Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review

Aguinis H., Pierce C.A., Quigley B.M.: Conditions under which a bogus pipeline procedure enhances the validity of self-reported cigarette-smoking—a meta-analytic review. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 23, 352–373 (1993)

Aguinis H., Pierce C.A., Quigley B.M.: Enhancing the validity of self-reported alcohol and marijuana consumption using a bogus pipeline procedure—a metaanalytic review. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 16, 515–527 (1995)

Akers R.L., Massey J., Clarke W., Lauer R.M.: Are self-reports of adolescent deviance valid? Biochemical measures, randomized response, and the bogus pipeline in smoking behavior. Soc. Forc. 62, 234–251 (1983)

Anderson B.A., Silver B.D., Abramson P.R.: The effects of race of the interviewer on measures of electoral-participation by blacks in SRC national elections studies. Publ. Opin. Q. 52, 53–83 (1988)

Anderson D.A., Simmons A.M., Milnes S.M., Earleywine M.: Effect of response format on endorsement of eating disordered attitudes and behaviors. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 40, 90–93 (2007)

Aquilino W.S.: Privacy effects on self-reported drug use: interactions with survey mode and respondent characteristics. In: Harrison, L., Hughes, A. (eds) The Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use: Improving the Accuracy Of Survey Estimates. National Institute on Drug Abuse Monograph 167, NIH, DHHS, Washington (1997)

Aquilino W.S., Wright D.L., Supple A.J.: Response effects due to bystander presence in CASI and paper-and-pencil surveys of drug use and alcohol use. Subst. Use Misuse 35, 845–867 (2000)

Barnett J.: Sensitive questions and response effects: an evaluation. J. Manag. Psychol. 13, 63–76 (1998)

Barton A.H.: Asking the embarassing question. Publ. Opin. Q. 22, 67–68 (1958)

Becker R.: Selective response to questions on delinquency. Qual. Quant. 40, 483–498 (2006)

Becker R., Günther R.: Selektives Antwortverhalten bei Fragen zum delinquenten Handeln—Eine empirische Studie über die Wirksamkeit der, sealed envelope technique“ bei selbstberichteter Delinquenz mit Daten des ALLBUS 2000. ZUMA-Nachrichten 54, 39–59 (2004)

Bellhouse D.R.: Linear models for randomized response design. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 75, 1001–1004 (1980)

Beyer, H., Krumpal, I.: “Aber es gibt keine Antisemiten mehr”: Eine experimentelle Studie zur Kommunikationslatenz antisemitischer Einstellungen. Kölner Z. für Soziol. und Sozialpsychol. 62, 681–705 (2010)

Biemer P., Brown G.: Model-based estimation of drug use prevalence using item count data. J. Off. Stat. 21, 287–308 (2005)

Biemer P., Jordan B.K., Hubbard M.L., Wright D.: A test of the item count methodology for estimating cocaine use prevalence. In: Kennet, J., Gfroerer, J. (eds) Evaluating and Improving Methods Used in the National Survey on Drug use and Health, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration, Office of Applied Studies, Rockville (2005)

Boeije H., Lensvelt-Mulders G.J.L.M.: Honest by chance: a qualitative interview study to clarify respondents’ (non)-compliance with computer-assisted randomized response. Bull. Methodol. Sociol. 75, 24–39 (2002)

Boruch R.F.: Assuring confidentiality of responses in social research: a systematic analysis. A. Psychol. 26, 413–430 (1971)

Bourke P.D., Moran M.A.: Estimating proportions from randomized response using the EM algorithm. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 83, 964–968 (1988)

Bradburn N.M., Sudman S.: Improving Interview Method and Questionnaire Design. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1979)

Brener N.D., Eaton D.K., Kann L., Grunbaum J.A., Gross L.A., Kyle T.M., Ross J.G.: The association of survey setting and mode with self-reported health risk behaviors among high school students. Publ. Opin. Q. 70, 354–374 (2006)

Buchman T.A., Tracy J.A.: Obtaining responses to sensitive questions: conventional questionnaire versus randomized response technique. J. Account. Res. 20, 263–271 (1982)

Campanelli P.C., Dielman T.E., Shope J.T.: Validity of adolescents self-reports of alcohol-use and misuse using a bogus pipeline procedure. Adolescence 22, 7–22 (1987)

Chaudhuri A., Christofides T.C.: Item Count Technique in estimating the proportion of people with a sensitive feature. J. Stat. Planning Infer. 137, 589–593 (2007)

