical behavior are important: Comparing stated and revealed behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2018, 156, 71-85.
  2. Alexander, Cheryl S. and Henry Jay Becker, "The Use of Vignettes in Survey Research," The Public Opinion Quarterly, 1978, 42 (1).
  3. Allcott, Hunt and Dmitry Taubinsky, "Evaluating Behaviorally Motivated Policy: Experi- mental Evidence from the Lightbulb Market," American Economic Review, 2015, 105 (8), 2501-2538.
  4. Levi Boxell, Jacob Conway, Matthew Gentzkow, Michael Thaler, and David Y. Yang, "Polarization and Public Health: Partisan Differences in Social Distancing during the Coron- avirus Pandemic," Journal of Public Economics, 2020, 191, 104254.
  5. Archambault, Patrick M., Rhonda J. Rosychuk, Martyne Audet, Rajan Bola, Shahram Vatankour, Steven C. Brooks, Roual Daoust, Gregory Clark, Lara Grant, Samuel Vail- lancourt, Michelle Welsford, Laurie J. Morrison, and Corinne M. Hohl, "Accuracy of Self-Reported COVID-19 Vaccination Status Compared With a Public Health Vaccination Registry in Québec: Observational Diagnostic Study," JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 2023, 9 (1), e44465.
  6. Barmettler, Franziska, Ernst Fehr, and Christian Zehnder, "Big Experimenter is Watching You! Anonymity and Prosocial Behavior in the Laboratory," Games and Economic Behavior, 2012, 75, 17-34.
  7. Bekkers, René and Pamala Wiepking, "Accuracy of self-reports on donations to charitable organizations," Quality & Quantity, 2011, 45, 1369-1383.
  8. Belli, Robert F., Sean E. Moore, and John VanHoewyk, "An Experimental Comparison of Question Forms Used to Reduce Vote Overreporting," Electoral Studies, 2006, 25 (4), 751-759.
  9. Bénabou, Roland and Jean Tirole, "Self-Confidence and Personal Motivation," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2002, 117 (3), 871-915.
  10. and , "Mindful Economics: The Production, Consumption, and Value of Beliefs," Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2016, 30 (3), 141-164.
  11. Berinsky, Adam J., "Telling the Truth about Believing the Lies? Evidence for the Limited Prevalence of Expressive Survey Responding," The Journal of Politics, 2018, 80 (1), 211-224.
  12. Bertrand, Marianne and Sendhil Mullainathan, "Do People Mean What They Say? Implica- tions for Subjective Survey Data," American Economic Review, 2001, 91 (2), 67-72.
  13. Bicchieri, Cristina, The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms, Cam- bridge University Press, 2006.
  14. Blair, Graeme, Alexander Coppock, and Margaret Moor, "When to Worry about Sensitivity Bias: A Social Reference Theory and Evidence from 30 Years of List Experiments," American Political Science Review, 2020, 114 (4), 1297-1315.
  15. and Kosuke Imai, "Statistical analysis of list experiments," Political Analysis, 2012, 20 (1), 47-77. , , and Yang-Yang Zhou, "Design and Analysis of the Randomized Response Technique," Journal of the American Statistical Association, 2015, 110 (511), 1304-1319.
  16. Bradburn, Norman, "Respondent Burden," in "Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section of the American Statistical Association," Vol. 35 American Statistical Association Alexandria, VA, USA 1978, pp. 35-40.
  17. Braghieri, Luca, "Political Correctness, Social Image, and Information Transmission," American Economic Review, 2024, 114 (12), 3877-3904.
  18. Bullock, John G., Alan S. Gerber, Seth J. Hill, and Gregory A. Huber, "Partisan Bias in Factual Beliefs about Politics," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2015, 10 (4), 519-578.
  19. Bursztyn, Leonardo, Alessandra L. González, and David Yanagizawa-Drott, "Misperceived Social Norms: Women Working Outside the Home in Saudi Arabia," American Economic Review, 2020, 110 (10), 2997-3029.
