A Relational Framework between Survey Topic, Sponsor, and Socially Desirable Responding: An Online Survey Experiment

Abdirahman Saeed Mohamed; Tuğba Adalı

doi:10.18037/ausbd.1181517

A Relational Framework between Survey Topic, Sponsor, and Socially Desirable Responding: An Online Survey Experiment

Öz

Research in survey methodology indicates that survey attributes, such as topic and sponsor influence survey participation and data quality. This paper primarily aims to examine whether such attributes influence socially desirable responding in an online survey setting, a setting which is less studied in the literature than face-to-face interview settings with regards to social desirability. To achieve this aim, it empirically tests the effects of survey topic, survey sponsor, introduction interest, and perceived topic sensitivity on socially desirable responding (SDR) across a range of items in a questionnaire. The survey experiment is based on a convenience sample of higher education students who filled out an online self-administered questionnaire, which also included a short version of the Marlowe-Crowne SDR scale. The findings showed that the tendency to SDR does not significantly differ by survey topic and sponsor. However, it varies by introduction interest, and intriguingly, more interested respondents demonstrated a higher tendency to SDR. Also, the tendency to SDR marginally differed by the perceived topic sensitivity.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kaynakça

Bach, R. L., Eckman, S., and Daikeler, J. (2020). Misreporting among reluctant respondents. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 8(3), 566–588. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smz013
Boulianne, S., Klofstad, C. A., and Basson, D. (2010). Sponsor prominence and responses patterns to an online survey. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 23(1), 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edq026
Bradburn, N., Sudman, S., and Wansink, B. (2004). Asking questions: The definitive guide to questionnaire design: for market research, political polls, and social and health questionnaires. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., San Francisco. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.4.703
Brenner, P. S., and DeLamater, J. D. (2014). Social Desirability Bias in Self-reports of Physical Activity: Is an Exercise Identity the Culprit? Social Indicators Research, 117(2), 489–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0359-y
Cannell, C. F., and Fowler, F. J. (1963). Comparison of a self-enumerative procedure and a personal interivew: A validity study. Public Opinion Quarterly, 27(2), 250–264. Erişim adresi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2746919#metadata_info_tab_contents
Caskie, G. I. L., Sutton, M. A. C., and Eckhardt, A. G. (2014). Accuracy of self-reported college GPA: Gender- moderated differences by achievement level and academic self-efficacy. Journal of College Student Development, 55(4), 385–390. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2014.0038
Couper, M. P. (1997). Survey introduction and data quality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61(2), 317–338. Erişim adresi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2749554?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Crabtree, C., Kern, H. L., and Pietryka, M. T. (2020). Sponsorship Effects in Online Surveys. Political Behavior, 44(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09620-7