Coutts E., Jann B.: Sensitive questions in online surveys: experimental results for the randomized response technique (RRT) and the unmatched count technique (UCT). Sociol. Methods Res. 40, 169–193 (2011)

Coutts E., Jann B., Krumpal I., Näher A.-F.: Plagiarism in student papers: prevalence estimates using special techniques for sensitive questions. J. Econ. Stat. 231, 749–760 (2011)

Crowne D., Marlowe D.: A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. J. Consult. Psychol. 24, 349–354 (1960)

Crowne D., Marlowe D.: The Approval Motive. John Wiley, New York (1964)

Cruyff M.J.L.F., van den Hout A., van der Heijden P.G.M., Bockenholt U.: Log-linear randomized-response models taking self-protective response behavior into account. Sociol. Methods Res. 36, 266–282 (2007)

Dalton D.R., Wimbush J.C., Daily C.M.: Using the unmatched count technique (UCT) to estimate base rates for sensitive behavior. Pers. Psychol. 47, 817–828 (1994)

Dalton D.R., Daily C.M., Wimbush J.C.: Collecting “sensitive” data in business ethics research: a case for the unmatched count technique (UCT). J. Bus. Ethics 16, 1049–1057 (1997)

De Leeuw E.D.: Reducing missing data in surveys: an overview of methods. Qual. Quant. 35, 147–160 (2001)

De Leeuw E.D., Hox J.J., Dillman D.A.: Mixed mode surveys: when and why?. In: De Leeuw, E.D., Hox, J.J., Dillman, D.A. (eds) The International Handbook of Survey Methodology, Erlbaum/Taylor & Francis, New York (2008)

Decker O., Brähler E.: Vom Rand zur Mitte: Rechtsextreme Einstellungen und ihre Einflussfaktoren in Deutschland. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Forum Berlin (2006)

DeMaio T.J.: Social desirability and survey measurement: a review. In: Turner, C.F., Martin, E. (eds) Surveying Subjective Phenomena, pp. 257–281. Russel Sage, New York (1984)

DePaulo B.M., Kirkendol S.E., Kashy D.A., Wyer M.M., Epstein J.A.: Lying in everyday life. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 70, 979–995 (1996)

DePaulo B.M., Lindsay J.J., Malone B.E., Muhlenbruck L., Charlton K., Cooper H.: Cues to deception. Psychol. Bull. 129, 74–118 (2003)

Des Jarlais D.C., Paone D., Milliken J., Turner C.F., Miller H., Gribble J., Shi Q.H., Hagan H., Friedman S.R.: Audio-computer interviewing to measure risk behaviour for HIV among injecting drug users: a quasi-randomised trial. Lancet 353, 1657–1661 (1999)

Dowling T.A., Shachtman R.H.: On the relative efficiency of randomized response technique. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 70, 84–87 (1975)

Droitcour J.: The nominative technique: a new method of estimating heroin prevalence. In: Rouse, B.A., Kozel, N.J., Richards, L.G. (eds) Self-Report Methods of Estimating Drug Use: Meeting Current Challenges to Validity, Fishers Lane, pp. 104–124. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Rockville (1985)

Droitcour J., Caspar R.A., Hubbard M.L., Parsely T.L., Visscher W., Ezzati T.M.: The item count technique as a method of indirect questioning: a review of its development and a case study application. In: Biemer, P., Groves, R.M., Lyberg, L., Mathiowetz, N., Sudman, S. (eds) Measurement Errors in Surveys, pp. 85–210. Wiley, New York (1991)

Esser H.: Können Befragte lügen?—Zum Konzept des “wahren Wertes” im Rahmen der handlungstheoretischen Erklärung von Situationseinflüssen bei der Befragung. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 38, 314–336 (1986)

Fendrich M., Johnson T.P.: Examining prevalence differences in three national surveys of youth: impact of consent procedures, mode, and editing rules. J. Drug Issues 31, 615–642 (2001)

Folsom R.E., Greenberg B.G., Horvitz D.G., Abernathy J.R.: The two alternate questions randomized response model for human surveys. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 68, 525–530 (1973)

Fowler F.J. Jr: Improving Survey Questions: Design and Evaluation. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1995)

Fowler F.J. Jr, Mangione T.W.: Standardized Survey Interviewing: Minimizing Interviewer-Related Error. Sage, Newbury Park (1990)

Fox J.A., Tracy P.E.: Randomized Response: A Method for Sensitive Surveys. Sage, Berverly Hills (1986)