  20. and Robert Jensen, "Social Image and Economic Behavior in the Field: Identifying, Under- standing, and Shaping Social Pressure," Annual Review of Economics, 2017, 9, 131-153.
  21. Georgy Egorov, and Stefano Fiorin, "From Extreme to Mainstream: The Erosion of Social Norms," American Economic Review, 2020, 110 (11), 3522-3548.
  22. Ingar Haaland, Aakaash Rao, and Christopher Roth, "Justifying Dissent," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2023, 138 (3), 1403-1451.
  23. Catania, Joseph A., Diane Binson, Jesse Canchola, Lance M. Pollack, Walter Hauck, and Thomas J. Coates, "Effects of Interviewer Gender, Interviewer Choice, and Item Wording on Responses to Questions Concerning Sexual Behavior," Public Opinion Quarterly, 1996, 60 (3), 345-375.
  24. Chen, Yuyu and David Y. Yang, "The Impact of Media Censorship: 1984 or Brave New World?," American Economic Review, 2019, 109 (6), 2294-2332.
  25. Chopra, Felix and Ingar Haaland, "Conducting qualitative interviews with AI," 2023. , , Christopher Roth, and Andreas Stegmann, "The null result penalty," The Economic Journal, 2024, 134 (657), 193-219.
  26. Chuang, Erica, Pascaline Dupas, Elise Huillery, and Juliette Seban, "Sex, Lies, and Mea- surement: Consistency Tests for Indirect Response Survey Methods," Journal of Development Economics, 2021, 148, 102582.
  27. Cohn, Alain, Michel André Maréchal, David Tannenbaum, and Christian Lukas Zünd, "Civic honesty around the globe," Science, 2019, 365 (6448), 70-73.
  28. Colley, Rachel C, Gregory Butler, Didier Garriguet, Stephanie A Prince, and Karen C Roberts, "Comparison of self-reported and accelerometer-measured physical activity in Canadian adults," Health Reports, 2018, 29 (12), 3-15.
  29. Cortés, Patricia, Gizem Koşar, Jessica Pan, and Basit Zafar, "Should Mothers Work? How Perceptions of the Social Norm Affect Individual Attitudes toward Work in the US," Review of Economics and Statistics, 2024, pp. 1-28.
  30. Coutts, Elisabeth and Ben Jann, "Sensitive Questions in Online Surveys: Experimental Results for the Randomized Response Technique (RRT) and the Unmatched Count Technique (UCT)," Sociological Methods & Research, 2011, 40 (1), 169-193.
  31. Crowne, Douglas P. and David Marlowe, "A New Scale of Social Desirability Independent of Psychopathology," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1960, 24 (4), 349-354.
  32. Danz, David, Lise Vesterlund, and Alistair J. Wilson, "Belief Elicitation and Behavioral Incentive Compatibility," American Economic Review, 2022, 112 (9), 2851-2883.
  33. de Quidt, Jonathan, Johannes Haushofer, and Christopher Roth, "Measuring and Bounding Experimenter Demand," American Economic Review, 2018, 108 (11), 3266-3302.
  34. DellaVigna, Stefano, John A. List, Ulrike Malmendier, and Gautam Rao, "Voting to Tell Others," The Review of Economic Studies, 2017, 84 (1), 143-181.
  35. Dhar, Diva, Tarun Jain, and Seema Jayachandran, "Reshaping Adolescents' Gender Attitudes: Evidence from a School-Based Experiment in India," American Economic Review, 2022, 112 (3), 899-927.
  36. Di Tella, Rafael, Ricardo Perez-Truglia, Andres Babino, and Mariano Sigman, "Conve- niently Upset: Avoiding Altruism by Distorting Beliefs about Others' Altruism," American Economic Review, 2015, 105 (11), 3416-3442.
  37. Edwards, Allen L., The Social Desirability Variable in Personality Assessment and Research, New York: Dryden Press, 1957.
  38. Ehler, Ingmar, Felix Wolter, and Justus Junkermann, "Sensitive Questions in Surveys: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Experimental Survey Studies on the Performance of the Item Count Technique," Public Opinion Quarterly, 2021, 85 (1), 6-27.