Crowne, D. P., and Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047358
de Leeuw, E. D. . de. (1992). Data Quality in Mail , Telephone , and Face to Face. Amsterdam: TT Publications. Erişim adresi: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED374136
de Leeuw, E. D., and Hox, J. J. (2011). Internet Surveys as Part of a Mixed-Mode Design. In M. Das, P. Ester, & L. Kaczmirek (Eds.), Social and Behavioral Research and the Internet: Advances in applied methods and research strategies (pp. 45–76). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203844922-3
Deshields, T. ., Tait, R. C., Gfeller, J. D., and Chibnall, J. T. (1995). Relationship between social desirabillity and self-report in chronic pain patients. The Clinical Journal of Paininical Journal of Pain, 11(3), 189–193. Erişim adresi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3766480.pdf
Dodou, D., and De Winter, J. C. F. (2014). Social desirability is the same in offline, online, and paper surveys: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 487–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.005
Doob, A. N., and Freedman, J. L. (1973). Effects of sponsor and prepayment on compliance with a mailed request. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 346–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034704
England, P., and Bearak, J. (2014). The sexual double standard and gender differences in attitudes toward casual sex among U.S. university students. Demographic Research, 30(1), 1327–1338. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2014.30.46
Etter, J.-F., Perneger, T. V., and Rougemont, A. (1996). Does Sponsorship Matter in Patient Satisfaction Surveys ? A Randomized Trial. Medical Care, 34(4), 327–335. Erişim adresi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3766480.pdf
Furnham, A. (1986). Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 7(3), 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(86)90014-0
Gnambs, T., and Kaspar, K. (2014). Disclosure of sensitive behaviors across self-administered survey modes: a meta-analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1237–1259. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0533-4
Groves, R. M., Presser, S., Dipko, S., and Groves, M. (2004). The Role of Topic Interest in Survey Participation Decisions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 2–31. Erişim adresi: https://scholar.google.com/scholaroutput=instlink&q=info:VABAOeWZs2YJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=tr&as_sdt=0,5&scillfp=5310991081679046622&oi=lle
Groves, R. M., Singer, E., and Corning, A. (2000). Leverage-Saliency Theory of Survey Participation : Description and an Illustration. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(3), 299–308. Erişim adresi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3078721.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A54c8a2494ad899a7b0af7deda6f402cc
Hays, R. D., Hayashi, T., and Stewart, A. L. (1989). A five-item measure of socially desirable response set. In Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49(3), 629–636. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448904900315
Holbrook, A. L., Green, M. C., and Krosnick, J. A. (2003). Telephone versus Face-to-Face Interviewing of National Probability Samples with Long Questionnaires. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67(1), 79–125. https://doi.org/10.1086/346010
Jones, W. H. (1979). Generalizing Mail Survey Inducement Methods : Population Interactions with Anonymity and Sponsorship. Public Opinion Quarterly, 43(1), 102–111. https://doi.org/OO33-362X/79/OO43-O1O2/JI.75
Jones, W. H., and Linda, G. (1978). Multiple Criteria Effects in a mail Survey Experiment. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(2), 280–284. Erişim adresi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3151263
Karp, J. A., and Brockington, D. (2005). Social desirability and response validity: A comparative analysis of overreporting voter turnout in five countries. The Journal of Politics, 67(3), 825–840. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00341.x
Kelly, C. A., Soler-Hampejsek, E., Mensch, B. S., and Hewett, P. C. (2013). Social desirability bias in sexual behavior reporting: Evidence from an interview mode experiment in rural Malawi. International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 39(1), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1363/3901413
Keusch, F. (2013). The role of topic interest and topic salience in online panel web surveys. International Journal of Market Research, 55(1), 59–81. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJMR-2013-007
Klesges, L. M., Baranowski, T., Beech, B., Cullen, K., Murray, D. M., Rochon, J., and Pratt, C. (2004). Social desirability bias in self-reported dietary, physical activity and weight concerns measures in 8- to 10-year-old African-American girls: Results from the Girls health Enrichment Multisite Studies (GEMS). Preventive Medicine, 38(SUPPL.), 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2003.07.003
Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 213–236. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350050305
Krumpal, I. (2013). Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review. Quality and Quantity, 47(4), 2025–2047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9
Ladik, D. M., Carrillat, F. A., and Solomon, P. J. (2007). The effectiveness of University Sponsorship in Increasing Survey Response Rate. 16(3), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP
Larson, R. B. (2019). Controlling social desirability bias. International Journal of Market Research, 61(5), 534–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785318805305
Martin, C. L. (1994). The Impact of Topic Interest on Mail Survey Response Behaviour. Market Research Society. Journal., 36(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078539403600404
Näher, A. F., and Krumpal, I. (2012). Asking sensitive questions: The impact of forgiving wording and question context on social desirability bias. Quality and Quantity, 46(5), 1601–1616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9469-2
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and Control of Response Bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes (Third Revi, pp. 17–59). Academic Press, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-590241-0.50006-x
Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially Desirable Responding: The Evolution of a Construct. In H. I. Braun, D. N. Jackson, & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (Issue 2002, pp. 49–69). LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES Inc. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-195311720-00010
Smith, T. W. (1992). Discrepancies between men and women in reporting number of sexual partners: a summary from four countries. Social Biology, 39(3–4), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/19485565.1992.9988817
Smith, W. G. (2008). Does Gender Influence Online Survey Participation?: A record-linkage analysis of University Faculty Online Survey response Behavior. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 6(11), 951–952. Erişim adresi: http://www.websm.org/db/12/12527/rec/
Soubelet, A., and Salthouse, T. A. (2011). Influence of social desirability on age differences in self-reports of mood and personality. Journal of Personality, 79(4), 741–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00700.x
