When surveys contain direct questions about sensitive topics, participants may not provide their true answers. Indirect question techniques incentivize truthful answers by concealing participants’ responses in various ways. The Crosswise Model aims to do this by pairing a sensitive target item with a non-sensitive baseline item, and only asking participants to indicate whether their responses to the two items are the same or different. Selection of the baseline item is crucial to guarantee participants’ perceived and actual privacy and to enable reliable estimates of the sensitive trait. This research makes the following contributions. First, it describes an integrated methodology to select the baseline item, based on conceptual and statistical considerations. The resulting methodology distinguishes four statistical models. Second, it proposes novel Bayesian estimation methods to implement these models. Third, it shows that the new models introduced here improve efficiency over common applications of the Crosswise Model and may relax the required statistical assumptions. These three contributions facilitate applying the methodology in a variety of settings. An empirical application on attitudes toward LGBT issues shows the potential of the Crosswise Model. An interactive app, Python and MATLAB codes support broader adoption of the model.

Randomized response is an interview technique for sensitive questions designed to eliminate evasive response bias. Since this elimination is only partially successful, two models have been proposed for modeling evasive response bias: the cheater detection model for a design with two sub-samples with different randomization probabilities and the self-protective no sayers model for a design with multiple sensitive questions. This paper shows the correspondence between these models, and introduces models for the new, hybrid “ever/last year” design that account for self-protective no saying and cheating. The model for one set of ever/last year questions has a degree of freedom that can be used for the inclusion of a response bias parameter. Models with multiple degrees of freedom are introduced for extensions of the design with a third randomized response question and a second set of ever/last year questions. The models are illustrated with two surveys on doping use. We conclude with a discussion of the pros and cons of the ever/last year design and its potential for future research.

The crosswise model is an increasingly popular survey technique to elicit candid answers from respondents on sensitive questions. Recent studies, however, point out that in the presence of inattentive respondents, the conventional estimator of the prevalence of a sensitive attribute is biased toward 0.5. To remedy this problem, we propose a simple design-based bias correction using an anchor question that has a sensitive item with known prevalence. We demonstrate that we can easily estimate and correct for the bias arising from inattentive respondents without measuring individual-level attentiveness. We also offer several useful extensions of our estimator, including a sensitivity analysis for the conventional estimator, a strategy for weighting, a framework for multivariate regressions in which a latent sensitive trait is used as an outcome or a predictor, and tools for power analysis and parameter selection. Our method can be easily implemented through our open-source software cWise.

To reduce strategic misreporting on sensitive topics, survey researchers increasingly use list experiments rather than direct questions. However, the complexity of list experiments may increase nonstrategic misreporting. We provide the first empirical assessment of this trade-off between strategic and nonstrategic misreporting. We field list experiments on election turnout in two different countries, collecting measures of respondents’ true turnout. We detail and apply a partition validation method which uses true scores to distinguish true and false positives and negatives for list experiments, thus allowing detection of nonstrategic reporting errors. For both list experiments, partition validation reveals nonstrategic misreporting that is: undetected by standard diagnostics or validation; greater than assumed in extant simulation studies; and severe enough that direct turnout questions subject to strategic misreporting exhibit lower overall reporting error. We discuss how our results can inform the choice between list experiment and direct question for other topics and survey contexts.

Does attentiveness matter in survey responses? Do more attentive survey participants give higher quality responses? Using data from a recent online survey that identified inattentive respondents using instructed-response items, we demonstrate that ignoring attentiveness provides a biased portrait of the distribution of critical political attitudes and behavior. We show that this bias occurs in the context of both typical closed-ended questions and in list experiments. Inattentive respondents are common and are more prevalent among the young and less educated. Those who do not pass the trap questions interact with the survey instrument in distinctive ways: they take less time to respond; are more likely to report nonattitudes; and display lower consistency in their reported choices. Inattentiveness does not occur completely at random and failing to properly account for it may lead to inaccurate estimates of the prevalence of key political attitudes and behaviors, of both sensitive and more prosaic nature.