Nothing but the truth? Effects of faking on the validity of the crosswise model.

In self-reports, socially desirable responding threatens the validity of prevalence estimates for sensitive personal attitudes and behaviors. Indirect questioning techniques such as the crosswise model attempt to control for the influence of social desirability bias. The crosswise model has repeated...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Adrian Hoffmann, Julia Meisters, Jochen Musch
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2021
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/3a0ab39125074417a993daa700387028
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:3a0ab39125074417a993daa700387028
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:3a0ab39125074417a993daa7003870282021-12-02T20:16:26ZNothing but the truth? Effects of faking on the validity of the crosswise model.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0258603https://doaj.org/article/3a0ab39125074417a993daa7003870282021-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258603https://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203In self-reports, socially desirable responding threatens the validity of prevalence estimates for sensitive personal attitudes and behaviors. Indirect questioning techniques such as the crosswise model attempt to control for the influence of social desirability bias. The crosswise model has repeatedly been found to provide more valid prevalence estimates than direct questions. We investigated whether crosswise model estimates are also less susceptible to deliberate faking than direct questions. To this end, we investigated the effect of "fake good" instructions on responses to direct and crosswise model questions. In a sample of 1,946 university students, 12-month prevalence estimates for a sensitive road traffic behavior were higher and thus presumably more valid in the crosswise model than in a direct question. Moreover, "fake good" instructions severely impaired the validity of the direct questioning estimates, whereas the crosswise model estimates were unaffected by deliberate faking. Participants also reported higher levels of perceived confidentiality and a lower perceived ease of faking in the crosswise model compared to direct questions. Our results corroborate previous studies finding the crosswise model to be an effective tool for counteracting the detrimental effects of positive self-presentation in surveys on sensitive issues.Adrian HoffmannJulia MeistersJochen MuschPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 16, Iss 10, p e0258603 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Adrian Hoffmann Julia Meisters Jochen Musch Nothing but the truth? Effects of faking on the validity of the crosswise model.
description	In self-reports, socially desirable responding threatens the validity of prevalence estimates for sensitive personal attitudes and behaviors. Indirect questioning techniques such as the crosswise model attempt to control for the influence of social desirability bias. The crosswise model has repeatedly been found to provide more valid prevalence estimates than direct questions. We investigated whether crosswise model estimates are also less susceptible to deliberate faking than direct questions. To this end, we investigated the effect of "fake good" instructions on responses to direct and crosswise model questions. In a sample of 1,946 university students, 12-month prevalence estimates for a sensitive road traffic behavior were higher and thus presumably more valid in the crosswise model than in a direct question. Moreover, "fake good" instructions severely impaired the validity of the direct questioning estimates, whereas the crosswise model estimates were unaffected by deliberate faking. Participants also reported higher levels of perceived confidentiality and a lower perceived ease of faking in the crosswise model compared to direct questions. Our results corroborate previous studies finding the crosswise model to be an effective tool for counteracting the detrimental effects of positive self-presentation in surveys on sensitive issues.
format	article
author	Adrian Hoffmann Julia Meisters Jochen Musch
author_facet	Adrian Hoffmann Julia Meisters Jochen Musch
author_sort	Adrian Hoffmann
title	Nothing but the truth? Effects of faking on the validity of the crosswise model.
title_short	Nothing but the truth? Effects of faking on the validity of the crosswise model.
title_full	Nothing but the truth? Effects of faking on the validity of the crosswise model.
title_fullStr	Nothing but the truth? Effects of faking on the validity of the crosswise model.
title_full_unstemmed	Nothing but the truth? Effects of faking on the validity of the crosswise model.
title_sort	nothing but the truth? effects of faking on the validity of the crosswise model.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/3a0ab39125074417a993daa700387028
work_keys_str_mv	AT adrianhoffmann nothingbutthetrutheffectsoffakingonthevalidityofthecrosswisemodel AT juliameisters nothingbutthetrutheffectsoffakingonthevalidityofthecrosswisemodel AT jochenmusch nothingbutthetrutheffectsoffakingonthevalidityofthecrosswisemodel
_version_	1718374462543364096

Nothing but the truth? Effects of faking on the validity of the crosswise model.

Ejemplares similares