lynx   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v58y2024i3d10.1007_s11135-023-01740-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Could vote buying be socially desirable? Exploratory analyses of a ‘failed’ list experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Sophia Hatz

    (Uppsala University)

  • Hanne Fjelde

    (Uppsala University)

  • David Randahl

    (Uppsala University)

Abstract
List experiments encourage survey respondents to report sensitive opinions they may prefer not to reveal. But, studies sometimes find that respondents admit more readily to sensitive opinions when asked directly. Often this over-reporting is viewed as a design failure, attributable to inattentiveness or other nonstrategic error. This paper conducts an exploratory analysis of such a ‘failed’ list experiment measuring vote buying in the 2019 Nigerian presidential election. We take this opportunity to explore our assumptions about vote buying. Although vote buying is illegal and stigmatized in many countries, a significant literature links such exchanges to patron-client networks that are imbued with trust, reciprocity and long-standing benefits, which might create incentives for individuals to claim having been offered to participate in vote buying. Submitting our data to a series of tests of design, we find that over-reporting is strategic: respondents intentionally reveal vote buying and it’s likely that those who reveal vote buying have in fact being offered to participate in vote buying. Considering reasons for over-reporting such as social desirability and network benefits, and the strategic nature of over-reporting, we suggest that “design failure" is not the only possible conclusion from unexpected list experiment results. With this paper we show that our theoretical assumptions about sensitivity bias affect the conclusions we can draw from a list experiment.

