What Drives Reticence? Reporting Bias from Monopolies and Distrustful Firm Managers

IF 0.4 Q4 ECONOMICS

Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics Pub Date : 2017-07-01 DOI:10.1177/0260107917699694

Fola Malomo

{"title":"What Drives Reticence? Reporting Bias from Monopolies and Distrustful Firm Managers","authors":"Fola Malomo","doi":"10.1177/0260107917699694","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the determinants of underreporting (reticence) on randomized response questions. A simple model is created to describe the interview process and draw some conclusion as to why people might misreport their true status despite given the assurance of institutional and statistical confidentiality. By looking at the relationship between firm-specific reticence and other firm-specific and industry-location-specific variables, it is found that (mis)trust (proxied by the proportion of contracts arranged before delivery) is a significant predictor of reticence. Underreporting does not seem to be significantly related to a misunderstanding of the procedure, education, profit levels or guilt. This seems to suggest that firms which are more cautious in their business dealings are also more cautious with the randomized response (RR) technique. In such cases, weighted estimates of the prevalence of sensitive traits might be derived without the use of the RR technique but through the use of variables relating to the nature of firm-level contracts. Moreover, more accurate data on sensitive topics can be extracted from large homogeneous populations. JEL: C81, C83, D81","PeriodicalId":42664,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0260107917699694","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0260107917699694","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article examines the determinants of underreporting (reticence) on randomized response questions. A simple model is created to describe the interview process and draw some conclusion as to why people might misreport their true status despite given the assurance of institutional and statistical confidentiality. By looking at the relationship between firm-specific reticence and other firm-specific and industry-location-specific variables, it is found that (mis)trust (proxied by the proportion of contracts arranged before delivery) is a significant predictor of reticence. Underreporting does not seem to be significantly related to a misunderstanding of the procedure, education, profit levels or guilt. This seems to suggest that firms which are more cautious in their business dealings are also more cautious with the randomized response (RR) technique. In such cases, weighted estimates of the prevalence of sensitive traits might be derived without the use of the RR technique but through the use of variables relating to the nature of firm-level contracts. Moreover, more accurate data on sensitive topics can be extracted from large homogeneous populations. JEL: C81, C83, D81

查看原文本刊更多论文

沉默的原因是什么?来自垄断和不信任的公司管理者的报告偏见

本文探讨了随机回答问题少报（沉默）的决定因素。创建了一个简单的模型来描述面试过程，并得出一些结论，说明为什么尽管有机构和统计保密的保证，人们可能会误报自己的真实状况。通过研究企业特定沉默与其他企业特定和行业特定变量之间的关系，发现（错误）信任（由交付前安排的合同比例表示）是沉默的重要预测因素。报告不足似乎与对程序、教育、利润水平或内疚的误解无关。这似乎表明，在商业交易中更谨慎的公司对随机反应（RR）技术也更谨慎。在这种情况下，可以在不使用RR技术的情况下，通过使用与公司层面合同性质相关的变量，得出敏感特征流行率的加权估计。此外，可以从大量同质人群中提取更准确的敏感话题数据。JEL:C81，C83，D81

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics ECONOMICS-

CiteScore

1.40

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The explosion of information and research that has taken place in recent years has had a profound effect upon a variety of existing academic disciplines giving rise to the dissolution of barriers between some, mergers between others, and the creation of entirely new fields of enquiry.