  39. Enke, Benjamin and Thomas Graeber, "Cognitive Uncertainty," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2023, 138 (4), 2021-2067.
  40. Ewers, Mara and Florian Zimmermann, "Image and Misreporting," Journal of the European Economic Association, 2015, 13 (2), 363-380.
  41. Farrell, Joseph and Matthew Rabin, "Cheap talk," Journal of Economic perspectives, 1996, 10 (3), 103-118.
  42. Fisher, Robert J., "Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning," Journal of Consumer Research, 1993, 20 (2), 303-315.
  43. Fuster, Andreas and Basit Zafar, "Chapter 4 -Survey Experiments on Economic Expectations," in Rüdiger Bachmann, Giorgio Topa, and Wilbert van der Klaauw, eds., Handbook of Economic Expectations, Elsevier, 2023, pp. 107-130.
  44. Galesic, Mirta, Wändi Bruine de Bruin, Mariel Dumas, Arie Kapteyn, Jonathan E. Darling, and Erik Meijer, "Asking about Social Circles Improves Election Predictions," Nature Human Behaviour, 2018, 2, 187-193.
  45. Gilligan, Daniel O., Melissa Hidrobo, Jessica Leight, and Heleene Tambet, "Using a List Experiment to Measure Intimate Partner Violence: Cautionary Evidence from Ethiopia," Applied Economics Letters, 2024, pp. 1-7.
  46. Glynn, Adam N, "What can we learn with statistical truth serum? Design and analysis of the list experiment," Public Opinion Quarterly, 2013, 77 (S1), 159-172.
  47. Haaland, Ingar and Christopher Roth, "Labor Market Concerns and Support for Immigration," Journal of Public Economics, 2020, 191, 104256.
  48. and Johannes Wohlfart, "Designing Information Provision Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, 2023, 61 (1), 3-40.
  49. Haaland, Ingar K, Christopher Roth, Stefanie Stantcheva, and Johannes Wohlfart, "Un- derstanding Economic Behavior Using Open-Ended Survey Data," Journal of Economic Literature, 2025.
  50. Haire, Mason, "Projective Techniques in Marketing Research," Journal of Marketing, 1950, 14 (5), 649-656.
  51. Harrison, Glenn W., "Hypothetical Bias over Uncertain Outcomes," in John A. List, ed., Using Experimental Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2006. , "Real Choices and Hypothetical Choices," in Stephane Hess and Andrew Daly, eds., Hand- book of Choice Modelling, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2024, pp. 246-275.
  52. and John A. List, "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, 2004, 42 (4), 1009-1055.
  53. Don Ross, and J. Todd Swarthout, "Gender, Confidence, and the Mismeasure of Intelli- gence, Competitiveness and Literacy," Journal of Political Economy, 2025.
  54. Jimmy Martínez-Correa, J. Todd Swarthout, and Eric R. Ulm, "Scoring Rules for Subjective Probability Distributions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2017, 134, 430-448.
  55. Hoffman, Elizabeth, Kevin McCabe, and Vernon L. Smith, "Social Distance and Other- Regarding Behavior in Dictator Games," American Economic Review, 1996, 86 (3), 653-660.
  56. Höglinger, Marc and Ben Jann, "More Is Not Always Better: An Experimental Individual- Level Validation of the Randomized Response Technique and the Crosswise Model," PloS one, 2018, 13 (8), e0201770.
  57. Holbrook, A. L. and J. A. Krosnick, "Social Desirability Bias in Voter Turnout Reports: Tests Using the Item Count Technique," Public Opinion Quarterly, 2010, 74 (1), 37-67.
  58. Hopkins, Daniel J., John Sides, and Jack Citrin, "The Muted Consequences of Correct Information about Immigration," The Journal of Politics, 2019, 81 (1).
  59. Hossain, Tanjim and Ryo Okui, "The binarized scoring rule," Review of Economic Studies, 2013, 80 (3), 984-1001.
  60. Höglinger, Marc and Andreas Diekmann, "Uncovering a Blind Spot in Sensitive Question Research: False Positives Undermine the Crosswise-Model RRT," Political Analysis, 2017, 25, 131-137.