Gfroerer J., Wright D., Kopstein A.: Prevalence of youth substance use: the impact of methodological differences between two national surveys. Drug Alcohol Depend. 47, 19–30 (1997)

Goodstadt M.S., Gruson V.: The randomized response technique: a test of drug use. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 70, 814–818 (1975)

Greenberg B.G., Abul-Ela A.-L.A., Simmons W.R., Horvitz D.G.: The unrelated question randomized response model for human surveys. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 64, 520–539 (1969)

Greenberg B.G., Kuebler R.R. Jr, Abernathy J.R., Horvitz D.G.: Application of the randomized response technique in obtaining quantitative data. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 66, 243–250 (1971)

Gribble J.N., Miller H.G., Rogers S.M., Turner C.F.: Interview mode and measurement of sexual behaviors: methodological issues. J. Sex Res. 36, 16–24 (1999)

Groves R.M.: Survey Errors and Survey Costs. Wiley, New York (1989)

Groves R.M., Fowler F.J. Jr., Couper M.P., Lepkowski J.M., Singer E., Tourangeau R.: Survey Methodology. Wiley, Hoboken (2004)

Hartmann P.: Response behavior in interview settings of limited privacy. Int. J. Publ. Opin. Res. 7, 383–390 (1995)

Holbrook A.L., Krosnick J.A.: Measuring voter turnout by using the randomized response technique: evidence calling into question the method’s validity. Publ. Opin. Q. 74, 328–343 (2010a)

Holbrook A.L., Krosnick J.A.: Social desirability bias in voter turnout reports: tests using the item count technique. Publ. Opin. Q. 74, 37–67 (2010b)

Holbrook A.L., Green M.C., Krosnick J.A.: Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing of national probability samples with long questionnaires - Comparisons of respondent satisficing and social desirability response bias. Publ. Opin. Q. 67, 79–125 (2003)

Holtgraves T.: Social desirability and self-reports: testing models of socially desirable responding. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30, 161–172 (2004)

Holtgraves T., Eck J., Lasky B.: Face management, question wording, and social desirability. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 27, 1650–1671 (1997)

Horvitz, D.G., Shah, B.V., Simmons, W.R.: The unrelated question randomized response model. In: Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section, pp. 65–72. ASA (1967)

Hox J.J., De Leeuw E.D.: The influence of interviewers’ attitude and behavior on household survey nonresponse: an international comparison. In: Groves, R.M., Dillman, D.A., Eltinge, J.L., Little, R.J.A. (eds) Survey Nonresponse, pp. 103–120. Wiley, New York (2002)

Jann, B., Jerke, J., Krumpal, I.: Asking sensitive questions using the crosswise model: an experimental survey measuring plagiarism. Publ. Opin. Q. (2011). doi: 10.1093/poq/nfr036

Johnson T., van de Vijver F.J.: Social desirability in cross-cultural research. In: Harness, J., Vijver, F.J., Mohler, P. (eds) Cross-Cultural Survey Methods, pp. 193–202. Wiley, New York (2002)

Jones E.E., Sigall H.: Bogus pipeline—new paradigm for measuring affect and attitude. Psychol. Bull. 76, 349–354 (1971)

Kann L., Brener N.D., Warren C.W., Collins J.L., Giovino G.A.: An assessment of the effect of data collection setting on the prevalence of health risk behaviors among adolescents. J. Adolesc. Health 31, 327–335 (2002)

Katz D.: Do interviewers bias poll results?.  Publ. Opin. Q. 6, 248–268 (1942)

Kish L.: Survey Sampling. Wiley, New York (1965)

Krysan M.: Privacy and the expression of white racial attitudes—a comparison across three contexts. Publ. Opin. Q. 62, 506–544 (1998)

Kuk A.Y.C.: Asking sensitive questions indirectly. Biometrika 77, 436–438 (1990)

LaBrie J.W., Earleywine M.: Sexual risk behaviors and alcohol: higher base rates revealed using the unmatched-count technique. J. Sex Res. 37, 321–326 (2000)

Lalwani A.K., Shavitt S., Johnson T.: What is the relation between cultural orientation and socially desirable responding?. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90, 165–178 (2006)

Landsheer J.A., Van der Heijden P.G.M., Van Gils G.: Trust and understanding, two psychological aspects of randomized response. Qual. Quant. 33, 1–12 (1999)

Lara D., Strickler J., Olavarrieta C.D., Ellertson C.: Measuring induced abortion in Mexico. A comparison of four methodologies. Soc. Methods Res. 32, 529–558 (2004)

