Scribd Logo
Încărcați

Bine ați venit la Scribd!

  • Social Desirability Bias in Voter Turnout Reports

    Încărcat de

    navdeep2309
    31 vizualizări3 pagini
    Experiments tested the social desirability response bias hypothesis directly. The item count technique significantly reduced turnout reports in a national telephone survey. But in eight national surveys of American adults conducted via the internet, the technique did not significantly reduce turnout reports.

    Descriere originală:

    Drepturi de autor

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formate disponibile

    DOCX, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

    Vi se pare util acest document?

    Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

    Raportați acest document
    Experiments tested the social desirability response bias hypothesis directly. The item count technique significantly reduced turnout reports in a national telephone survey. But in eight national surveys of American adults conducted via the internet, the technique did not significantly reduce turnout reports.

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca DOCX, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    31 vizualizări3 pagini

    Social Desirability Bias in Voter Turnout Reports

    Încărcat de

    navdeep2309
    Experiments tested the social desirability response bias hypothesis directly. The item count technique significantly reduced turnout reports in a national telephone survey. But in eight national surveys of American adults conducted via the internet, the technique did not significantly reduce turnout reports.

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca DOCX, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    din 3

    Social desirability bias in voter turnout

    reports
    Tests using the item count technique
    1.
    2.

    Allyson L. Holbrook* and


    Jon A. Krosnick 2010

    Abstract
    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.

    Social Desirability Bias vs. Intelligence Research


    Bryan Caplan sept 11, 2012
    Individualism: True and False...

    Home

    | EconLog

    | Archives

    | Permanent Link and Comments

    PRINTEMAIL

    SHARE
    Thomas Szasz: A Life Well-Live...

    When lies sound better than truth, people tend to lie. That's Social Desirability
    Bias for you. Take the truth, "Half the population is below the 50th percentile of
    intelligence." It's unequivocally true - and sounds awful. Nice people don't call
    others stupid - even privately.
    The 2000 American National Election Study elegantly confirms this claim. One
    of the interviewers' tasks was to rate respondents' "apparent intelligence." Possible
    answers (reverse coded by me for clarity):

    0=
    1=
    2=
    3=
    4=

    Very Low
    Fairly Low
    Average
    Fairly High
    Very High

    Objectively measured intelligence famously fits a bell curve. Subjectively


    assessed intelligence does not. At all. Check out the ANES distribution.

    The ANES is supposed to be a representative national sample. Yet according to


    interviewers, only 6.1% of respondents are "below average"! The median
    respondent is "fairly high." Over 20% are "very high." Social Desirability Bias interviewers' reluctance to impugn anyone's intelligence - practically has to be the
    explanation.
    You could just call this as an amusing curiosity and move on. But wait. Stare at
    the ANES results for a minute. Savor the data. Question: Are you starting to see
    the true face of widespread hostility to intelligence research? I sure think I do.
    Suppose intelligence research were impeccable. How would psychologically normal
    humans react? Probably just as they do in the ANES: With denial. How can
    stupidity be a major cause of personal failure and social ills? Only if the world is full
    of stupid people. What kind of a person believes the world is full of stupid people?
    "A realist"? No! A jerk. A big meanie.
    My point is not that intelligence research is impeccable. My point, rather, is that

    hostility to intelligence research is all out of proportion to its flaws - and Social
    Desirability Bias is the best explanation. Intelligence research tells the world what
    it doesn't want to hear. It says what people aren't supposed to say. On reflection,
    the amazing thing isn't that intelligence research has failed to vanquish its angry
    critics. The amazing thing is that the angry critics have failed to vanquish
    intelligence research. Everything we've learned about human intelligence is a
    triumph of mankind's rationality over mankind's Social Desirability Bias.

    S-ar putea să vă placă și