  61. Jiao, Peiran, "Payoff-Based Belief Distortion," The Economic Journal, 2020, 130 (629), 1416- 1444.
  62. John, Leslie K., George Loewenstein, Alessandro Acquisti, and Joachim Vosgerau, "When and Why Randomized Response Techniques (Fail to) Elicit the Truth," Organizational Behav- ior and Human Decision Processes, 2018, 148, 101-123.
  63. Kaplan, Robin L. and Erica C. Yu, "Measuring Question Sensitivity," American Association for Public Opinion Research, 2015, pp. 4107-4121.
  64. Karp, Jeffrey A and David Brockington, "Social desirability and response validity: A compar- ative analysis of overreporting voter turnout in five countries," The Journal of Politics, 2005, 67 (3), 825-840.
  65. King, Gary, Christopher J.L. Murray, Joshua A. Salomon, and Ajay Tandon, "Enhancing the Validity and Cross-Cultural Comparability of Measurement in Survey Research," American Political Science Review, 2004, 98 (1), 191-207.
  66. Kirchner, Antje, "Validating Sensitive Questions: A Comparison of Survey and Register Data," Journal of Official Statistics, 2015, 31 (1), 31-59.
  67. Kraay, Aart and Peter Murrell, "Misunderestimating corruption," Review of Economics and Statistics, 2016, 98 (3), 455-466.
  68. Kreuter, Frauke, Stanley Presser, and Roger Tourangeau, "Social Desirability Bias in CATI, IVR, and Web Surveys: The Effects of Mode and Question Sensitivity," Public Opinion Quarterly, 2008, 72 (5), 847-865.
  69. Kuklinski, James H., Michael D. Cobb, and Martin Gilens, "Racial Attitudes and the "New South"," The Journal of Politics, 1997, 59 (2), 323-349.
  70. Kuran, Timur, Private Truths, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification, Harvard University Press, 1998.
  71. Kvalvik, Liv G., Roy M. Nilsen, Rolv Skjærven, Stein Emil Vollset, Øivind Midttun, Per Magne Ueland, and Kjell Haug, "Self-reported smoking status and plasma cotinine concentrations among pregnant women in the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study," Pediatric Research, 2012, 72 (1), 101-107.
  72. Lamb, Charles W. and Donald E. Stem, "An Empirical Validation of the Randomized Response Technique," Journal of Marketing Research, November 1978, 15 (4), 616-621.
  73. Lease, Matthew, Jessica Hullman, Jeffrey Bigham, Michael Bernstein, Juho Kim, Walter Lasecki, Saeideh Bakhshi, Tanushree Mitra, and Robert Miller, "Mechanical Turk is Not Anonymous," 2013. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2228728.
  74. Lensvelt-Mulders, Gerty J. L. M., Joop J. Hox, Peter G. M. van der Heijden, and Cora J. M. Maas, "Meta-Analysis of Randomized Response Research: Thirty-Five Years of Validation," Sociological Methods & Research, 2005, 33 (3), 319-348.
  75. Levitt, Steven D. and John A. List, "What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal about the Real World?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2007, 21 (2), 153-174.
  76. Li, Jiayuan and Wim Van den Noortgate, "A Meta-Analysis of the Relative Effectiveness of the Item Count Technique Compared to Direct Questioning," Sociological Methods & Research, 2022, 51 (2), 760-799.
  77. Ling, Yier and Alex Imas, "Underreporting of AI use: The role of social desirability bias," Available at SSRN, 2025.
  78. List, John A., "Valuing Non-Marketed Goods and Services Using a List Experiment in the Field," 2025. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5096019.
  79. Locander, William, Seymour Sudman, and Norman Bradburn, "An Investigation of Interview Method, Threat and Response Distortion," Journal of the American Statistical Association, June 1976, 71 (354), 269-275.
  80. Loewenstein, George, "Experimental Economics from the Vantage-Point of Behavioural Eco- nomics," The Economic Journal, 1999, 109 (453), 25-34.