Lee R.M.: Doing Research on Sensitive Topics. Sage, London (1993)

Lee R.M., Renzetti C.M.: The Problems of Researching Sensitive Topics: An Overview and Introduction. In: Renzetti, C.M., Lee, R.M. (eds) Researching Sensitive Topics, Sage, London (1993)

Lensvelt-Mulders G.J.L.M., Boeije H.R.: Evaluating compliance with a computer assisted randomized response technique: a qualitative study into the origins of lying and cheating. Comput. Hum. Behav. 23, 591–608 (2007)

Lensvelt-Mulders G.J.L.M. : Surveying sensitive topics. In: De Leeuw, E.D., Hox, J.J., Dillman, D.A. (eds) The international Handbook of Survey Methodology, Erlbaum/Taylor & Francis, New York/London (2008)

Lensvelt-Mulders G.J.L.M., Hox J.J., van der Heijden P.G.M., Mass C.J.M.: Meta-analysis of randomized response research. thirty-five years of validation. Sociol. Methods Res. 33, 319–348 (2005)

Levitt S.D., List J.A.: What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world?. J. Econ. Perspect. 21, 153–174 (2007)

Liu P.T., Chow L.P.: The efficiency of the multiple trial randomized response technique. Biometrics 32, 607–618 (1976)

Loynes R.M.: Asymptotically optimal randomized response procedures. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 71, 924–928 (1976)

Maddala G.S.: Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge University Press, New York (1983)

Mangat N.S.: An improved randomized response strategy. J. R. Stat. Soc B (Methodol.) 56, 93–95 (1994)

Mangat N.S., Singh R.: An alternative randomized response procedure. Biometrika 77, 439–442 (1990)

Marquis K.H., Duan N., Marquis M.S., Polich J.M.: Response Errors in Sensitive Topics Surveys. The Rand Corporation, CA (1981)

Marquis K.H., Marquis M.S., Polich J.M.: Response bias and reliability in sensitive topic surveys. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 81, 381–389 (1986)

McAuliffe W.E., Breer P., Ahmadifar N.W., Spino C.: Assessment of drug abuser treatment needs in Rhode Island. Am. J. Publ. Health 81, 365–371 (1991)

Metzger D.S., Koblin B., Turner C., Navaline H., Valenti F., Holte S., Gross M., Sheon A., Miller H., Cooley P., Seage G.R.: Randomized controlled trial of audio computer-assisted self-interviewing: utility and acceptability in longitudinal studies. Am. J. Epidemiol. 152, 99–106 (2000)

Moors J.J.A.: Optimization of the unrelated question randomized response model. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 66, 627–629 (1971)

Nathan, G., Sirken, M., Willis, G.B., Esposito, J.: Laboratory experiments on the cognitive aspects of sensitive questions. In: International Conference on Measurement Error in Surveys. Tuscon, Arizona (1990)

Näher, A.-F., Krumpal, I.: Asking sensitive questions: the impact of forgiving wording and question context on social desirability bias. Qual. Quant. (2011). doi: 10.1007/s11135-011-9469-2

O’Hagan A.: Bayes linear estimators for randomized response models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 82, 580–585 (1987)

Okamoto K., Ohsuka K., Shiraishi T., Hukazawa E., Wakasugi S., Furuta K.: Comparability of epidemiological information between self- and interviewer-administered questionnaires. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 55, 505–511 (2002)

Ong A.D., Weiss D.J.: The impact of anonymity on responses to sensitive questions. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 30, 1691–1708 (2000)

Ostapczuk M., Musch J., Moshagen M.: A randomized-response investigation of the education effect in attitudes towards foreigners. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 39, 920–931 (2009)

Paulhus, D.L.: Measurement and control of response bias. In: Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes, vol. 1. San Diego, CA: Academic Press (1991)

Paulhus D.L.: Self-presentation measurement. In: Fernandez-Ballesteros, R. (eds) Encyclopedia of Psychological Assessment, pp. 858–860. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2003)

Pollock K.H., Bek Y.: A comparison of three randomized response models for quantitative data. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 71, 884–886 (1976)

Raghavarao D., Federer W.T.: Block total response as an alternative to the randomized response method in surveys. J. R. Stat. Soc. B Methodol. 41, 40–45 (1979)

Randall D.M., Fernandes M.F.: The social desirability response bias in ethics research. J. Bus. Ethics 10, 805–817 (1991)

