332:
accurately their true attitudes and desires. While this can raise ethical questions surrounding deception in psychological research, this technique quickly became widely popular in the 1970s. However, by the 1990s the use of this technique began to wane. Interested in this change, Roese and
Jamison (1993) took twenty years of research to do a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of the Bogus pipeline technique in reducing social desirability bias. They concluded that while the Bogus pipeline technique was significantly effective, it had perhaps become less used simply because it went out of fashion, or became cumbersome for researchers to use regularly. However, Roese and Jamison argued that there are simple adjustments that can be made to this technique to make it more user-friendly for researchers.
265:
ballot and does not have access to the lock on the box, providing obscurity to the responses and limiting the potential for SDB. However, a unique control number on each ballot allows the answers to be reunited with a corresponding questionnaire that contains less sensitive questions. The BBM has been used successfully to obtain estimates of sensitive sexual behaviours during an HIV prevention study, as well as illegal environmental resource use. In a validation study where observed behaviour was matched to reported behaviour using various SDB control methods, the BBM was by far the most accurate bias reduction method, performing significantly better than the
Randomized Response Technique (RRT).
172:
probability that a subsequent group of people will endorse these trait self-descriptions. In his first demonstration of this pattern, the correlation between one group of college students’ social desirability ratings of a set of traits and the probability that college students in a second group would endorse self-descriptions describing the same traits was so high that it could distort the meaning of the personality traits. In other words, do these self-descriptions describe personality traits or social desirability?
278:
comes up tails. This enables the researcher to estimate the actual prevalence of the given behavior among the study population without needing to know the true state of any one individual respondent. Research shows that the validity of the randomized response technique is limited. Validation research has shown that the RRT actually performs worse than direct questioning for some sensitive behaviours and care should be taken when considering its use.
187:
In some cases, the entire questionnaire package from high scoring respondents may simply be discarded. Alternatively, respondents' answers on the primary questionnaires may be statistically adjusted commensurate with their SDR tendencies. For example, this adjustment is performed automatically in the
183:
When SDR cannot be eliminated, researchers may resort to evaluating the tendency and then control for it. A separate SDR measure must be administered together with the primary measure (test or interview) aimed at the subject matter of the research/investigation. The key assumption is that respondents
319:
These methods ask participants to select one response based on two or more questions, only one of which is sensitive. For example, a participant will be asked whether their birth year is even and whether they have performed an illegal activity; if yes to both or no to both, to select A, and if yes
302:
technique asks respondents to indicate how many of a list of several items they have done or are true for them. Respondents are randomized to receive either a list of non-sensitive items or that same list plus the sensitive item of interest. Differences in the total number of items between the two
286:
The nominative technique asks a participant about the behavior of their close friends, rather than about their own behavior. Participants are asked how many close friends they know have done for certain a sensitive behavior and how many other people they think know about that behavior. Population
277:
asks a participant to respond with a fixed answer or to answer truthfully based on the outcome of a random act. For example, respondents secretly throw a coin and respond "yes" if it comes up heads (regardless of their actual response to the question), and are instructed to respond truthfully if it
331:
techniques are those in which a participant believes that an objective test, like a lie detector, will be used along with survey response, whether or not that test or procedure is actually used. Researches using this technique must convince the participants that there is a machine that can measure
235:
Anonymous survey administration, compared with in-person or phone-based administration, has been shown to elicit higher reporting of items with social-desirability bias. In anonymous survey settings, the subject is assured that their responses will not be linked to them, and they are not asked to
179:
The fact that people differ in their tendency to engage in socially desirable responding (SDR) is a special concern to those measuring individual differences with self-reports. Individual differences in SDR make it difficult to distinguish those people with good traits who are responding factually
175:
Edwards subsequently developed the first Social
Desirability Scale, a set of 39, true-false questions extracted from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), questions that judges could, with high agreement, order according to their social desirability. These items were subsequently
72:
it, e.g. "I only smoke marijuana when my friends are around." The bias can also influence reports of number of sexual partners. In fact, the bias may operate in opposite directions for different subgroups: Whereas men tend to inflate the numbers, women tend to underestimate theirs. In either case,
264:
The Ballot Box Method (BBM) provides survey respondents anonymity by allowing them to respond in private by self-completing their responses to the sensitive survey questions on a secret ballot and submitting them to a locked box. The interviewer has no knowledge of what is recorded on the secret
243:
Confidentiality can be established in non-anonymous settings by ensuring that only study staff are present and by maintaining data confidentiality after surveys are complete. Including assurances of data confidentiality in surveys has a mixed effect on sensitive-question response; it may either
191:
The major concern with SDR scales is that they confound style with content. After all, people actually differ in the degree to which they possess desirable traits (e.g. nuns versus criminals). Consequently, measures of social desirability confound true differences with social-desirability bias.