Suggested Citation

  • Sophia Hatz & Hanne Fjelde & David Randahl, 2024. "Could vote buying be socially desirable? Exploratory analyses of a ‘failed’ list experiment," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(3), pages 2337-2355, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:58:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s11135-023-01740-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-023-01740-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-023-01740-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-023-01740-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Belinda Archibong, 2018. "Historical origins of persistent inequality in Nigeria," Oxford Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(3), pages 325-347, July.
    2. Marc Höglinger & Ben Jann, 2018. "More is not always better: An experimental individual-level validation of the randomized response technique and the crosswise model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-22, August.
    3. Stokes, Susan C., 2005. "Perverse Accountability: A Formal Model of Machine Politics with Evidence from Argentina," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(3), pages 315-325, August.
    4. Blair, Graeme & Imai, Kosuke, 2012. "Statistical Analysis of List Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 47-77, January.
    5. Scott, James C., 1972. "Patron-Client Politics and Political Change in Southeast Asia," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 66(1), pages 91-113, March.
    6. Frederico Finan & Laura Schechter, 2012. "Vote‐Buying and Reciprocity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(2), pages 863-881, March.
    7. Ivar Krumpal, 2013. "Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 2025-2047, June.
    8. Imai, Kosuke, 2011. "Multivariate Regression Analysis for the Item Count Technique," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 106(494), pages 407-416.
    9. Sakariyau, Rauf Tunde & ALIU, Fatima Lawal & ADAMU, Muhammed, 2015. "The Phenomenon of Money Politics and Nigeria’s Democratization: An Exploration of the Fourth Republic," Journal of Social Economics Research, Conscientia Beam, vol. 2(1), pages 1-9.
    10. Ahlquist, John S., 2018. "List Experiment Design, Non-Strategic Respondent Error, and Item Count Technique Estimators," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(1), pages 34-53, January.
    11. Fisher, Robert J, 1993. "Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(2), pages 303-315, September.
    12. Blair, Graeme & Coppock, Alexander & Moor, Margaret, 2020. "When to Worry about Sensitivity Bias: A Social Reference Theory and Evidence from 30 Years of List Experiments," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 114(4), pages 1297-1315, November.
    13. S. Rinken & S. Pasadas-del-Amo & M. Rueda & B. Cobo, 2021. "No magic bullet: estimating anti-immigrant sentiment and social desirability bias with the item-count technique," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(6), pages 2139-2159, December.
    14. Riambau, Guillem & Ostwald, Kai, 2021. "Placebo statements in list experiments: Evidence from a face-to-face survey in Singapore," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 172-179, January.
    15. Blair, Graeme & Chou, Winston & Imai, Kosuke, 2019. "List Experiments with Measurement Error," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(4), pages 455-480, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. S. Rinken & S. Pasadas-del-Amo & M. Rueda & B. Cobo, 2021. "No magic bullet: estimating anti-immigrant sentiment and social desirability bias with the item-count technique," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(6), pages 2139-2159, December.
    2. Burgstaller, Lilith & Feld, Lars P. & Pfeil, Katharina, 2022. "Working in the shadow: Survey techniques for measuring and explaining undeclared work," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 661-671.
    3. Ezequiel Gonzalez-Ocantos & Chad Kiewiet de Jonge & Carlos Meléndez & David Nickerson & Javier Osorio, 2020. "Carrots and sticks: Experimental evidence of vote-buying and voter intimidation in Guatemala," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(1), pages 46-61, January.
    4. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina & Juan Felipe Riaño, 2018. "I Sell My Vote, and So What? Incidence, Social Bias, and Correlates of Clientelism in Colombia," Economía Journal, The Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association - LACEA, vol. 0(Fall 2018), pages 181-218, November.
    5. Heide M. Jackson & Michael S. Rendall, 2025. "Addressing Abortion Underreporting in Surveys with the List Experiment: Lifetime and Five-Year Abortion Incidence with Multivariate Estimation of Socio-Demographic Associations in Two U.S. States," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 44(1), pages 1-28, February.
    6. Garay, Candelaria & Palmer-Rubin, Brian & Poertner, Mathias, 2020. "Organizational and partisan brokerage of social benefits: Social policy linkages in Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    7. Ahmad, Syedah & Lensink, Robert & Mueller, Annika, 2023. "Religion, social desirability bias and financial inclusion: Evidence from a list experiment on Islamic (micro-)finance," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    8. Miquel Pellicer & Eva Wegner & Lindsay J. Benstead & Ellen Lust, 2021. "Poor people’s beliefs and the dynamics of clientelism," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 33(3), pages 300-332, July.
    9. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos A. Molina & James A. Robinson, 2022. "The Weak State Trap," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 89(354), pages 293-331, April.
    10. Chuang, Erica & Dupas, Pascaline & Huillery, Elise & Seban, Juliette, 2021. "Sex, lies, and measurement: Consistency tests for indirect response survey methods," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    11. Lépine, Aurélia & Treibich, Carole & D’Exelle, Ben, 2020. "Nothing but the truth: Consistency and efficiency of the list experiment method for the measurement of sensitive health behaviours," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    12. Lai, Yufeng & Boaitey, Albert & Minegishi, Kota, 2022. "Behind the veil: Social desirability bias and animal welfare ballot initiatives," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    13. Marco Gregori & Martijn G. Jong & Rik Pieters, 2024. "The Crosswise Model for Surveys on Sensitive Topics: A General Framework for Item Selection and Statistical Analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 89(3), pages 1007-1033, September.
    14. Henry Cust & Aurélia Lépine & Carole Treibich & Timothy Powell‐Jackson & Rosalba Radice & Cheikh Tidiane Ndour, 2024. "Trading HIV for sheep: Risky sexual behavior and the response of female sex workers to Tabaski in Senegal," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(1), pages 153-193, January.
    15. Carroll, Eamonn & Timmons, Shane & McGinnity, Frances, 2023. "Experimental tests of public support for disability policy," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number RS159.
    16. Anand Murugesan & Jean-Robert Tyran, 2023. "The Puzzling Practice of Paying “Cash for Votes”," CESifo Working Paper Series 10504, CESifo.
    17. David Boto‐García & Federico Perali, 2024. "The association between marital locus of control and break‐up intentions," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 83(1), pages 35-57, January.
    18. Lehmann, M. Christian & Matarazzo, Hellen, 2019. "Voters’ response to in-kind transfers: Quasi-experimental evidence from prescription drug cost-sharing in Brazil," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    19. Gustavo J. Bobonis & Paul J. Gertler & Marco Gonzalez-Navarro & Simeon Nichter, 2022. "Vulnerability and Clientelism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(11), pages 3627-3659, November.
    20. Bardhan, Pranab, 2022. "Clientelism and governance," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:58:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s11135-023-01740-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.
    Лучший частный хостинг