Rasinski K.A., Baldwin A.K., Willis G.B., Jobe J.B.: Risk and Loss Perceptions Associated with Survey Reporting of Sensitive Topics, pp. 497–502. National Opinion Research Center (NORC), Chicago (1994)

Rasinski K.A., Willis G.B., Baldwin A.K., Yeh W.C., Lee L.: Methods of data collection, perceptions of risks and losses, and motivation to give truthful answers to sensitive survey questions. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 13, 465–484 (1999)

Rauhut H., Krumpal I.: Die Durchsetzung sozialer Normen in low-cost und high-cost situationen. Z. für Soziol. 37, 380–402 (2008)

Rayburn N.R., Earleywine M., Davison G.C.: Base rates of hate crime victimization among college students. J. Interpers. Violence 18, 1209–1221 (2003)

Reckers P.M.J., Wheeler S.W., Wong-On-Wing B.: A comparative examination of auditor premature sign-offs using the direct and the randomized response methods. Audit. J. Pract. Theory 16, 69–78 (1997)

Reuband K.H.: Unerwünschte Dritte beim Interview: Erscheinungsformen und Folgen. Zeitschrift Für Soziologie 16, 303–308 (1987)

Reuband K.H.: On 3rd persons in the interview situation and their impact on responses. Int. J. Publ. Opin. Res. 4, 269–274 (1992)

Robinson D., Rhode S.: 2 experiments with an anti-semitsm poll. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 41, 136–144 (1946)

Roese N.J., Jamieson D.W.: 20 years of bogus pipeline research—a critical-review and metaanalysis. Psychol. Bull. 114, 363–375 (1993)

Rootman I., Smart R.G.: A comparison of alcohol, tobacco and drug-use as determined from household and school surveys. Drug Alcohol Depend. 16, 89–94 (1985)

Schaeffer N.C.: Asking questions about threatening topics: a selective overview. In: Stone, A., Turkkan, J., Bachrach, C., Cain, V., Jobe, J., Kurtzman, H. (eds) The Science of Self-Report: Implications for Research and Practice, pp. 105–121. Erlbaum, Mahwah (2000)

Scheers N.J., Dayton C.M.: Improved estimation of academic cheating behavior using the randomized-response technique. Res. Higher Educ. 26, 61–69 (1987)

Scheers N.J., Dayton C.M.: Covariate randomized response models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 83, 969–974 (1988)

Schnell R., Kreuter F.: Separating interviewer and sampling-point effects. J. Off. Stat. 21, 389–410 (2005)

Schuman H., Converse J.M.: Effects of black and white interviewers on black responses in 1968. Publ. Opin. Q. 35, 44–68 (1971)

Sen P.K.: On unbiased estimation for randomized response models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 69, 997–1001 (1974)

Singer E., Kohnke-Aquirre L.: Interviewer expectation effects—replication and extension. Publ. Opin. Q. 43, 245–260 (1979)

Singer E., Hippler H.J., Schwarz N.: Confidentiality assurances in surveys—reassurance or threat. Int. J. Publ. Opin. Res. 4, 256–268 (1992)

Singer E., Vonthurn D.R., Miller E.R.: Confidentiality assurances and response—a quantitative review of the experimental literature. Publ. Opin. Q. 59, 66–77 (1995)

Sirken M.: Household surveys with multiplicity. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 65, 257–266 (1970)

Sirken, M.: Network surveys of rare and sensitive conditions. In: Advances in Health Survey Research Methods. National Center on Health Statistics Research Proceedings Series, pp. 31–32 (1975)

Sirken, M., Indefurth, G.P., Burnham, C.E., Danchik, K.M.: Household sample surveys of diabetes: design effects of counting rules. In: Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, pp. 659–663. Social Statistics Section (1975)

Sirken M., Willis G.B., Nathan G.: Cognitive aspects of answering sensitive survey questions. Bull. Int. Stat. Inst. 48, 628–629 (1991)

Smith T.W.: Discrepancies between men and women in reporting number of sexual partners - a summary from 4 countries. Soc. Biol. 39, 203–211 (1992)

Smith T.W.: The impact of the presence of others on a respondent’s answers to questions. Int. J. Publ. Opin. Res. 9, 33–47 (1997)

Smith, L.L., Federer, W.T., Raghavarao, D.: A comparison of three techniques for eliciting truthful answers to sensitive questions. In: Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, pp. 447–452. Social Statistics Section (1974)

Stem D.E., Steinhorst R.K.: Telephone interview and mail questionnaire applications of the randomized response model. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 79, 555–564 (1984)

Stocké V.: Determinants and consequences of survey respondents’ social desirability beliefs about racial attitudes. Methodology 3, 125–138 (2007a)

Stocké V.: The interdependence of determinants for the strength and direction of social desirability bias in racial attitude surveys. J. Off. Stat. 23, 493–514 (2007b)

Stocké V., Hunkler C.: Measures of desirability beliefs and their validity as indicators for socially desirable responding. Field Methods 19, 313–336 (2007)

Sudman S., Bradburn N.M.: Response Effects in Surveys: A Review and Synthesis. Aldine, Chicago (1974)

Sudman S., Bradburn N.M.: Asking Questions: A Practical Guide to Questionnaire Design. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1982)

Sudman S., Bradburn N.M., Blair E., Stocking C.: Modest expectations—effects of interviewers prior expectations on responses. Sociol. Methods. Res. 6, 171–182 (1977a)

Sudman S., Blair E., Bradburn N., Stocking C.: Estimates of threatening behavior based on reports of friends. Publ. Opin. Q. 41, 261–264 (1977b)

Tamhane A.C.: Randomized response techniques for multiple sensitive attributes. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 76, 916–923 (1981)

Tentler T.N.: Sin and Confession on the Eve of the Reformation. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1977)

Tourangeau R., Smith T.W.: Asking sensitive questions—the impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Publ. Opin. Q. 60, 275–304 (1996)

Tourangeau R., Rasinski K.A., Jobe J., Smith T.W., Pratt W.F.: Sources of error in a survey on sexual behavior. J. Off. Stat. 13, 341–365 (1997)

Tourangeau R., Rips L.J., Rasinski K.A.: The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)

Tourangeau R., Yan T.: Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychol. Bull. 133, 859–883 (2007)

Tracy P.S., Fox J.A.: The validity of randomized response for sensitive measurements. Am. Sociol. Rev. 46, 187–200 (1981)

Tsuchiya T.: Domain estimators for the item count technique. Survey Methodol. 31, 41–51 (2005)

Tsuchiya T., Hirai Y., Ono S.: A study of the properties of the item count technique. Publ. Opin. Q. 71, 253–272 (2007)

Turner C.F., Ku L., Rogers S.M., Lindberg L.D., Pleck J.H., Sonenstein F.L.: Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science 280, 867–873 (1998)

Turner C.F., Villarroel M.A., Rogers S.M., Eggleston E., Ganapathi L., Roman A.M., Al-Tayyib A.: Reducing bias in telephone survey estimates of the prevalence of drug use: a randomized trial of telephone audio-CASI. Addiction 100, 1432–1444 (2005)

Van der Heijden P.G.M., van Gils G., Bouts J., Hox J.J.: A comparison of randomized response, computer-assisted self-interview, and face-to-face direct questioning – eliciting sensitive information in the context of welfare and unemployment benefit. Sociol. Methods Res. 28, 505–537 (2000)

Villarroel M.A., Turner C.F., Eggleston E., Al-Tayyib A., Rogers S.M., Roman A.M., Cooley P.C., Gordek H.: Same-gender sex in the United States—impact of T-ACASI on prevalence estimates. Publ. Opin. Q. 70, 166–196 (2006)

Villarroel M.A., Turner C.F., Rogers S.M., Roman A.M., Cooley P.C., Steinberg A.B., Eggleston E., Chromy J.R.: T-ACASI reduces bias in STD measurements: the national STD and behavior measurement experiment. Sex. Transmit. Dis. 35, 499–506 (2008)

Warner S.L.: Randomized response: a survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 60, 63–69 (1965)

Weissman A.N., Steer R.A., Lipton D.S.: Estimating illicit drug use through telephone interviews and the randomized response technique. Drug Alcohol Depend. 18, 225–233 (1986)

Willis, G.B., Sirken, M., Nathan, G.: The cognitive aspects of responses to sensitive survey questions. In: Working Paper Series 9. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, Cognitive Methods Staff (1994)

Wimbush J.C., Dalton D.R.: Base rate for employee theft: convergence of multiple methods. J. Appl. Psychol. 82, 756–763 (1997)

Wiseman F., Moriarty M., Schafer M.: Estimating public-opinion with randomized response model. Publ. Opin. Q. 39, 507–513 (1976)

Yu J.W., Tian G.L., Tang M.L.: Two new models for survey sampling with sensitive characteristic: design and analysis. Metrika 67, 251–263 (2008)

Zdep S.M., Rhodes I.N.: Making the randomized response technique work. Publ. Opin. Q. 40, 513–537 (1976)