  81. Näher, Anatol-Fiete and Ivar Krumpal, "Asking Sensitive Questions: The Impact of Forgiving Wording and Question Context on Social Desirability Bias," Quality & Quantity, 2012, 46, 1601-1616.
  82. Nießen, Désirée, Melanie V Partsch, Christoph J Kemper, and Beatrice Rammstedt, "An English-language adaptation of the social desirability-gamma short scale (KSE-G)," Measure- ment Instruments for the Social Sciences, 2019, 1, 2-2019.
  83. Nyqvist, Martina Björkman, Lucia Corno, Damien De Walque, and Jakob Svensson, "Incentivizing safer sexual behavior: evidence from a lottery experiment on HIV prevention," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2018, 10 (3), 287-314.
  84. Paulhus, Delroy L., "Two-Component Models of Socially Desirable Responding," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1984, 46 (3), 598-609.
  85. Peter, Jochen and Patti M. Valkenburg, "The Impact of "Forgiving" Introductions on the Reporting of Sensitive Behavior in Surveys: The Role of Social Desirability Response Style and Developmental Status," Public Opinion Quarterly, 2011, 75 (4), 779-787.
  86. Prelec, Drazen, "A Bayesian Truth Serum for Subjective Data," Science, 2004, 306 (5695), 462-466.
  87. Prior, Markus, Gaurav Sood, and Kabir Khanna, "You Cannot Be Serious: The Impact of Accuracy Incentives on Partisan Bias in Reports of Economic Perceptions," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2015, 10 (4), 489-518.
  88. Reisinger, James, "Subjective Well-Being and Social Desirability," Journal of Public Economics, 2022, 214, 104745.
  89. Rosenfeld, Bryn, Kosuke Imai, and Jacob N. Shapiro, "An Empirical Validation Study of Popular Survey Methodologies for Sensitive Questions," American Journal of Political Science, 2016, 60 (3), 783-802.
  90. Schotter, Andrew and Isabel Trevino, "Belief Elicitation in the Laboratory," Annual Review of Economics, 2014, 6 (1), 103-128.
  91. Snyder, Mark, "Self-Monitoring of Expressive Behavior," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 30 (4), 526-537.
  92. Stantcheva, Stefanie, "How to Run Surveys: A Guide to Creating Your Own Identifying Variation and Revealing the Invisible," Annual Review of Economics, 2023, 15, 205-234.
  93. Sudman, Seymour and Norman M. Bradburn, Response Effects in Surveys: A Review and Synthesis, Chicago: Aldine Publishing, 1974.
  94. Tracy, Paul E. and James Alan Fox, "The Validity of Randomized Response for Sensitive Measurements," American Sociological Review, April 1981, 46 (2).
  95. Warner, Stanley L., "Randomized Response: A Survey Technique for Eliminating Evasive Answer Bias," Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1965, 60 (309), 63-69.
  96. Yan, Ting, "Consequences of Asking Sensitive Questions in Surveys," Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 2021, 8, 109-127.
  97. Yu, Jun-Wu, Guo-Liang Tian, and Man-Lai Tang, "Two new models for survey sampling with sensitive characteristic: design and analysis," Metrika, 2008, 67, 251-263.
  98. Zimmermann, Florian, "The Dynamics of Motivated Beliefs," American Economic Review, 2020, 110 (2), 337-361.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bursztyn, L., Haaland, I., Röver, N., & Roth, C.
Affiliations
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
  • Norwegian School of Economics (NO)
  • University of Cologne (DE)
ORCID
Venue
National Bureau of Economic Research
Publisher
National Bureau of Economic Research
Published
2025-06
DOI
10.3386/w33920
OpenAlex
W4411334153
Cited by
18
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 2
Type
report
Language
en
Open access
Locations
National Bureau of Economic Research (publishedVersion)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (EXC 2126/1, 390838866)
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 › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
Keywords
social desirability bias, survey data validity, sensitive questions, misreporting, bias mitigation strategies, treatment effect estimation, experimental validity

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