171:
In 1953, Allen L. Edwards introduced the notion of social desirability to psychology, demonstrating the role of social desirability in the measurement of personality traits. He demonstrated that social desirability ratings of personality trait descriptions are very highly correlated with the
346:
These kinds of response styles differ from social-desirability bias in that they are unrelated to the question's content and may be present in both socially neutral and in socially favorable or unfavorable contexts, whereas SDR is, by definition, tied to the latter.
35:
respondents to answer questions in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others. It can take the form of over-reporting "good behavior" or under-reporting "bad", or undesirable behavior. The tendency poses a serious problem with conducting research with
340:"Extreme-response style" (ERS) takes the form of exaggerated-extremity preference, e.g. for '1' or '7' on 7-point scales. Its converse, 'moderacy bias' entails a preference for middle-range (or midpoint) responses (e.g. 3–5 on 7-point scales).
1431:
Droitcour, Judith; Caspar, Rachel A.; Hubbard, Michael L.; Parsley, Teresa L.; Visscher, Wendy; Ezzati, Trena M. (2011), "The Item Count
Technique as a Method of Indirect Questioning: A Review of Its Development and a Case Study Application",
252:
Several techniques have been established to reduce bias when asking questions sensitive to social desirability. Complex question techniques may reduce social-desirability bias, but may also be confusing or misunderstood by respondents.
236:
divulge sensitive information directly to a surveyor. Anonymity can be established through self-administration of paper surveys returned by envelope, mail, or ballot boxes, or self-administration of electronic survey via
320:
to one but no to the other, select B. By combining sensitive and non-sensitive questions, the participant's response to the sensitive item is masked. Research shows that the validity of the crosswise model is limited.
56:
against masturbation, and either under-report the frequency or avoid answering the question. Therefore, the mean rates of masturbation derived from self-report surveys are likely to be severely underestimated.
48:
Topics where socially desirable responding (SDR) is of special concern are self-reports of abilities, personality, sexual behavior, and drug use. When confronted with the question "How often do you
204:. The original version comprised 33 True-False items. A shortened version, the Strahan–Gerbasi only comprises ten items, but some have raised questions regarding the reliability of this measure.
311:
The grouped-answer method, also known as the two-card or three-card method, combines answer choices such that the sensitive response is combined with at least one non-sensitive response option.
176:
found to be very highly correlated with a wide range of measurement scales, MMPI personality and diagnostic scales. The SDS is also highly correlated with the Beck
Hopelessness Inventory.
211:
published the
Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR): a questionnaire designed to measure two forms of SDR. This forty-item instrument provides separate subscales for "
1313:
John, Leslie K.; Loewenstein, George; Acquisti, Alessandro; Vosgerau, Joachim (September 2018). "When and why randomized response techniques (fail to) elicit the truth".
703:
1568:
Roese, N. J., & Jamieson, D. W. (1993). Twenty years of bogus pipeline research: A critical review and meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 114(2), 363–375.
1219:"Limitations of the random response technique and a call to implement the ballot box method for estimating recreational angler compliance using surveys"
1349:
642:
Brian, Duff; Hanmer, Michael J.; Park, Won-Ho; White, Ismail K. (2007). "Good
Excuses: Understanding Who Votes With An Improved Turnout Question".
1499:
Yu, Jun-Wu; Tian, Guo-Liang; Tang, Man-Lai (2007-04-18). "Two new models for survey sampling with sensitive characteristic: design and analysis".
925:
Thompson, Edmund R.; Phua, Florence T. T. (2005). "Reliability among Senior
Managers of the Marlowe–Crowne Short-Form Social Desirability Scale".
2197:
219:, the tendency to give honest but inflated self-descriptions. The commercial version of the BIDR is called the "Paulhus Deception Scales (PDS)."
2172:
201:
785:
Edwards, Allen (1953). "The relationship between the judged desirability of a trait and the probability that the trait will be endorsed".
240:, smartphone, or tablet. Audio-assisted electronic surveys have also been established for low-literacy or non-literate study subjects.
1464:
Droitcour, Judith A.; Larson, Eric M. (2016-07-22). "An
Innovative Technique for Asking Sensitive Questions: the Three-Card Method".
1534:
Schnapp, Patrick (2019). "Sensitive Question Techniques and Careless Responding: Adjusting the Crosswise Model for Random Answers".
607:
Presser, Stanley; Stinson, Linda (1998). "Data Collection Mode and Social Desirability Bias in Self-Reported Religious Attendance".
2202:
343:"Acquiescence" (ARS) is the tendency to respond to items with agreement/affirmation independent of their content ("yea"-saying).
237:
184:
who answer in a socially desirable manner on that scale are also responding desirably to all self-reports throughout the study.
1264:
Arias, Melissa; Hinsley, Amy; Nogales-Ascarrunz, Paola; Negroes, Nuno; Glikman, Jenny Anne; Milner-Gulland, E. J. (July 2021).
