Differences between 'talking about' and 'admitting' sensitive behaviour in anonymous and non-anonymous web-based interviews

Computers in Human Behavior

Volumn 21, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 993-1003

  Mühlenfeld, Hans Ullrich ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BREMEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Anonymity; Computer mediated communication; Desktop video conference; Social desirability

Indexed keywords

COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; INFORMATION ANALYSIS; ONLINE SYSTEMS; PROBLEM SOLVING; VIDEO CONFERENCING; WORLD WIDE WEB;

ANONYMITY; COMPUTER MEDIATED COMMUNICATION; DESKTOP VIDEO CONFERENCE; SOCIAL DESIRABILITY;

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

EID: 14644402485     PISSN: 07475632     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2004.02.023     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Bradburn N.M., Sudman S., Blair E., Stocking C. Question threat and response bias. Public Opinion Quarterly. 42:1978;221-234
2. Buchanan, T., Joinson, A., & Tarick, A. (2002). Development of a behavioural measure of self-disclosure for use in ONLINE research. Presentation at the GOR 2002, Hohenheim
3. Dillman D.A. Mail and telephone surveys. The Total Design Method. 1978;John Wiley and Sons, New York
4. Hallemann M. Peinlichkeit und öffentliche Meinung. Publizistik. 31:1986;249-261
5. Joinson A.N. Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication. The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology. 31:2001;177-192
6. Krebs, D. (1991). Was ist sozial erwünscht? Der Grad sozialer erwünschtheit von Einstellungsitems. Mannheim.
7. Paulhus D.L. Two-component models of social desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 46(3):1984;598-609
8. Peiser, W. (2002). Anwesenheitseffekte als Indikator sozial erwünschten Antwortverhaltens im Interview. Eine Untersuchung der Verzerrung von Angaben zur Mediennutzung. Presentation at the meeting of the Methodensektion der DGPuK, Mainz.
9. Peterson R.A. On the use of college students in social science research. Insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research. 28:2001;450-461
10. Sudman S., Bradburn N.M. Response effects in surveys. A review and synthesis. 1974;Aldine, Chicago
11. Tourangeau, R., Couper, M. P., & Steiger, D. M. (2003). Humanizing self-administered surveys. Experiments on social presence in web and IVR surveys. Computers in Human Behavior [in press]
12. Turner, C. F., Forsyth, B. H., O'Reily, J. M., Cooley, P. C., Smith, T. K., Rogers, S. M., & Miller, H. G. (1998). Automated self-interviewing and the survey measurement of sensitive behaviors. In: M. P. Couper, R. P. Baker, J. Bethlehem, C. Z. F. Clark, J. Martin, W. L. Nichools II, & J. M. O'Reilly (Eds.), Computer assisted survey information collection (pp. 455-473). New York: Wiley
13. Turner C.F., Ku L., Rogers S.M., Lindberg P.D., Pleck J.H., Sonenstein F.L. Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence. increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science. 280:1998;867-873
14. Van Koolwijk J. Unangenehme Fragen. Paradigma für die Reaktionen des Befragten im Interview. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. 21:1969;864-875