Stöber, J. (2001). The Social Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17): Convergent Validity, Discriminant Validity, and Relationship with Age. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17(3), 222–232. https://doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.17.3.222
Stocké, V., and Hunkler, C. (2007). Measures of desirability beliefs and their validity as indicators for socially desirable responding. Field Methods, 19(3), 313–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X07302102
Thapa, K., Bhandari, P. M., Neupane, D., Bhochhibhoya, S., Rajbhandari-Thapa, J., and Pathak, R. P. (2019). Physical activity and its correlates among higher secondary school students in an urban district of Nepal. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7230-2
Tourangeau, R., Groves, R. M., Kennedy, C. and Yan, T. (2009). The presentation of a web survey, Nonresponse and measurement error among members of web panel. Journal of Official Statistics, 25(3), 299–321. Erişim adresi: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285723463_The_Presentation_of_a_Web_Survey_Nonresponse_and_Measurement_Error_among_Members_of_Web_Panel
Tourangeau, R., and Smith, T. W. (1996). Asking sensitive questions: The impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60(2), 275–304. https://doi.org/10.1086/297751
Tourangeau, R., and Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive Questions in Surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133(5), 859–883. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.859
Underwood, D., Kim, H., and Matier, M. (2000). To mail or to web: Comparisons of survey response rates and respondent characteristics. Paper presented at the 40th Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Cincinnati, OH, May 21–24. 2000. Erişim adresi: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED446513
Ural, T., and Özbircikli, M. (2006). Is Ethical Judgement Influenced By Social Desirability in Responding? an Analyse on Turkish Accountants. Ç.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15(1), 393–410. Erişim adresi: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/cusosbil/issue/4373/59878
van de Mortel, T. F. (2008). Faking it: Social desirability response bias in selfreport research. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25(4), 40–48. Erişim adresi: https://researchportal.scu.edu.au/esploro/outputs/journalArticle/Faking-it-social-desirability-response-bias-in-self-report-research/991012821838002368
Vigil-Colet, A., Morales-Vives, F., and Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2013). How social desirability and acquiescence affect the age-personality relationship. Psicothema, 25(3), 342–348. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2012.297
Bach, R. L., Eckman, S., and Daikeler, J. (2020). Misreporting among reluctant respondents. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 8(3), 566–588. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smz013
Boulianne, S., Klofstad, C. A., and Basson, D. (2010). Sponsor prominence and responses patterns to an online survey. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 23(1), 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edq026
Bradburn, N., Sudman, S., and Wansink, B. (2004). Asking Questions: The Definitive Guide to Questionnaire Design: For Market Research, Political Polls, and Social and Health Questionnaires. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., San Francisco. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.4.703
Brenner, P. S., and DeLamater, J. D. (2014). Social Desirability Bias in Self-reports of Physical Activity: Is an Exercise Identity the Culprit? Social Indicators Research, 117(2), 489–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0359-y
Cannell, C. F., and Fowler, F. J. (1963). Comparison of a self-enumerative procedure and a personal interivew: A validity study. Public Opinion Quarterly, 27(2), 250–264. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2746919#metadata_info_tab_contents
Caskie, G. I. L., Sutton, M. A. C., and Eckhardt, A. G. (2014). Accuracy of self-reported college GPA: Gender- moderated differences by achievement level and academic self-efficacy. Journal of College Student Development, 55(4), 385–390. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2014.0038
Couper, M. P. (1997). Survey introduction and data quality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61(2), 317–338. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2749554?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Crabtree, C., Kern, H. L., and Pietryka, M. T. (2020). Sponsorship Effects in Online Surveys. Political Behavior, 44(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09620-7
Crowne, D. P., and Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047358
de Leeuw, E. D. . de. (1992). Data Quality in Mail , Telephone , and Face to Face. Amsterdam: TT Publications. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED374136
de Leeuw, E. D., and Hox, J. J. (2011). Internet Surveys as Part of a Mixed-Mode Design. In M. Das, P. Ester, & L. Kaczmirek (Eds.), Social and Behavioral Research and the Internet: Advances in applied methods and research strategies (pp. 45–76). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203844922-3
Deshields, T. ., Tait, R. C., Gfeller, J. D., and Chibnall, J. T. (1995). Relationship between social desirabillity and self-report in chronic pain patients. The Clinical Journal of Paininical Journal of Pain, 11(3), 189–193. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3766480.pdf
Dodou, D., and De Winter, J. C. F. (2014). Social desirability is the same in offline, online, and paper surveys: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 487–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.005
Doob, A. N., and Freedman, J. L. (1973). Effects of sponsor and prepayment on compliance with a mailed request. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 346–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034704
England, P., and Bearak, J. (2014). The sexual double standard and gender differences in attitudes toward casual sex among U.S. university students. Demographic Research, 30(1), 1327–1338. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2014.30.46
Etter, J.-F., Perneger, T. V., and Rougemont, A. (1996). Does Sponsorship Matter in Patient Satisfaction Surveys ? A Randomized Trial. Medical Care, 34(4), 327–335. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3766480.pdf
Furnham, A. (1986). Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 7(3), 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(86)90014-0
Gnambs, T., and Kaspar, K. (2014). Disclosure of sensitive behaviors across self-administered survey modes: a meta-analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1237–1259. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0533-4
Groves, R. M., Presser, S., Dipko, S., and Groves, M. (2004). The Role of Topic Interest in Survey Participation Decisions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 2–31.
Groves, R. M., Singer, E., and Corning, A. (2000). Leverage-Saliency Theory of Survey Participation : Description and an Illustration. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(3), 299–308. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3078721.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A54c8a2494ad899a7b0af7deda6f402cc
