Go to main content
Harvard Business School
HBS Home
  • About
  • Academic Programs
  • Alumni
  • Faculty & Research
  • Baker Library
  • Harvard Business Review
  • Initiatives
  • News
  • Recruit
  • Map / Directions

Faculty & Research

  • HOME
  • FACULTY
  • RESEARCH
    • Global Research Centers
    • HBS Case Collection
    • HBS Case Development
    • Initiatives & Projects
    • Publications
    • Research Associate (RA) Positions
    • Research Services
    • Seminars & Conferences
    Close
  • FEATURED TOPICS
    • Business and Environment
    • Business History
    • Entrepreneurship
    • Finance
    • Globalization
    • Health Care
    • Human Behavior and Decision-Making
    • Leadership
    • Social Enterprise
    • Technology and Innovation
    Close
  • ACADEMIC UNITS
    • Accounting and Management
    • Business, Government and the International Economy
    • Entrepreneurial Management
    • Finance
    • General Management
    • Marketing
    • Negotiation, Organizations & Markets
    • Organizational Behavior
    • Strategy
    • Technology and Operations Management
    Close

Article | Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes | September 2018

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

by Leslie K. John, George Loewenstein, Alessandro Acquisti and Joachim Vosgerau

  • Print
  • Email

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;

Format: Print Find at Harvard Read Now

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.

About the Author

Photo
Leslie K. John
Marvin Bower Associate Professor
Negotiation, Organizations & Markets

View Profile »
View Publications »

 

More from the Author

  • Article | Management Science | November 2019

    Procedural Justice and the Risks of Consumer Voting

    Tami Kim, Leslie John, Todd Rogers and Michael I. Norton

    Firms are increasingly giving consumers the vote. Eight studies demonstrate that when firms empower consumers to vote, consumers infer a series of implicit promises—even in the absence of explicit promises. We identify three implicit promises to which consumers react negatively when violated: representation (Experiments 1A–1C); consistency (Experiment 2), and non-suppression (Experiment 3). However, when firms honor these implicit promises, voting can mitigate the disappointment that arises from receiving an undesired outcome (Experiment 4). Finally, Experiment 5 identifies one instance when suppressing the vote outcome is condoned: when voters believe that the process of voting has resulted in an unacceptable outcome. More generally, we show that procedural justice plays a key mediating role in determining the relative success or failure of various empowerment initiatives—from soliciting feedback to voting. Taken together, we offer insight into how firms can realize the benefits of empowerment strategies while mitigating their risks.

    Keywords: consumer empowerment; voting; procedural justice; promises; Customer Relationship Management; Voting; Perception; Fairness; Risk Management;

    Citation:

    Kim, Tami, Leslie John, Todd Rogers, and Michael I. Norton. "Procedural Justice and the Risks of Consumer Voting." Management Science 65, no. 11 (November 2019): 5234–5251.  View Details
    CiteView DetailsFind at Harvard Read Now Related
  • Case | HBS Case Collection | June 2018 (Revised October 2019)

    Back to the Roots

    Elizabeth A. Keenan and Leslie K. John

    Email mking@hbs.edu for a courtesy copy.

    Back to the Roots is a startup with a social mission to “undo food”—to reconnect people to where their food comes from. In late 2017, they are contemplating their next move. Back to the Roots has an eclectic portfolio of products, including ready-to-grow (e.g., gardens in a can) and ready-to-eat (e.g., cereal) products, and they are being courted by two major players in each category. With an award-winning snack bar in their hands, they are now debating whether they should delve further in to the ready-to-eat category. It is a competitive space and they wonder if they are ready to launch yet another new product and, if so, what this move would mean for their ready-to-grow product line.

    Keywords: organic food; Startup; crowdfunding; sustainability; transparency; Entrepreneurship; Business Startups; Product Development; Product Marketing; Growth and Development Strategy; Decision Making; Food; Food and Beverage Industry;

    Citation:

    Keenan, Elizabeth A., and Leslie K. John. "Back to the Roots." Harvard Business School Case 518-073, June 2018. (Revised October 2019.) (Email mking@hbs.edu for a courtesy copy.)  View Details
    CiteView DetailsEducatorsPurchase Related
  • Case | HBS Case Collection | December 2018 (Revised September 2019)

    Fishbowl: Scaling Up

    Leslie K. John

    Fishbowl is a social media app that allows professionals to connect with other relevant professionals both within their company and across industry. Unlike many other social media apps, on which users typically present idealized portraits of themselves, on Fishbowl, people get real. Fishbowl prides itself in being a "safe space" that allows users to feel comfortable interacting with candor - whether to ask difficult questions in order to give and get advice, or just to vent or crack jokes. A key part of the user experience is the ability to post anonymously. But to ensure relevance of posts, when a user signs up, Fishbowl verifies their identity by requiring them to provide their full name, employer email address, LinkedIn account and contact list. Fishbowl has several hundred thousand users and is now looking for ways to monetize the platform. As such, founders Loren Appin and Matt Sunbulli face a mission-critical decision: should they integrate employers into the platform? Although formally integrating employers would provide a much-needed revenue stream, at the same time Appin and Sunbulli worry that doing so could destroy the user experience. Is formalizing employer relationships antithetical to the safe space they have created?

    Keywords: communication technologies; interpersonal communication; talent and talent management; customer value; value chain; entrepreneurship; business model; advertising; Growth and Development Strategy; Marketing Strategy; Product Marketing; Two-Sided Platforms; Consumer Behavior; Network Effects; Emotions; Motivation and Incentives; Trust; Software; Technology Adoption; Technology Platform; Communications Industry; Employment Industry; Media and Broadcasting Industry; Technology Industry; Telecommunications Industry; United States;

    Citation:

    John, Leslie K. "Fishbowl: Scaling Up." Harvard Business School Case 919-013, December 2018. (Revised September 2019.) (Email mking@hbs.edu for a courtesy copy.)  View Details
    CiteView DetailsEducatorsPurchase Related
ǁ
Campus Map
Campus Map
Harvard Business School
Soldiers Field
Boston, MA 02163
→ Map & Directions
→ More Contact Information
→ More Contact Information
→ More Contact Information
→ More Contact Information
  • HBS Facebook
  • Alumni Facebook
  • Executive Education Facebook
  • Michael Porter Facebook
  • Working Knowledge Facebook
  • HBS Twitter
  • Executive Education Twitter
  • HBS Alumni Twitter
  • Michael Porter Twitter
  • Recruiting Twitter
  • Rock Center Twitter
  • Working Knowledge Twitter
  • Jobs Twitter
  • Social Enterprise Twitter
  • HBS Youtube
  • Michael Porter Youtube
  • Executive Education Youtube
  • HBS Linkedin
  • Alumni Linkedin
  • Executive Education Linkedin
  • MBA Linkedin
  • Linkedin
  • HBS Instagram
  • Alumni Instagram
  • Executive Education Instagram
  • Michael Porter Instagram
  • HBS iTunes
  • Executive Education iTunes
  • HBS Tumblr
  • Make a Gift
  • Site Map
  • Jobs
  • Harvard University
  • Trademarks
  • Policies
  • Accessibility
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Use
Copyright © President & Fellows of Harvard College