Advertisement

Die Anwendbarkeit des Crosswise-Modells zur Prüfung kultureller Unter schiede sozial erwünschten Antwortverhaltens

Implikationen für seinen Einsatz in internationalen Studien zu selbstberichteter Delinquenz
  • Dirk EnzmannEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Schriftenreihe der ASI - Arbeitsgemeinschaft Sozialwissenschaftlicher Institute book series (SASI)

Zusammenfassung

In kriminologischen Studien, in denen mittels standardisierter Befragungen Personen zu ihren eigenen Gesetzesverstößen befragt werden, ist damit zu rechnen, dass die Antworten von sozial erwünschtem Antwortverhalten beeinflusst sind. Unter sozial erwünschtem Antwortverhalten wird hier verstanden, dass die Befragten versuchen, in einer Weise zu antworten, von der sie glauben, dass sie damit einen günstigeren Eindruck machen bzw. keine negativen Konsequenzen erfahren werden („impression management“).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Afshartous, D., & Preston, R.A. (2010). Confidence intervals for dependent data: Equating non-overlap with statistical significance. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 54, 2296-2305.Google Scholar
  2. Beugelsdijk, S., Maseland, R., & van Hoorn, A. (2015). Are scores of Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture stable over time? A cohort analysis. Global Strategy Journal, 5, 223-240.Google Scholar
  3. Blair, G., Imai, K., & Zhou, Y.-Y. (2015). Design and analysis of the randomized response technique. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 110, 1304-1319.Google Scholar
  4. Chaudhouri, A., & Christofides, T.C. (2013). Indirect Questioning in Sample Surveys. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Cumming, G., & Finch, S. (2005). Inference by eye: Confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. American Psychologist, 60, 170-180.Google Scholar
  6. Enzmann, D. (2015). Kulturelle Unterschiede sozial erwünschten Antwortverhaltens: Implikationen für den Einsatz des Crosswise-Models in national vergleichenden Studien zu selbstberichteter Delinquenz (Vortrag auf der wissenschaftlichen Jahrestagung der ASI, 6. - 7.11.2016 in Köln).Google Scholar
  7. Enzmann, D., Marshall, I.H., Killias, M., Junger-Tas, M., Steketee, M., & Gruszczynska, B. (2010). Self-reported youth delinquency in Europe and beyond: First results of the Second International Self-Report Delinquency Study in the context of police and victimization data. European Journal of Criminology, 7, 159-183.Google Scholar
  8. Fox, J.A., & Tracy, P.E. (1986). Randomized Response: A Method for Sensitive Surveys. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  9. Gelman, A. (2008). Scaling regression coefficients by dividing by two standard deviations. Statistics in Medicine, 27, 2865-2873.Google Scholar
  10. Gottfredson, M.R. (2006). The empirical status of control theory in criminology. In F.T. Cullen, J.P. Wright & K. Blevins (Eds.), Taking Stock: The Status of Criminological Theory (pp. 77-100). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
  11. Gottfredson, M.R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Grasmick, H.G., Tittle, C.R., Bursik, R.J., & Arneklev, B.J. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 5-29.Google Scholar
  13. Hibell, B., Guttormsson, U., Ahlström, S., Balakireva, O., Bjarnson, T., Kokkevi, A., & Kraus, L. (2009). The 2007 ESPAD-Report: Substance Use Among Students in 35 European Countries. Stockholm: Swedish Council for Information on Alcohol and Other Drugs. http://www.espad.org/uploads/espad_reports/2007/the_2007_espad_report-full_091006.pdf. Zugegriffen: 30. Mai 2016.
  14. Höglinger, M., & Jann, B. (2016). More is Not Always Better: An Experimental Individual-Level Validation of the Randomized Response Technique and the Crosswise Model. (University of Bern Social Sciences Working Paper No. 18). https://ideas.repec.org/p/bss/wpaper/18.html. Zugegriffen: 22. Juli 2016.
  15. Höglinger, M., Jann, B., & Diekmann, A. (2014). Sensitive Questions in Online Surveys: An Experimental Evaluation of the Randomized Response Technique and the Crosswise Model. (University of Bern Social Sciences Working Paper No. 9). https://ideas.repec.org/p/bss/wpaper/9.html. Zugegriffen: 22. Juli 2016.
  16. Hoffmann, A. (2014). Indirekte Befragungstechniken zur Kontrolle sozialer Erwünschtheit in Umfragen (Dissertation). Düsseldorf: Heinrich-Heine Universität, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät.Google Scholar
  17. Hoffmann, A., Diedenhofen, B., Verschuere, B., & Musch, J. (2015). A strong validation of the crosswise model using experimentally-induced cheating behavior. Experimental Psychology, 62, 401-414.Google Scholar
  18. Hsieh, F.Y. (1989). Sample size tables for logistic regression. Statistics in Medicine, 8, 795-802.Google Scholar
  19. Hsieh, F.Y., Bloch, D.A., & Larsen, M.D. (1998). A simple method of sample size calculation for linear and logistic regression. Statistics in Medicine, 17, 1623-1634.Google Scholar
  20. ISRD3 Working Group (2013). Questionnaire ISRD3: Standard Student Questionnaire. (ISRD3 Technical Report Series #2). http://www.northeastern.edu/isrd/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ISRD3_TechRep_2.pdf. Zugegriffen: 22. Juli 2016.
  21. Jann, B. (2005). rrlogit: Stata Module to Estimate Logistic Regression for Randomized Response Data. http://www.ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s456203.html. Zugegriffen: 22. Juli 2016.
  22. Jann, B., Jerke, J., & Krumpal, I. (2012). Asking sensitive questions using the crosswise model. An experimental survey measuring plagiarism. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 32-49.Google Scholar
