KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 22 Sayı: 3

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

Abdirahman Saeed Mohamed(HACETTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)
Tuğba Adalı(HACETTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)
Sayfa
809–838
Yayın Tarihi
2022-09-28
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Also, the tendency to SDR marginally differed by the perceived topic sensitivity.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Research in survey methodology indicates that survey attributes, such as topic and sponsor influence survey participation and data quality.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The findings showed that the tendency to SDR does not significantly differ by survey topic and sponsor.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Also, the tendency to SDR marginally differed by the perceived topic sensitivity.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Socially Desirable Responding · Survey Topic · Sponsor

Özet

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.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

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, Cilt: 22 Sayı: 3, 809–838. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.1181517

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (73)

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. Larson, R. B. (2019). Controlling social desirability bias. International Journal of Market Research, 61(5), 534–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785318805305
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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/
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. 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
  53. 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
  54. de Leeuw, E. D. de. (1992). Data Quality in Mail, Telephone, and Face to Face. Amsterdam: TT Publications. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED374136
  55. 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
  56. 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
  57. 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.
  58. 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
  59. 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
  60. 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
  61. 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/
  62. 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
  63. 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
  64. 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
  65. 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
  66. 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
  67. 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
  68. 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
  69. 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
  70. 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
  71. de Leeuw, E. D. de. (1992). Data Quality in Mail, Telephone, and Face to Face. Amsterdam: TT Publications. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED374136
  72. 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
  73. 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