2003
DOI: 10.2307/3147300
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Social Desirability Bias in Contingent Valuation Surveys Administered Through In-Person Interviews

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
111
1
3

Year Published

2011
2011
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 160 publications
(115 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
111
1
3
Order By: Relevance
“…This strategy dictates that when one response is obtained, the next person to pass the survey point is requested to partake. It is acknowledged that the chosen research instrument is not ideal and social desirability biases that force people to report on the desired by the wider society, rather than personally preferred options (see, for instance, Leggett et al 2003;Nederhof 1985;Smith 2007) may have affected its outcome. Yet, its employment is deemed appropriate as the chosen survey format provided researchers with an opportunity to interfere and address any participant queries arising during the survey.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This strategy dictates that when one response is obtained, the next person to pass the survey point is requested to partake. It is acknowledged that the chosen research instrument is not ideal and social desirability biases that force people to report on the desired by the wider society, rather than personally preferred options (see, for instance, Leggett et al 2003;Nederhof 1985;Smith 2007) may have affected its outcome. Yet, its employment is deemed appropriate as the chosen survey format provided researchers with an opportunity to interfere and address any participant queries arising during the survey.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, in this survey, participants were not observed while answering the online questionnaire, which might lessen this effect (Leggett et al, 2003). Generalizing the results should be done with caution because the sample consisted of an unbalanced gender proportion.…”
Section: Study Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This attitude-behavior gap implies that studies using non-behavioral constructs are limited in their ability to explain actual environmental behavior (Markowitz et al, 2012). Notably, one reason for the difference between stated environmental attitudes and behavior may be the social desirability bias (Leggett, Kleckner, Boyle, Dufield, & Mitchell, 2003), which often causes inaccurate reports on sensitive subjects such as eco-friendliness. Given this, ex post investigations of previous acts could yield more truthful answers and significantly increase the reliability of results (Kahneman, 2003), necessitating further research into behavioral environmentalism.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%