60:
When confronted with the question, "Do you use drugs/illicit substances?" the respondent may be influenced by the fact that
521:
Stuart, Gretchen S.; Grimes, David A. (2009). "Social desirability bias in family planning studies: A neglected problem".
1449:
994:
1599:
2274:
2192:
2002:
882:
Crowne, Douglas P.; Marlowe, David (1960). "A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology".
847:
Linehan, Marsha (1981). "Assessment of suicide ideation and parasuicide: Hopelessness and social desirability".
704:"How to survey about electoral turnout? The efficacy of the face-saving response items in 19 different contexts"
2121:
2007:
1661:
357:
256:
Beyond specific techniques, social-desirability bias may be reduced by neutral question and prompt wording.
1656:
222:
Scales designed to tap response styles are available in all major languages, including Italian and German.
69:
2315:
2310:
1779:
40:. This bias interferes with the interpretation of average tendencies as well as individual differences.
2305:
2115:
1641:
1218:
2295:
2245:
1969:
1769:
1747:
1121:
1020:
244:
increase response due to increased trust, or decrease response by increasing suspicion and concern.
2269:
2182:
1829:
1809:
1705:
377:
959:
Paulhus, D.L. (1991). Measurement and control of response biases. In J.P. Robinson et al. (Eds.),
387:
367:
290:
The similar best-friend methodology asks the participant about the behavior of one best friend.
2255:
1939:
1919:
1700:
1678:
1116:
1265:
1064:
Nederhof, Anton J. (1985-07-01). "Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review".
2034:
1949:
1924:
1869:
412:
212:
1217:
Bova, Christopher S.; Aswani, Shankar; Farthing, Matthew W.; Potts, Warren M. (2018-12-01).
702:
Morin-Chassé, Alexandre; Bol, Damien; Stephenson, Laura B.; Labbé St-Vincent, Simon (2017).
303:
groups indicate how many of those in the group receiving the sensitive item said yes to it.
1987:
1839:
1715:
1592:
1277:
61:
73:
the mean reports from both groups are likely to be distorted by social desirability bias.
8:
2300:
2142:
2059:
1959:
1894:
1834:
1824:
1819:
1683:
432:
417:
274:
200:
Until the 1990s, the most commonly used measure of socially desirable responding was the
1281:
534:
2039:
2024:
1784:
1774:
1757:
1551:
1516:
1481:
1408:
1383:
1330:
1246:
1142:
1043:
942:
907:
767:
726:
624:
584:
557:
485:
372:
32:
80:
Self-reported personality traits will correlate strongly with social desirability bias
2152:
2089:
2074:
1997:
1979:
1914:
1710:
1626:
1520:
1445:
1413:
1364:
1295:
1238:
1192:
1184:
1180:
1134:
990:
987:
DesiderabilitĂ Sociale e Acquiescenza. Alcune Trappole delle Inchieste e dei Sondaggi
946:
899:
864:
829:
771:
730:
589:
538:
489:
427:
402:
208:
37:
1555:
1485:
1334:
1250:
1047:
466:"Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review"
2219:
2079:
2019:
1944:
1929:
1789:
1742:
1651:
1646:
1631:
1543:
1508:
1473:
1437:
1403:
1395:
1322:
1285:
1230:
1176:
1164:
1146:
1126:
1073:
1035:
934:
911:
891:
856:
821:
794:
757:
718:
682:
651:
616:
579:
569:
530:
477:
97:
1234:
1039:
2187:
2177:
1954:
1934:
1849:
1752:
1727:
1722:
1695:
1673:
1585:
1384:"Best-Friend Reports: A Tool for Measuring the Prevalence of Sensitive Behaviors"
1266:"Prevalence and characteristics of illegal jaguar trade in north-western Bolivia"
422:
407:
397:
299:
106:
20:
1326:
1130:
68:, are generally illegal. Respondents may feel pressured to deny any drug use or
2229:
2224:
2214:
2137:
2054:
2014:
1964:
1909:
1899:
1884:
1879:
1844:
1799:
1764:
1668:
1617:
1477:
1441:
860:
382:
362:
328:
110:
1569:
1512:
938:
574:
481:
128:, either inflated or, if denied, done so with a fear of other party's judgment
2289:
2167:
2147:
2110:
2084:
2069:
2049:
2029:
1992:
1904:
1864:
1859:
1854:
1732:
1636:
1399:
1299:
1242:
1188:
671:"Experiments to reduce the over-reporting of voting: A pipeline to the truth"
392:
160:
28:
1077:
2127:
1889:
1874:
1417:
1196:
1163:
Lewis, James JC; Ronsmans, Carine; Ezeh, Alex; Gregson, Simon (June 2004).