  23. Johnson, T.P., & van de Vijver, F.J.R. (2003). Social desirability in crosscultural research. In J.A. Harkness, F.J.R. van de Vijver, & P.P. Mohler (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Survey Methods (pp. 195-204). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Junger-Tas, J., & Marshall, I.H. (2012). Introduction to the International Self-Report Study of Delinquency (ISRD-2). In J. Junger-Tas, I.H. Marshall, D. Enzmann, M. Killias, M. Steketee, & B. Gruszczyńska (Eds.), The Many Faces of Youth Crime: Contrasting Theoretical Perspectives on Juvenile Delinquency across Countries and Cultures (pp. 3-20). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Krosnick, J.A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537-567.Google Scholar
  26. Krumpal, I., Jann, B., Auspurg, K., & von Hermanni, H. (2015). Asking sensitive questions: A critical account of the randomized response technique and related methods. In U. Engel, B. Jann, P. Lynn, A. Scherpenzeel, & P. Sturgis (Eds.), Improving Survey Methods: Lessons from Recent Research (pp. 122-136). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Lalwani, A.K., Shavitt, S. & Johnson, T. (2006). What is the relation between cultural orientation and socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 165-178.Google Scholar
  28. Lensfeld-Mulders, G.J.L.M., Hox, J.J., van der Heijden, P.G.M., & Maas, C.J.M. (2005). Meta-analysis of randomized response research: Thirtyfive years of validation. Sociological Methods & Research, 33, 319-348.Google Scholar
  29. Marshall, I.H., Enzmann, D., Hough, M., Killias, M., Kivivuori, J., & Steketee, M. (2013). International Self-Report Delinquency Questionnaire 3 (ISRD-3): Background Paper to Explain ISRD2-ISRD3 Changes. (ISRD3 Technical Report Series #1). http://www.northeastern.edu/isrd/wpcontent/uploads/2016/01/ISRD3_TechRep_1.pdf, Zugegriffen: 22. Juli 2016.
  30. Messner, S.F., & Rosenfeld, R. (2001). Crime and the American Dream. Belmont, CA (3rd ed.): Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  31. Mneimneh, Z.M., Tourangeau, R., Pennell, B.-E., Heeringa, S.G., & Elliott, M.R. (2015). Cultural variations in the effect of interview privacy and the need for social conformity on reporting sensitive information. Journal of Official Statistics, 31, 673-697.Google Scholar
  32. Mood, C. (2010). Logistic regression: Why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it. European Sociological Review, 26, 67-82.Google Scholar
  33. Pratt, T.C., & Cullen, F.T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931-964.Google Scholar
  34. Röschova, M. (2014). Crosswise model in a delinquency survey: How guessing answers interferes in prevalence estimates (Paper presented at the 14th Annual Conference of the ESC, Prague, 10-13 September 2014).Google Scholar
  35. Ross, C.E., & Mirowsky, J. (1984). Socially-desirable response and acquiescence in a cross-cultural study of mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 25, 189-197.Google Scholar
  36. Thornberry, T.P., & Krohn, M.D. (2000). The self-report method for measuring delinquency and crime. In R.D. Duffee, R.D. Crutchfield, S. Mastrofski, & L. Mazerolle (Eds.), Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice (pp. 33-83). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  37. Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 859-883.Google Scholar
  38. Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism. Bolder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  39. Tyler, T.R. (2006). Why People Obey the Law. Princeton, NJ (2nd ed.): Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Ulrich, R., Schröter, H., Striegel, H. & Simon, P. (2012). Asking sensitive questions: A statistical power analysis of randomized response models. Psychological Methods, 17, 623-641.Google Scholar
  41. United Nations Development Programme (2015). Human Development Data 2015. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2015_statistical_annex_tables_all.xls. Zugegriffen: 22. Juli 2016.
  42. Van der Heijden, P.G.M., van Gils, G., Bouts, J., & Hox, J. (2000). A comparison of randomized response, computer-assisted self-interview, and face-to-face questioning: Eliciting sensitive information in the context of welfare and unemployment benefit. Sociological Methods and Research, 28, 505-537.Google Scholar
  43. Van Hemert, D.A., van de Vijver, F.J.R., Poortinga, Y.H., & Georgas, J. (2002). Structural and functional equivalence of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire within and between countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 1229-1249.Google Scholar
  44. Walzenbach, S., & Hinz, T. (2015). Pouring Water Into the Wine: The Advantages of the Crosswise Model Asking Sensitive Questions Revisited (Paper presented at the 6th Conference of the European Survey Research Association, Reykjavík, Iceland, July 13-17, 2015).Google Scholar
  45. Warner, S.L. (1965). Randomized response: A survey technique for eliminating evasive answers. American Statistical Association Journal, 60, 63-69.Google Scholar
  46. Wikström, P.-O.H., & Butterworth, D.A. (2006). Adolescent Crime: Individual Differences and Lifestyles. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  47. Wikström, P.-O.H., Oberwittler, D., Treiber, K., & Hardie, B. (2012). Breaking Rules: The Social and Situational Dynamics of Young People’s Urban Crime. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Wolter, F., & Preisendörfer, P. (2013). Asking sensitive questions: An evaluation of the randomized response technique versus direct questioning using individual validation data. Sociological Methods & Research, 42, 321-353.Google Scholar
  49. Yu, J.-W., Tian, G.-L., & Tang, M.-L. (2008). Two new models for survey sampling with sensitive characteristic: Design and analysis. Metrika, 67, 251-263.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität HamburgHamburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations