Skip to Main Content
HBS Home
  • About
  • Academic Programs
  • Alumni
  • Faculty & Research
  • Baker Library
  • Giving
  • Harvard Business Review
  • Initiatives
  • News
  • Recruit
  • Map / Directions
Faculty & Research
  • Faculty
  • Research
  • Featured Topics
  • Academic Units
  • …→
  • Harvard Business School→
  • Faculty & Research→
Publications
Publications
  • September 2018
  • Article
  • Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

When and Why Randomized Response Techniques (Fail to) Elicit the Truth

By: Leslie K. John, George Loewenstein, Alessandro Acquisti and Joachim Vosgerau
  • Format:Print
ShareBar

Abstract

By adding random noise to individual responses, randomized response techniques (RRTs) are intended to enhance privacy protection and encourage honest disclosure of sensitive information. Empirical findings on their success in doing so are, however, mixed. In nine experiments, we show that the noise introduced by RRTs can make respondents concerned that innocuous responses will be interpreted as admissions, and, as a result, yield prevalence estimates that are lower than direct questioning (Studies 1–4, 5A, & 6), less accurate than direct questioning (Studies 1, 3, 4B, & 5A), and even nonsensical (i.e., negative, Studies 3–6). Studies 2A and 2B show that the paradox is eliminated when the target behavior is socially desirable, even when it is merely framed as such. Study 3 shows the paradox is driven by respondents’ concerns over response misinterpretation. A simple modification designed to reduce concerns over response misinterpretation reduces the problem (Studies 4 & 5), particularly when such concerns are heightened (Studies 5 & 6).

Keywords

Truth-telling; Lying; Privacy; Information Disclosure; Survey Research; Surveys; Attitudes; Behavior

Citation

John, Leslie K., George Loewenstein, Alessandro Acquisti, and Joachim Vosgerau. "When and Why Randomized Response Techniques (Fail to) Elicit the Truth." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 148 (September 2018): 101–123.
  • Find it at Harvard
  • Read Now

About The Author

Leslie K. John

Negotiation, Organizations & Markets
→More Publications

More from the Authors

    • November 2022
    • Psychological Science

    Opportunity Neglect: An Aversion to Low-probability Gains

    By: Emily Prinsloo, Kate Barasz, Leslie K. John and Michael I. Norton
    • August 2022
    • Journal of Marketing Research (JMR)

    The Bulletproof Glass Effect: Unintended Consequences of Privacy Notices

    By: Aaron R. Brough, David A. Norton, Shannon L. Sciarappa and Leslie K. John
    • March 2022
    • Marketing Letters

    When Less Is More: Consumers Prefer Brands that Donate More in Relative versus Absolute Terms

    By: Elizabeth A. Keenan, Anne V. Wilson and Leslie K. John
More from the Authors
  • Opportunity Neglect: An Aversion to Low-probability Gains By: Emily Prinsloo, Kate Barasz, Leslie K. John and Michael I. Norton
  • The Bulletproof Glass Effect: Unintended Consequences of Privacy Notices By: Aaron R. Brough, David A. Norton, Shannon L. Sciarappa and Leslie K. John
  • When Less Is More: Consumers Prefer Brands that Donate More in Relative versus Absolute Terms By: Elizabeth A. Keenan, Anne V. Wilson and Leslie K. John
ǁ
Campus Map
Harvard Business School
Soldiers Field
Boston, MA 02163
→Map & Directions
→More Contact Information
  • Make a Gift
  • Site Map
  • Jobs
  • Harvard University
  • Trademarks
  • Policies
  • Accessibility
  • Digital Accessibility
Copyright © President & Fellows of Harvard College