TECHNIQUES FOR REDUCING SOCIAL DESIRABILITY BIAS IN VOTER TURNOUT QUESTIONS
 
More details
Hide details
1
doktor, Instytut Politologii Uniwersytetu Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie
Publication date: 2019-12-23
 
Studia Politologiczne 2015;37
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
The article deals with the issue of voting overreporting in social surveys. The comparison of voter turnout reports in public opinion polls to official statistical data often shows great difference. Respondents answer that they voted or would vote whereas they actually didn’t. The culprit of this effect is social desirability bias i.e. reporting false attitudes and behaviours in a manner that is consistent with social norms. As a result analyses of voting behaviours have systematic error. The article presents methods for reducing social desirability bias which include: choice of research techniques which assure anonymity and confidentiality, question wording which lowers social pressure to give false answers, indirect questions, double-rating method, randomized response technique and making post hoc corrections.
PEER REVIEW INFORMATION
Article has been screened for originality
 
REFERENCES (18)
1.
R. F. Belli, M. W. Traugott, M. Young, K. McGonagle, A Reducing Vote Overreporting in Surveys, „Public Opinion Quarterly” 1999, nr 1.
 
2.
B. Burrell, M. A. Genovese, B. Frederick, M. J. Streb, Social Desirability Effects and Support for a Female American President, „Public Opinion Quarterly” 2008, nr 1.
 
3.
R. Cialdini, Wywieranie wpływu na ludzi. Teoria i praktyka, Gdańsk 2004.
 
4.
L. Chang, J. A. Krosnick, National Surveys Via Rdd Telephone Interviewing Versus the Internet, „Public Opinion Quarterly” 2009, nr 4.
 
5.
R. J. Crisp, R. N. Turner, Psychologia społeczna, Warszawa 2009.
 
6.
B. Duff, M. Hamner, I. White, P. Won-Ho, Good Excuses Understanding Who Votes With An Improved Turnout Question, „Public Opinion Quarterly” 2007, nr 1.
 
7.
S. E. Finkel, T. M. Guterbock, M. J. Borg, Race-Of-Interviewer Effects in a Preelection Poll, „Public Opinion Quarterly” 1991, nr 3.
 
8.
A. L. Holbrook, J. A. Krosnick, Social Desirability Bias in Voter Turnout Reports, „Public Opinion Quarterly” 2010, nr 1.
 
9.
A. L. Holbrook, M. C. Green, J. A. Krosnick, Telephone Versus Face-To- Face Interviewing of National Probability Samples With Long Questionnaires, „Public Opinion Quarterly” 2003, nr 1.
 
10.
H. C. C. Hui, Double Rating as a Method to Encourage Candid Responses to Self-Report Instruments, „Journal of Applied Social Psychology” 2001.
 
11.
F. Kreuter, S. Presser, R. Tourangeau, Social Desirability Bias In CATI, IVR, and Web Surveys, „Public Opinion Quarterly” 2008, nr 5.
 
12.
C. M. Kristiansen, Social Desirability and the Rokeach Value Survey, „Journal of Social Psychology” 1985, nr 3.
 
13.
J. M. Moskowitz, Assessment of Cigarette Smoking and Smoking Susceptibility Among Youth. Telephone Computer-Assisted Self-Interviews versus Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviews, „Public Opinion Quarterly” 2004, nr.
 
14.
A. H. Perlini, S. Bertolissi, D. L. Lind, The Effects of Women’s Age and Physical, „Journal of Social Psychology”, 1999, nr 3.
 
15.
S. Presser, L. Stinson, Data Collection Mode and Social Desirability Bias in Self-Reported Religious Attendance, „American Sociological Review” 1998, nr 1.
 
16.
S. L. Thomas, K. M. Grawitch, D. J. Scandell, The Double-Rating Method: A Replication and Extension, „Journal of Applied Social Psychology” 2007, nr 12.
 
17.
R. Tourangeau, T. W. Smith ,Asking Sensitive Questions: The Impact of Data Collection Mode, Question Format, and Question Context, „Public Opinion Quarterly” 1996, nr 2.
 
18.
S. L. Warner, Randomized Response: A Survey Technique for Eliminating Evasive Answer Bias, „Journal of the American Statistical Association” 1965, nr 60.
 
ISSN:1640-8888