1138:
903:
833:
593:
542:
49:
1466:
Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de MĂ©thodologie Sociologique
1368:
868:
166:
2044:
1814:
1804:
1794:
1690:
1547:
722:
701:
687:
670:
655:
91:
1350:"The nominative technique: a new method of estimating heroin prevalence"
314:
2162:
2157:
2132:
762:
745:
628:
508:
The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research
215:," the tendency to give inflated self-descriptions to an audience; and
135:
125:
2250:
1737:
1290:
895:
825:
798:
76:
Other topics that are sensitive to social-desirability bias include:
65:
1263:
620:
2209:
2094:
148:
119:
114:
1107:
Tourangeau, R.; Yan, T. (2007). "Sensitive questions in surveys".
1165:"The population impact of HIV on fertility in sub-Saharan Africa"
131:
669:
Hanmer, Michael J.; Banks, Antoine J.; White, Ismail K. (2013).
225:
1312:
465:
84:
100:
functions, often approached uncomfortably, if discussed at all
1430:
180:
from those distorting their answers in a positive direction.
53:
43:
812:
Fordyce, William (1956). "Social desirability in the MMPI".
746:"How to Survey About Electoral Turnout? Additional Evidence"
87:
and earnings, often inflated when low and deflated when high
1608:
961:
Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes
103:
Compliance with medicinal-dosing schedules, often inflated
52:?," for example, respondents may be pressured by a social
1577:
287:
estimates of behaviors can be derived from the response.
1162:
281:
1216:
167:
Individual differences in socially desirable responding
195:
154:
Indicators of charity or "benevolence," often inflated
138:, often denied, even if it exists within the responder
315:
Crosswise, triangular, and hidden-sensitivity methods
247:
1315:
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
641:
558:"Novel approaches to estimating abortion incidence"
1381:
122:, often either avoided or uncomfortably approached
268:
2287:
1436:, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 185–210,
1382:Yeatman, Sara; Trinitapoli, Jenny (2011-09-01).
976:is published by Multi-Health Systems of Toronto.
668:
230:
144:Physical appearance, either inflated or deflated
1463:
953:
606:
1593:
1106:
881:
849:Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
459:
457:
455:
453:
451:
449:
226:Techniques to reduce social-desirability bias
16:Response bias exhibited by survey respondents
1028:European Journal of Psychological Assessment
924:
743:
556:Sedgh, Gilda; Keogh, Sarah C. (2019-04-18).
520:
293:
1570:https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.2.363
1021:"The Social Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17)"
2256:Heuristics in judgment and decision-making
1600:
1586:
1498:
1007:La ricerca sociale: metodologia e tecniche
555:
446:
44:Topics subject to social-desirability bias
1407:
1289:
1120:
1094:. Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, California.
1084:
761:
750:Journal of Experimental Political Science
686:
583:
573:
141:Intellectual achievements, often inflated
1063:
999:
335:
306:
202:Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale
1533:
979:
966:
846:
811:
784:
505:
463:
2288:
1347:
1018:
1012:
989:. LED Edizioni Universitarie, Torino.
875:
711:Political Science Research and Methods
1581:
1212:
1210:
1208:
1206:
1158:
1156:
1102:
1100:
1066:European Journal of Social Psychology
1059:
1057:
282:Nominative and best-friend techniques
501:
499:
259:
535:10.1016/j.contraception.2009.02.009
196:Standard measures of individual SDR
64:, including the more commonly used
13:
1203:
1153:
1097:
1054:
927:Journal of Business and Psychology
248:Specialized questioning techniques
147:Acts of real or imagined physical
94:and/or powerlessness, often denied
14:
2327:
1388:American Journal of Public Health
1270:Conservation Science and Practice
496:
323:
188:standard scoring of MMPI scales.
1181:10.1097/00002030-200406002-00005
1009:. Vol. I-IV. Il Mulino, Bologna.
884:Journal of Consulting Psychology
814:Journal of Consulting Psychology
744:Morin-Chassé, Alexandre (2018).
1562:
1527:
1492:
1457:
1424:
1375:
1341:
1306:
1257:
918:
840:
805:
778:
974:Paulhus Deception Scales (PDS)
737:
695:
662:
635:
600:
549:
514:
269:Randomized response techniques
1:
1434:Measurement Errors in Surveys
1235:10.1016/j.fishres.2018.06.017
787:Journal of Applied Psychology
510:. New York: The Dryden Press.
439:
358:Biased random walk on a graph
275:randomized response technique
231:Anonymity and confidentiality
609:American Sociological Review
7:
2122:DĂ©formation professionnelle
1327:10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.07.004
1131:10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.859
1040:10.1027//1015-5759.17.3.222
963:. San Diego: Academic Press
350:
10:
2332:
2116:Basking in reflected glory
1607:
1478:10.1177/075910630207500103
1442:10.1002/9781118150382.ch11
861:10.1037/0022-006X.49.5.773
217:self-deceptive enhancement
157:Illegal acts, often denied
2264:
2246:Cognitive bias mitigation
2238:
2103:
1978:
1615:
1513:10.1007/s00184-007-0131-x
1175:(Supplement 2): S35–S43.