Hays, R. D., Hayashi, T., and Stewart, A. L. (1989). A five-item measure of socially desirable response set. In Educational and Psychological Measurement (Vol. 49, Issue 3, pp. 629–636). https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448904900315
Holbrook, A. L., Green, M. C., and Krosnick, J. A. (2003). Telephone versus Face-to-Face Interviewing of National Probability Samples with Long Questionnaires. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67(1), 79–125. https://doi.org/10.1086/346010
Jones, W. H. (1979). Generalizing Mail Survey Inducement Methods : Population Interactions with Anonymity and Sponsorship. Public Opinion Quarterly, 43(1), 102–111. https://doi.org/OO33-362X/79/OO43-O1O2/JI.75
Jones, W. H., and Linda, G. (1978). Multiple Criteria Effects in a mail Survey Experiment. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(2), 280–284. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3151263
Karp, J. A., and Brockington, D. (2005). Social desirability and response validity: A comparative analysis of overreporting voter turnout in five countries. The Journal of Politics, 67(3), 825–840. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00341.x
Kelly, C. A., Soler-Hampejsek, E., Mensch, B. S., and Hewett, P. C. (2013). Social desirability bias in sexual behavior reporting: Evidence from an interview mode experiment in rural Malawi. International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 39(1), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1363/3901413
Keusch, F. (2013). The role of topic interest and topic salience in online panel web surveys. International Journal of Market Research, 55(1), 59–81. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJMR-2013-007
Klesges, L. M., Baranowski, T., Beech, B., Cullen, K., Murray, D. M., Rochon, J., and Pratt, C. (2004). Social desirability bias in self-reported dietary, physical activity and weight concerns measures in 8- to 10-year-old African-American girls: Results from the Girls health Enrichment Multisite Studies (GEMS). Preventive Medicine, 38(SUPPL.), 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2003.07.003
Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 213–236. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350050305
Krumpal, I. (2013). Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review. Quality and Quantity, 47(4), 2025–2047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9
Ladik, D. M., Carrillat, F. A., and Solomon, P. J. (2007). The effectiveness of University Sponsorship in Increasing Survey Response Rate. 16(3), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP
Larson, R. B. (2019). Controlling social desirability bias. International Journal of Market Research, 61(5), 534–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785318805305
Martin, C. L. (1994). The Impact of Topic Interest on Mail Survey Response Behaviour. Market Research Society. Journal., 36(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078539403600404
Näher, A. F., and Krumpal, I. (2012). Asking sensitive questions: The impact of forgiving wording and question context on social desirability bias. Quality and Quantity, 46(5), 1601–1616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9469-2
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and Control of Response Bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes (Third Revi, pp. 17–59). Academic Press, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-590241-0.50006-x
Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially Desirable Responding: The Evolution of a Construct. In H. I. Braun, D. N. Jackson, & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (Issue 2002, pp. 49–69). LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES Inc. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-195311720-00010
Smith, T. W. (1992). Discrepancies between men and women in reporting number of sexual partners: a summary from four countries. Social Biology, 39(3–4), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/19485565.1992.9988817
Smith, W. G. (2008). Does Gender Influence Online Survey Participation?: A record-linkage analysis of University Faculty Online Survey response Behavior. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 6(11), 951–952. http://www.websm.org/db/12/12527/rec/
Soubelet, A., and Salthouse, T. A. (2011). Influence of social desirability on age differences in self-reports of mood and personality. Journal of Personality, 79(4), 741–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00700.x
Stöber, J. (2001). The Social Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17): Convergent Validity, Discriminant Validity, and Relationship with Age. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17(3), 222–232. https://doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.17.3.222
Stocké, V., and Hunkler, C. (2007). Measures of desirability beliefs and their validity as indicators for socially desirable responding. Field Methods, 19(3), 313–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X07302102
Thapa, K., Bhandari, P. M., Neupane, D., Bhochhibhoya, S., Rajbhandari-Thapa, J., and Pathak, R. P. (2019). Physical activity and its correlates among higher secondary school students in an urban district of Nepal. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7230-2
Tourangeau, R., Groves, R. M., Kennedy, C., & Yan, T. (2009). The presentation of a web survey, Nonresponse and measurement error among members of web panel. Journal of Official Statistics, 25(3), 299–321. Erişim adresi: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285723463_The_Presentation_of_a_Web_Survey_Nonresponse_and_Measurement_Error_among_Members_of_Web_Panel
Tourangeau, R., and Smith, T. W. (1996). Asking sensitive questions: The impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60(2), 275–304. https://doi.org/10.1086/297751
Tourangeau, R., and Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive Questions in Surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133(5), 859–883. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.859
Underwood, D., Kim, H., and Matier, M. (2000). To mail or to web: Comparisons of survey response rates and respondent characteristics. Paper presented at the 40th Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Cincinnati, OH, May 21–24. 2000. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED446513
Ural, T., and Özbircikli, M. (2006). Is Ethical Judgement Influenced By Social Desirability in Responding? an Analyse on Turkish Accountants. Ç.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15(1), 393–410. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/cusosbil/issue/4373/59878
van de Mortel, T. F. (2008). Faking it: Social desirability response bias in selfreport research. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25(4), 40–48. https://researchportal.scu.edu.au/esploro/outputs/journalArticle/Faking-it-social-desirability-response-bias-in-self-report-research/991012821838002368
Vigil-Colet, A., Morales-Vives, F., and Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2013). How social desirability and acquiescence affect the age-personality relationship. Psicothema, 25(3), 342–348. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2012.297
Vogl, S. (2013). Telephone Versus face-to-face ınterviews: Mode effect on semistructured ınterviews with children. Sociological Methodology, 43(1), 133–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081175012465967

