Investigating Lack of Trust in Quantitative Optional Randomized Response Models Using Double Responses

Sayeda  Tahira Nazar; Zawar  Hussain

Authors

Sayeda Tahira Nazar Department of Statistics, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Pakistan
Zawar Hussain Department of Statistics, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Pakistan

Keywords:

Social desirability bias, sensitivity level, trust level, optional randomized response technique, mean square error, double response approach

Abstract

Social desirability bias (SDB) frequently causes low response rates or, at worst, dishonest responses. The randomized response technique (RRT) is an effective surveying technique to reduce the SDB. Respondents can submit a scrambled response using RRT to get around SDB. A scrambling model is presented that takes the respondents’ lack of faith into account. We introduce an improved optional enhanced trust (OET) quantitative RRT model using double responses to estimate the mean and sensitivity of a sensitive attribute. To compare the empirical mean and variance of our suggested estimators with their corresponding theoretical values, a simulation study is done using a combined measure of privacy and model effectiveness. In comparison to the existing models, the performance evaluation of the proposed model is observed to be better. Furthermore, using the measure of privacy protection and efficiency given by Azeem (2023b), the comparison of the proposed model with the previous well-known RRT models is given in tabular and graphical forms. The proposed model is found to be more effective, more protective of privacy, and more efficient as compared to the existing models.

References

Azeem M. Using the exponential function of scrambling variable in quantitative randomized response models. Math Methods Appl Sci. 2023a; 46(13): 13882-13893.

Azeem M. Introducing a weighted measure of privacy and efficiency for comparison of quantitative randomized response models. Pak J Stat. 2023b; 39(3): 377-385.

Azeem M, Hussain S, Ijaz M, Salahuddin N. An improved quantitative randomized response technique for data collection in sensitive surveys. Qual Quant. 2024; 58(1): 329-341.

Cerri J, Thøgersen J, Testa F. Social desirability and sustainable food research: A systematic literature review. Food Qual Prefer. 2019; 71: 136-140.

Diana G, Perri PF. A class of estimators of quantitative sensitive data. Stat Pap. 2011; 52(3): 633-650.

Gupta S, Gupta B, Singh S. Estimation of sensitivity level of personal interview survey questions. J Stat Plan Inference. 2002; 100(2): 239-247.

Gupta S, Mehta S, Shabbir J, Dass BK. Some optimality issues in estimating two-stage optional randomized response models. Amer J Math Management Sci. 2011; 31(1-2): 1-12.

Gupta S, Mehta S, Shabbir J, Khalil S. A unified measure of respondent privacy and model efficiency in quantitative RRT models. J Stat Theory Pract. 2018; 12(3): 506-511.

Gupta S, Shabbir J, Sehra S. Mean and sensitivity estimation in optional randomized response models. J Stat Plan Inference. 2010; 140(10): 2870-2874.

Gupta S, Zhang J, Khalil S, Sapra P. Mitigating lack of trust in quantitative randomized response technique models. Commun Stat Simul Comput. 2022; 53(6): 2624-2632.

Hussain Z, Shabbir J. Estimation of mean of a sensitive quantitative variable. J Stat Res. 2007; 41(2): 83-92.

Hussain Z, Shabbir J. Three stage quantitative randomized response model. J Probab Stat Sci. 2010; 8(2): 227-239.

Hussain Z, Shakeel S, Cheema SA. Estimation of stigmatized population total: A new additive quantitative randomized response model. Commun Stat Theory Methods. 2022; 51(24): 8741-8753.

Kalucha G, Gupta S, Shabbir J. A two-step approach to ratio and regression estimation of finite population mean using optional randomized response models. Hacet J Math Stat. 2016; 45(6): 1819-1830.

Larson RB. Controlling social desirability bias. Int J Mark Res. 2019; 61(5): 534-547.

Lovig M, Khalil S, Rahman S, Sapra P, Gupta S. A mixture binary RRT model with a unified measure of privacy and efficiency. Commun Stat Simul Comput. 2021; 52(6): 1-12.

Mangat NS, Singh R. An alternative randomized response procedure. Biometrika. 1990; 77(2): 439-442.

Mangat NS, Singh S. A modified quantitative randomized response model. J Indian Soc Agric Stat. 2002; 55(2): 209-219.

Mondal H, Mondal S. Social desirability bias: A confounding factor to consider in survey by self-administered questionnaire. Indian J Pharmacol. 2018; 50(3): 143-144.

Murtaza M, Singh S, Hussain Z. An innovative optimal randomized response model using correlated scrambling variables. J Stat Comput Simul. 2020; 90(15): 2823-2839.

Narjis G, Shabbir J. Bayesian analysis of optional unrelated question randomized response models. Commun Stat Theory Methods. 2021; 50(18): 4203-4215.

Parker M, Gupta S, Khalil S. A mixture quantitative randomized response model that improves trust in RRT methodology. Axioms. 2024; 13(1): 11.

Ryu JB, Kim JM, Heo TY, Park CG. On stratified randomized response sampling. Model Assist Stat Appl. 2006; 1(1): 31-36.

Sanaullah A, Saleem I, Gupta S, Hanif M. Mean estimation with generalized scrambling using two-phase sampling. Commun Stat Simul Comput. 2022; 51(10): 5643-5657.

Warner SL. Randomized response: A survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. J Am Stat Assoc. 1965; 60(309): 63-69.

Warner SL. The linear randomised response model. J Am Stat Assoc. 1971; 66(336): 884-888.

Yan Z, Wang J, Lai J. An efficiency and protection degree-based comparison among the quantitative randomized response strategies. Commun Stat Theory Methods. 2008; 38(3): 400-408.

Zhang Q, Gupta S, Kalucha G, Khalil S. Ratio estimation of the mean under RRT models. J Stat Manag Syst. 2019; 22(1): 97-113.