The crosswise model is an indirect questioning technique designed to control for socially desirable responding. Although the technique has delivered promising results in terms of improved validity in survey studies of sensitive issues, recent studies have indicated that the crosswise model may sometimes produce false positives. Hence, we investigated whether an insufficient understanding of the crosswise model instructions might be responsible for these false positives and whether ensuring a deeper understanding of the model and surveying more highly educated respondents reduces the problem of false positives. To this end, we experimentally manipulated the amount of information respondents received in the crosswise model instructions. We compared a crosswise model condition with only brief instructions and a crosswise model condition with detailed instructions and additional comprehension checks. Additionally, we compared the validity of crosswise model estimates between a higher-and a lower-educated subgroup of respondents. Our results indicate that false positives among highly educated respondents can be reduced when detailed instructions and comprehension checks are employed. Since false positives can also occur in direct questioning, they do not appear to be a specific flaw of the crosswise model, but rather a more general problem of self-reports on sensitive topics. False negatives were found to occur for all questioning techniques, but were less prevalent in the crosswise model than in the direct questioning condition. We highlight the importance of comprehension checks when applying indirect questioning and emphasize the necessity of developing instructions suitable for lower-educated respondents.
Indirect questioning techniques such as the crosswise model aim to control for socially desirable responding in surveys on sensitive personal attributes. Recently, the extended crosswise model has been proposed as an improvement over the original crosswise model. It offers all of the advantages of the original crosswise model while also enabling the detection of systematic response biases. We applied the extended crosswise model to a new sensitive attribute, campus islamophobia, and present the first experimental investigation including an extended crosswise model, and a direct questioning control condition, respectively. In a paper-pencil questionnaire, we surveyed 1,361 German university students using either a direct question or the extended crosswise model. We found that the extended crosswise model provided a good model fit, indicating no systematic response bias and allowing for a pooling of the data of both groups of the extended crosswise model. Moreover, the extended crosswise model yielded significantly higher estimates of campus Islamophobia than a direct question. This result could either indicate that the extended crosswise model was successful in controlling for social desirability, or that response biases such as false positives or careless responding have inflated the estimate, which cannot be decided on the basis of the available data. Our findings highlight the importance of detecting response biases in surveys implementing indirect questioning techniques.
For decades, sequential lineups have been considered superior to simultaneous lineups in the context of eyewitness identification. However, most of the research leading to this conclusion was based on the analysis of diagnosticity ratios that do not control for the respondent's response criterion. Recent research based on the analysis of ROC curves has found either equal discriminability for sequential and simultaneous lineups, or higher discriminability for simultaneous lineups. Some evidence for potential position effects and for criterion shifts in sequential lineups has also been reported. Using ROC curve analysis, we investigated the effects of the suspect's position on discriminability and response criteria in both simultaneous and sequential lineups. We found that sequential lineups suffered from an unwanted position effect. Respondents employed a strict criterion for the earliest lineup positions, and shifted to a more liberal criterion for later positions. No position effects and no criterion shifts were observed in simultaneous lineups. This result suggests that sequential lineups are not superior to simultaneous lineups, and may give rise to unwanted position effects that have to be considered when conducting police lineups.
Non-randomized response techniques (NRRTs) such as the crosswise model and the triangular model (CWM and TRM; Yu et al. Metrika, 67, 251-263, 2008) have been developed to control for socially desirable responding in surveys on sensitive personal attributes. We present the first study to directly compare the validity of the CWM and TRM and contrast their performance with a conventional direct questioning (DQ) approach. In a paper-pencil survey of 1382 students, we obtained prevalence estimates for two sensitive attributes (xenophobia and rejection of further refugee admissions) and one nonsensitive control attribute with a known prevalence (the first letter of respondents' surnames). Both NRRTs yielded descriptively higher prevalence estimates for the sensitive attributes than DQ; however, only the CWM estimates were significantly higher. We attribute the higher prevalence estimates for the CWM to its response symmetry, which is lacking in the TRM. Only the CWM provides symmetric answer options, meaning that there is no "safe" alternative respondents can choose to distance themselves from being carriers of the sensitive attribute. Prevalence estimates for the nonsensitive control attribute with known prevalence confirmed that neither method suffered from method-specific bias towards over-or underestimation. Exploratory moderator analyses further suggested that the sensitive attributes were perceived as more sensitive among politically left-oriented than among politically right-oriented respondents. Based on our results, we recommend using the CWM over the TRM in future studies on sensitive personal attributes.
In self-reports, socially desirable responding threatens the validity of prevalence estimates for sensitive personal attitudes and behaviors. Indirect questioning techniques such as the crosswise model attempt to control for the influence of social desirability bias. The crosswise model has repeatedly been found to provide more valid prevalence estimates than direct questions. We investigated whether crosswise model estimates are also less susceptible to deliberate faking than direct questions. To this end, we investigated the effect of “fake good” instructions on responses to direct and crosswise model questions. In a sample of 1,946 university students, 12-month prevalence estimates for a sensitive road traffic behavior were higher and thus presumably more valid in the crosswise model than in a direct question. Moreover, “fake good” instructions severely impaired the validity of the direct questioning estimates, whereas the crosswise model estimates were unaffected by deliberate faking. Participants also reported higher levels of perceived confidentiality and a lower perceived ease of faking in the crosswise model compared to direct questions. Our results corroborate previous studies finding the crosswise model to be an effective tool for counteracting the detrimental effects of positive self-presentation in surveys on sensitive issues.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.