我们可以直接调查非药物干预的依从性吗?:科罗纳疫情早期在德国进行的一项列表实验的证据

IF 0.9 2区 社会学 Q4 SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS
Simon Munzert, Peter Selb
{"title":"我们可以直接调查非药物干预的依从性吗?:科罗纳疫情早期在德国进行的一项列表实验的证据","authors":"Simon Munzert, Peter Selb","doi":"10.18148/SRM/2020.V14I2.7759","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Self-reports of adherence to non-pharmaceutical interventions in surveys may be subject to social desirability bias. Existing questioning techniques to reduce bias are rarely used to monitor adherence. We conducted a list experiment to elicit truthful answers to the question whether respondents met friends or acquaintances and thus disregarded the social distancing norm. Our empirical findings are mixed. Using the list experiment, we estimate the prevalence of non-compliant behavior at 28%, whereas the estimate from a direct question is 22%. However, a more permissively phrased direct question included later in the survey yields an estimate of 47%. All three estimates vary consistently across social groups. Interestingly, only the list experiment reveals somewhat higher non-compliance rates among the highly educated compared to those with lower education, yet the variance of the list estimates is considerably higher. We conclude that the list experiment compared unfavorably to simpler direct measurements in our case.","PeriodicalId":46454,"journal":{"name":"Survey Research Methods","volume":"14 1","pages":"205-209"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can we directly survey adherence to non-pharmaceutical interventions? : Evidence from a list experiment conducted in Germany during the early Corona pandemic\",\"authors\":\"Simon Munzert, Peter Selb\",\"doi\":\"10.18148/SRM/2020.V14I2.7759\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Self-reports of adherence to non-pharmaceutical interventions in surveys may be subject to social desirability bias. Existing questioning techniques to reduce bias are rarely used to monitor adherence. We conducted a list experiment to elicit truthful answers to the question whether respondents met friends or acquaintances and thus disregarded the social distancing norm. Our empirical findings are mixed. Using the list experiment, we estimate the prevalence of non-compliant behavior at 28%, whereas the estimate from a direct question is 22%. However, a more permissively phrased direct question included later in the survey yields an estimate of 47%. All three estimates vary consistently across social groups. Interestingly, only the list experiment reveals somewhat higher non-compliance rates among the highly educated compared to those with lower education, yet the variance of the list estimates is considerably higher. We conclude that the list experiment compared unfavorably to simpler direct measurements in our case.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46454,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Survey Research Methods\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"205-209\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Survey Research Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18148/SRM/2020.V14I2.7759\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Survey Research Methods","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18148/SRM/2020.V14I2.7759","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

摘要

调查中依从非药物干预措施的自我报告可能受到社会可取性偏见的影响。现有的减少偏见的提问技术很少用于监测依从性。我们进行了一个列表实验,以获得受访者是否会见朋友或熟人的真实答案,从而无视社交距离规范。我们的实证研究结果喜忧参半。使用列表实验,我们估计不服从行为的患病率为28%,而直接问题的估计值为22%。然而,在随后的调查中,一个措辞更为宽松的直接问题产生了47%的估计。所有这三种估计在不同的社会群体中都是一致的。有趣的是,只有名单实验显示,高学历人群的不合规率略高于低学历人群,但名单估计值的差异要大得多。我们得出结论,在我们的情况下,列表实验与更简单的直接测量相比是不利的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Can we directly survey adherence to non-pharmaceutical interventions? : Evidence from a list experiment conducted in Germany during the early Corona pandemic
Self-reports of adherence to non-pharmaceutical interventions in surveys may be subject to social desirability bias. Existing questioning techniques to reduce bias are rarely used to monitor adherence. We conducted a list experiment to elicit truthful answers to the question whether respondents met friends or acquaintances and thus disregarded the social distancing norm. Our empirical findings are mixed. Using the list experiment, we estimate the prevalence of non-compliant behavior at 28%, whereas the estimate from a direct question is 22%. However, a more permissively phrased direct question included later in the survey yields an estimate of 47%. All three estimates vary consistently across social groups. Interestingly, only the list experiment reveals somewhat higher non-compliance rates among the highly educated compared to those with lower education, yet the variance of the list estimates is considerably higher. We conclude that the list experiment compared unfavorably to simpler direct measurements in our case.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Survey Research Methods
Survey Research Methods SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
4.20%
发文量
0
审稿时长
52 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信