939:10.1007/s10869-005-4524-4
575:10.1186/s12978-019-0702-0
482:10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9
294:Unmatched-count technique
1830:Illusion of transparency
1400:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300194
1019:Stöber, Joachim (2001).
644:Public Opinion Quarterly
378:Preference falsification
31:that is the tendency of
25:social-desirability bias
1536:Methods, Data, Analyses
1357:NIDA Research Monograph
1078:10.1002/ejsp.2420150303
506:Edwards, Allen (1957).
388:Reactivity (psychology)
368:Knowledge falsification
21:social science research
1109:Psychological Bulletin
1090:McBurney D.H., (1994)
470:Quality & Quantity
464:Krumpal, Ivar (2013).
2198:Arab–Israeli conflict
1925:Social influence bias
1870:Out-group homogeneity
1348:Miller, J.D. (1985).
972:Paulhus D.L., (1998)
413:Social influence bias
336:Other response styles
307:Grouped-answer method
213:impression management
62:controlled substances
1840:Mere-exposure effect
1770:Extrinsic incentives
1716:Selective perception
1548:10.12758/mda.2019.03
1005:Corbetta P., (2003)
723:10.1017/psrm.2016.31
2065:Social desirability
1960:von Restorff effect
1835:Mean world syndrome
1810:Hostile attribution
1282:2021ConSP...3E.444A
985:Roccato M., (2003)
562:Reproductive Health
433:Watching-eye effect
109:, including use of
2316:Survey methodology
2311:Popular psychology
1980:Statistical biases
1758:Curse of knowledge
1223:Fisheries Research
763:10.1017/XPS.2018.1
688:10.1093/pan/mpt027
675:Political Analysis
656:10.1093/poq/nfl045
373:Moralistic fallacy
2306:Experimental bias
2283:
2282:
1920:Social comparison
1701:Choice-supportive
428:Virtue signalling
418:Social media bias
403:Self-report study
260:Ballot Box Method
209:Delroy L. Paulhus
2323:
2296:Social influence
2080:Systematic error
2035:Omitted-variable
1950:Trait ascription
1790:Frog pond effect
1618:Cognitive biases
1602:
1595:
1588:
1579:
1578:
1572:
1566:
1560:
1559:
1531:
1525:
1524:
1496:
1490:
1489:
1461:
1455:
1454:
1428:
1422:
1421:
1411:
1394:(9): 1666–1667.
1379:
1373:
1372:
1354:
1345:
1339:
1338:
1310:
1304:
1303:
1293:
1291:10.1111/csp2.444
1261:
1255:
1254:
1214:
1201:
1200:
1160:
1151:
1150:
1124:
1104:
1095:
1092:Research Methods
1088:
1082:
1081:
1061:
1052:
1051:
1025:
1016:
1010:
1003:
997:
983:
977:
970:
964:
957:
951:
950:
922:
916:
915:
896:10.1037/h0047358
879:
873:
872:
844:
838:
837:
826:10.1037/h0048547
809:
803:
802:
799:10.1037/h0058073
782:
776:
775:
765:
741:
735:
734:
708:
699:
693:
692:
690:
666:
660:
659:
639:
633:
632:
604:
598:
597:
587:
577:
553:
547:
546:
518:
512:
511:
503:
494:
493:
476:(4): 2025–2047.
