The bean method as a tool to measure sensitive behavior

Jones, Sorrel; Papworth, Sarah; Keane, Aidan; Vickery, Juliet A.; John, Freya A. V. St.

doi:10.1111/cobi.13607

Cited by 10 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Respondents report whether their answer is the same for both questions or yes to only one question (Sagoe et al., 2021 ; Yu et al., 2008 ). Developed for lower‐education contexts and with reduced complexity compared with other SQTs (Lau et al., 2011 ), the bean method asks respondents to secretly move specific‐colored beans from one jar to another, depending on their answer (Jones et al., 2020 ) (examples of applications of all methods in conservation are given in Appendix S1 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental validation of specialized questioning techniques in conservation

Ibbett

Dorward

Dwiyahreni

et al. 2022

Conservation Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation increasingly relies on social science tools to understand human behavior. Specialized questioning techniques (SQTs) are a suite of methods designed to reduce bias in social surveys and are widely used to collect data on sensitive topics, including compliance with conservation rules. Most SQTs have been developed in Western, industrialized, educated, rich, and democratic countries, meaning their suitability in other contexts may be limited. Whether these techniques perform better than conventional direct questioning is important for those considering their use. We designed an experiment to validate the performance of four SQTs (unmatched count technique, randomized response technique, crosswise model, and bean method) against direct questions when asking about a commonly researched sensitive behavior in conservation, wildlife hunting. We developed fictional characters, and for each method asked respondents to report the answers that each fictional character should give when asked if they hunt wildlife. We collected data from 609 individuals living close to protected areas in two different cultural and socioeconomic contexts (Indonesia and Tanzania) to quantify the extent to which respondents understood and followed SQT instructions and to explore the sociodemographic factors that influenced a correct response. Data were modeled using binomial general linear mixed models. Participants were more likely to refuse to answer questions asked using SQTs compared with direct questions. Model results suggested that SQTs were harder for participants to understand. Demographic factors (e.g., age and education level) significantly influenced response accuracy. When sensitive responses to sensitive questions were required, all SQTs (excluding the bean method) outperformed direct questions, demonstrating that SQTs can successfully reduce sensitivity bias. However, when reviewing each method, most respondents (59–89%) reported they would feel uncomfortable using them to provide information on their own hunting behavior, highlighting the considerable challenge of encouraging truthful reporting on sensitive topics. Our results demonstrate the importance of assessing the suitability of social science methods prior to their implementation in conservation contexts.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental validation of specialized questioning techniques in conservation

Ibbett

Dorward

Dwiyahreni

et al. 2022

Conservation Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The bean count method is an anonymous questioning technique that estimates the percentage of people engaging in a sensitive activity (Lau et al, 2011;Jones et al, 2020). It is simple in design, protects respondent anonymity, and has been shown to increase prevalence estimates up to 10% greater than direct reports (Lau et al, 2011).…”

Section: Bean Count Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is simple in design, protects respondent anonymity, and has been shown to increase prevalence estimates up to 10% greater than direct reports (Lau et al, 2011). However, to date, the method has received little application in conservation science (but see Jones et al, 2020). Bean count surveys were carried out at the end of each household questionnaire and were conducted in Filipino, Cuyonon or Bisayan languages by three interviewers local to Palawan Province (including authors DBC and RLA).…”

Section: Bean Count Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digging Deeper: Understanding the Illegal Trade and Local Use of Pangolins in Palawan Province, Philippines

Archer

Turvey

Apale

et al. 2021

Front. Conserv. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The illegal wildlife trade represents an urgent conservation challenge, but measuring, understanding, and designing interventions to address it is a complex task. As some of the world's most illegally trafficked wild mammals, pangolins are regularly observed in the illegal wildlife trade, but little is known of the intricacies of the trade at local levels, particularly for lesser-known species such as the Philippine pangolin (Manis culionensis). This research represents the first range-wide study to concurrently document local use and trade of the Philippine pangolin across Palawan Province, Philippines, and provides new information on trade actors, dynamics, and the conditions that help to facilitate this industry. The study was carried out across 18 Palawan municipalities, covering all mainland municipalities, Araceli Island, and the Calamianes Island group. A mixed methods approach was used, combining 1,277 bean count surveys to investigate consumption and hunting levels, alongside 59 in-depth key informant interviews to better understand trade logistics and dynamics. Our results suggest that local use of the species is geographically widespread, but trade hubs were most frequently reported from northern municipalities. Several enabling conditions help facilitate trade across the province, and our data suggest the species may be contributing to the international pangolin trade at levels considerably higher than seizure records indicate.

show abstract

“…In such cases, the validity of data collected from self-administered questionnaires or face-toface interviews is often subject to considerable non-response bias (Groves, 2006), social desirability bias (Fisher, 1993), and hypothetical bias (Bosworth & Taylor, 2012). To address sensitivity bias (Blair et al, 2020), social researchers have developed bias-mitigation tools and specialised questioning techniques, including the Unmatched Count Technique, the Randomised Response Technique, and the Ballot Box Method (Arias, Hinsley, & Milner-Gulland, 2020;Hinsley et al, 2019;Jones et al, 2020;Nuno & St. John, 2015). In non-market valuation surveys, especially choice experiments, the Cheap Talk script is employed to reduce hypothetical bias (Mariel et al, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When cheap talk is not that cheap – interviewing the super-rich about illegal wildlife consumption

2021

International Journal of Social Research Methodology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Obtaining insights on the illicit consumption of endangered wildlife products is challenging, especially when the study objects are the super-rich. This research note draws upon my experience interviewing more than 1,000 rhino horn consumers in Vietnam. Trust is crucial in such interactions. No interviews could have been conducted without good rapport between interviewers and respondents. Nonetheless, soliciting interviews requires skills that one cannot expect to teach enumerators in the short term. This includes a winning sense of humour, colourful life experience, and true grit. Once good rapport is established, the use of specialised questionning techniques or bias-mitigation tools becomes unnecessary. Instead I suggest a practical approach to study consumers of illegal and luxury wildlife products in an Asian context.

show abstract

The bean method as a tool to measure sensitive behavior

Abstract: Article impact statement: Based on a simple voting system, the bean method is a practical, low-cost way to obtain anonymous answers about sensitive topics.

Cited by 10 publications

References 33 publications

Experimental validation of specialized questioning techniques in conservation

Experimental validation of specialized questioning techniques in conservation

Digging Deeper: Understanding the Illegal Trade and Local Use of Pangolins in Palawan Province, Philippines

When cheap talk is not that cheap – interviewing the super-rich about illegal wildlife consumption

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About