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

Türkçe

Konular

-

Bölüm

Araştırma Makalesi

Yazarlar

Abdirahman Saeed Mohamed Bu kişi benim
Türkiye

Tuğba Adalı Bu kişi benim
Türkiye

Yayımlanma Tarihi

28 Eylül 2022

Gönderilme Tarihi

7 Aralık 2021

Kabul Tarihi

19 Temmuz 2022

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 2022 Cilt: 22 Sayı: 3

DOI

https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.1181517

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA74BX65EB

Kaynak Göster

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Mohamed, A. S., & Adalı, T. (2022). A Relational Framework between Survey Topic, Sponsor, and Socially Desirable Responding: An Online Survey Experiment. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 22(3), 809-838. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.1181517

AMA

1.Mohamed AS, Adalı T. A Relational Framework between Survey Topic, Sponsor, and Socially Desirable Responding: An Online Survey Experiment. AÜSBD. 2022;22(3):809-838. doi:10.18037/ausbd.1181517

Chicago

Mohamed, Abdirahman Saeed, ve Tuğba Adalı. 2022. “A Relational Framework between Survey Topic, Sponsor, and Socially Desirable Responding: An Online Survey Experiment”. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 22 (3): 809-38. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.1181517.

EndNote

Mohamed AS, Adalı T (01 Eylül 2022) A Relational Framework between Survey Topic, Sponsor, and Socially Desirable Responding: An Online Survey Experiment. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 22 3 809–838.

IEEE

[1]A. S. Mohamed ve T. Adalı, “A Relational Framework between Survey Topic, Sponsor, and Socially Desirable Responding: An Online Survey Experiment”, AÜSBD, c. 22, sy 3, ss. 809–838, Eyl. 2022, doi: 10.18037/ausbd.1181517.

ISNAD

Mohamed, Abdirahman Saeed - Adalı, Tuğba. “A Relational Framework between Survey Topic, Sponsor, and Socially Desirable Responding: An Online Survey Experiment”. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 22/3 (01 Eylül 2022): 809-838. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.1181517.

JAMA

1.Mohamed AS, Adalı T. A Relational Framework between Survey Topic, Sponsor, and Socially Desirable Responding: An Online Survey Experiment. AÜSBD. 2022;22:809–838.

MLA

Mohamed, Abdirahman Saeed, ve Tuğba Adalı. “A Relational Framework between Survey Topic, Sponsor, and Socially Desirable Responding: An Online Survey Experiment”. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, c. 22, sy 3, Eylül 2022, ss. 809-38, doi:10.18037/ausbd.1181517.

Vancouver

1.Abdirahman Saeed Mohamed, Tuğba Adalı. A Relational Framework between Survey Topic, Sponsor, and Socially Desirable Responding: An Online Survey Experiment. AÜSBD. 01 Eylül 2022;22(3):809-38. doi:10.18037/ausbd.1181517

Cited By

Beyond the middle: rethinking midpoint and “no idea” options in Likert scale for consumer sensitive issues

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications

https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-07037-x