461:
90:Feelings of low
2331:
2330:
2326:
2325:
2324:
2322:
2321:
2320:
2286:
2285:
2284:
2279:
2260:
2234:
2099:
1974:
1955:Turkey illusion
1723:Compassion fade
1620:
1611:
1606:
1576:
1575:
1567:
1563:
1532:
1528:
1497:
1493:
1462:
1458:
1452:
1429:
1425:
1380:
1376:
1352:
1346:
1342:
1311:
1307:
1262:
1258:
1215:
1204:
1161:
1154:
1122:10.1.1.563.2414
1105:
1098:
1089:
1085:
1062:
1055:
1023:
1017:
1013:
1004:
1000:
984:
980:
971:
967:
958:
954:
923:
919:
880:
876:
845:
841:
810:
806:
783:
779:
742:
738:
706:
700:
696:
667:
663:
640:
636:
621:10.2307/2657486
605:
601:
554:
550:
519:
515:
504:
497:
462:
447:
442:
437:
423:Social research
408:Silent majority
398:Self-censorship
353:
338:
326:
317:
309:
300:unmatched-count
296:
284:
271:
262:
250:
233:
228:
198:
169:
107:Family planning
46:
17:
12:
11:
5:
2329:
2319:
2318:
2313:
2308:
2303:
2298:
2281:
2280:
2278:
2277:
2272:
2265:
2262:
2261:
2259:
2258:
2253:
2248:
2242:
2240:
2239:Bias reduction
2236:
2235:
2233:
2232:
2227:
2222:
2217:
2215:Political bias
2212:
2207:
2206:
2205:
2200:
2195:
2190:
2185:
2180:
2175:
2170:
2160:
2155:
2150:
2145:
2143:Infrastructure
2140:
2135:
2130:
2125:
2118:
2113:
2107:
2105:
2101:
2100:
2098:
2097:
2092:
2087:
2082:
2077:
2072:
2067:
2062:
2060:Self-selection
2057:
2052:
2047:
2042:
2037:
2032:
2027:
2022:
2017:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2000:
1995:
1990:
1984:
1982:
1976:
1975:
1973:
1972:
1967:
1962:
1957:
1952:
1947:
1942:
1937:
1932:
1927:
1922:
1917:
1912:
1907:
1902:
1897:
1895:Pro-innovation
1892:
1887:
1882:
1880:Overton window
1877:
1872:
1867:
1862:
1857:
1852:
1847:
1842:
1837:
1832:
1827:
1822:
1817:
1812:
1807:
1802:
1797:
1792:
1787:
1782:
1777:
1772:
1767:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1750:
1748:Dunning–Kruger
1745:
1740:
1735:
1730:
1725:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1708:
1703:
1698:
1693:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1676:
1671:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1662:Correspondence
1659:
1657:Actor–observer
1649:
1644:
1639:
1634:
1629:
1623:
1621:
1616:
1613:
1612:
1605:
1604:
1597:
1590:
1582:
1574:
1573:
1561:
1526:
1491:
1456:
1450:
1423:
1374:
1340:
1305:
1256:
1202:
1152:
1096:
1083:
1072:(3): 263–280.
1053:
1034:(3): 222–232.
1011:
998:
978:
965:
952:
933:(4): 541–554.
917:
890:(4): 349–354.
874:
855:(5): 773–775.
839:
820:(3): 171–175.
804:
777:
756:(3): 230–233.
736:
717:(3): 575–584.
694:
681:(1): 130–141.
661:
634:
615:(1): 137–145.
599:
548:
529:(2): 108–112.
513:
495:
444:
443:
441:
438:
436:
435:
430:
425:
420:
415:
410:
405:
400:
395:
390:
385:
383:Pseudo-opinion
380:
375:
370:
365:
363:Bradley effect
360:
354:
352:
349:
337:
334:
329:Bogus-pipeline
325:
324:Bogus pipeline
322:
316:
313:
308:
305:
295:
292:
283:
280:
270:
267:
261:
258:
249:
246:
232:
229:
227:
224:
197:
194:
168:
165:
164:
163:
158:
155:
152:
151:, often denied
145:
142:
139:
129:
123:
117:
111:contraceptives
104:
101:
95:
88:
81:
45:
42:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2328:
2317:
2314:
2312:
2309:
2307:
2304:
2302:
2299:
2297:
2294:
2293:
2291:
2276:
2273:
2271:
2267:
2266:
2263:
2257:
2254:
2252:
2249:
2247:
2244:
2243:
2241:
2237:
2231:
2228:
2226:
2223:
2221:
2218:
2216:
2213:
2211:
2208:
2204:
2201:
2199:
2196:
2194:
2193:United States
2191:
2189:
2186:
2184:
2181:
2179:
2176:
2174:
2171:
2169:
2168:False balance
2166:
2165:
2164:
2161:
2159:
2156:
2154:
2151:
2149:
2146:
2144:
2141:
2139:
2136:
2134:
2131:
2129:
2126:
2124:
2123:
2119:
2117:
2114:
2112:
2109:
2108:
2106:
2102:
2096:
2093:
2091:
2088:
2086:
2083:
2081:
2078:
2076:
2073:
2071:
2068:
2066:
2063:
2061:
2058:
2056:
2053:
2051:
2048:
2046:
2043:
2041:
2040:Participation
2038:
2036:
2033:
2031:
2028:
2026:
2023:
2021:
2018:
2016:
2013:
2009:
2008:Psychological
2006:
2005:
2004:
2001:
1999:
1996:
1994:
1991:
1989:
1986:
1985:
1983:
1981:
1977:
1971:
1968:
1966:
1963:
1961:
1958:
1956:
1953:
1951:
1948:
1946:
1943:
1941:
1938:
1936:
1933:
1931:
1928:
1926:
1923:
1921:
1918:
1916:
1913:
1911:
1908:
1906:
1903:
1901:
1898:
1896:
1893:
1891:
1888:
1886:
1883:
1881:
1878:
1876:
1873:
1871:
1868:
1866:
1863:
1861:
1858:
1856:
1853:
1851:
1848:
1846:
1843:
1841:
1838:
1836:
1833:
1831:
1828:
1826:
1823:
1821:
1818:
1816:
1813:
1811:
1808:
1806:
1803:
1801:
1798:
1796:
1793:
1791:
1788:
1786:
1783:
1781:
1778:
1776:
1775:Fading affect
1773:
1771:
1768:
1766:
1763:
1759:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1751:
1749:
1746:
1744:
1741:
1739:
1736:
1734:
1731:
1729:
1726:
1724:
1721:
1717:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1709:
1707:
1704:
1702:
1699:
1697:
1694:
1692:
1689:
1685:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1677:
1675:
1672:
1670:
1667:
1663:
1660:
1658:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1650:
1648:
1645:
1643:
1640:
1638:
1635:
1633:
1630:
1628:
1625:
1624:
1622:
1619:
1614:
1610:
1603:
1598:
1596:
1591:
1589:
1584:
1583:
1580:
1571:
1565:
1557:
1553:
1549:
1545:
1541:
1537:
1530:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1495:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1460:
1453:
1451:9781118150382
1447:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1427:
1419:
1415:
1410:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1378:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1351:
1344:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1309:
1301:
1297:
1292:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1260:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1213:
1211:
1209:
1207:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1159:
1157:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1123:
1118:
1115:(5): 859–83.
1114:
1110:
1103:
1101:
1093:
1087:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1060:
1058:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1022:
1015:
1008:
1002:
996:
995:88-7916-216-0
992:
988:
982:
975:
969:
962:
956:
948:
944:
940:
936:
932:
928:
921:
913:
909:
905:
901:
897:
893:
889:
885:
878:
870:
866:
862:
858:
854:
850:
843:
835:
831:
827:
823:
819:
815:
808:
800:
796:
792:
788:
781:
773:
769:
764:
759:
755:
751:
747:
740:
732:
728:
724:
720:
716:
712:
705:
698:
689:
684:
680:
676:
672:
665:
657:
653:
649:
645:
638:
630:
626:
622:
618:
614:
610:
603:
595:
591:
586:
581:
576:
571:
567:
563:
559:
552:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
523:Contraception
517:
509:
502:
500:
491:
487:
483:
479:
475:
471:
467:
460:
458:
456:
454:
452:
450:
445:
434:
431:
429:
426:
424:
421:
419:
416:
414:
411:
409:
406:
404:
401:
399:
396:
394:
393:Response bias
391:
389:
386:
384:
381:
379:
376:
374:
371:
369:
366:
364:
361:
359:
356:
355:
348:
344:
341:
333:
330:
321:
312:
304:
301:
291:
288:
279:
276:
266:
257:
254:
245:
241:
239:
223:
220:
218:
214:
210:
205:
203:
193:
189:
185:
181:
177:
173:
162:
161:Voter turnout
159:
156:
153:
150:
146:
143:
140:
137:
133:
130:
127:
124:
121:
118:
116:
112:
108:
105:
102:
99:
96:
93:
89:
86:
82:
79:
78:
77:
74:
71:
67:
63:
58:
55:
51:
41:
39:
34:
30:
29:response bias
27:is a type of
26:
22:
2153:In education
2120:
2104:Other biases
2090:Verification
2075:Survivorship
2064:
2025:Non-response
1998:Healthy user
1940:Substitution
1915:Self-serving
1711:Confirmation
1679:Availability
1627:Acquiescence
1564:
1539:
1535:
1529:
1504:
1500:
1494:
1469:
1465:
1459:
1433:
1426:
1391:
1387:
1377:
1360:
1356:
1343:
1318:
1314:
1308:
1273:
1269:
1259:
1226:
1222:
1172:
1168:
1112:
1108:
1091:
1086:
1069:
1065:
1031:
1027:
1014:
1006:
1001:
986:
981:
973:
968:
960:
955:
930:
926:
920:
887:
883:
877:
852:
848:
842:
817:
813:
807:
793:(2): 90–93.
790:
786:
780:
753:
749:
739:
714:
710:
697:
678:
674:
664:
650:(1): 67–90.
647:
643:
637:
612:
608:
602:
565:
561:
551:
526:
522:
516:
507:
473:
469:
345:
342:
339:
327:
318:
310:
297:
289:
285:
272:
263:
255:
251:
242:
234:
221:
216:
206:
199:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
75:
59:
47:
38:self-reports
24:
18:
2220:Publication
2173:Vietnam War
2020:Length time
2003:Information
1945:Time-saving
1805:Horn effect
1795:Halo effect
1743:Distinction
1652:Attribution
1647:Attentional
1542:: 307–320.
1363:: 104–124.
1321:: 101–123.
136:intolerance
70:rationalize
2301:Conformity
2290:Categories
2183:South Asia
2158:Liking gap
1970:In animals
1935:Status quo
1850:Negativity
1753:Egocentric
1728:Congruence
1706:Commitment
1696:Blind spot
1684:Mean world
1674:Automation
1507:(3): 251.
440:References
126:Patriotism
92:self-worth
50:masturbate
2251:Debiasing
2230:White hat
2225:Reporting
2138:Inductive
2055:Selection
2015:Lead time
1988:Estimator
1965:Zero-risk
1930:Spotlight
1910:Restraint
1900:Proximity
1885:Precision
1845:Narrative
1800:Hindsight
1785:Frequency
1765:Emotional
1738:Declinism
1669:Authority
1642:Anchoring
1632:Ambiguity
1521:122941401
1300:2578-4854
1243:0165-7836
1229:: 34–41.
1189:0269-9370
1117:CiteSeerX
947:143818289
772:158608425
731:148277964
568:(1): 44.
490:143045969
207:In 1991,
98:Excretory
83:Personal
66:marijuana
2148:Inherent
2111:Academic
2085:Systemic
2070:Spectrum
2050:Sampling
2030:Observer
1993:Forecast
1905:Response
1865:Optimism
1860:Omission
1855:Normalcy
1825:In-group
1820:Implicit
1733:Cultural
1637:Affinity
1556:88504613
1486:73189531
1472:: 5–23.
1418:21778489
1335:52263233
1251:92793552
1197:15319742
1139:17723033
1048:51780539
904:13813058
834:13357640
594:30999917
543:19631784
351:See also
238:computer
149:violence
120:Religion
115:abortion
2270:General
2268:Lists:
2203:Ukraine
2128:Funding
1890:Present
1875:Outcome
1780:Framing
1501:Metrika
1409:3154247
1369:3929108
1278:Bibcode
1147:7160451
912:9781635
869:7287996
629:2657486
585:6472065
132:Bigotry
2275:Memory
2188:Sweden
2178:Norway
2045:Recall
1815:Impact
1691:Belief
1609:Biases
1554:
1519:
1484:
1448:
1416:
1406:
1367:
1333:
1298:
1249:
1241:
1195:
1187:
1145:
1137:
1119:
1046:
993:
945:
910:
902:
867:
832:
770:
729:
627:
592:
582:
541:
488:
85:income
33:survey
2163:Media
2133:FUTON
1552:S2CID
1517:S2CID
1482:S2CID
1353:(PDF)
1331:S2CID
1276:(7).
1247:S2CID
1143:S2CID
1044:S2CID
1024:(PDF)
943:S2CID
908:S2CID
768:S2CID
727:S2CID
707:(PDF)
625:JSTOR
486:S2CID
54:taboo
1446:ISBN
1414:PMID
1365:PMID
1296:ISSN
1239:ISSN
1193:PMID
1185:ISSN
1169:AIDS
1135:PMID
991:ISBN
900:PMID
865:PMID
830:PMID
590:PMID
539:PMID
298:The
273:The
134:and
113:and
2210:Net
2095:Wet
1544:doi
1509:doi
1474:doi
1438:doi
1404:PMC
1396:doi
1392:101
1323:doi
1319:148
1286:doi
1231:doi
1227:208
1177:doi
1127:doi
1113:133
1074:doi
1036:doi
935:doi
892:doi
857:doi
822:doi
795:doi
758:doi
719:doi
683:doi
652:doi
617:doi
580:PMC
570:doi
531:doi
478:doi
19:In
2292::
1550:.
1540:13
1538:.
1515:.
1505:67
1503:.
1480:.
1470:75
1468:.
1444:,
1412:.
1402:.
1390:.
1386:.
1361:54
1359:.
1355:.
1329:.
1317:.
1294:.
1284:.
1272:.
1268:.
1245:.
1237:.
1225:.
1221:.
1205:^
1191:.
1183:.
1173:18
1171:.
1167:.
1155:^
1141:.
1133:.
1125:.
1111:.
1099:^
1070:15
1068:.
1056:^
1042:.
1032:17
1030:.
1026:.
941:.
931:19
929:.
906:.
898:.
888:24
886:.
863:.
853:49
851:.
828:.
818:20
816:.
791:37
789:.
766:.
752:.
748:.
725:.
713:.
709:.
679:22
677:.
673:.
648:71
646:.
623:.
613:63
611:.
588:.
578:.
566:16
564:.
560:.
537:.
527:80
525:.
498:^
484:.
474:47
472:.
468:.
448:^
23:,
1601:e
1594:t
1587:v
1558:.
1546::
1523:.
1511::
1488:.
1476::
1440::
1420:.
1398::
1371:.
1337:.
1325::
1302:.
1288::
1280::
1274:3
1253:.
1233::
1199:.
1179::
1149:.
1129::
1080:.
1076::
1050:.
1038::
949:.
937::
914:.
894::
871:.
859::
836:.
824::
801:.
797::
774:.
760::
754:5
733:.
721::
715:5
691:.
685::
658:.
654::
631:.
619::
596:.
572::
545:.
533::
492:.
480::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.