Overestimation of Covid-19 Vaccination Coverage in Population Surveys Due to Social Desirability Bias
Results of an Experimental Methods Study in Germany
Datos Bibliográficos
| ID | 8020535 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Felix Wolter (0000-0002-0686-8527, University of Konstanz), Jochen Mayerl (0000-0002-4599-9976, Chemnitz University of Technology, autor de correspondencia), Henrik Kenneth Andersen (0000-0001-6842-5337, Chemnitz University of Technology), Theresa Wieland (0009-0007-1336-4830, University of Konstanz), Justus Junkermann (Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg) |
| Año | 2022 |
| Volumen | 8 |
| Fecha de publicación | 2022-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sí |
| Open Access | Sí |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Revista | Socius Sociological Research for a Dynamic World (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores de la revista | ISSN: 2378-0231 • E-ISSN: 2378-0231 |
| Editorial | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/23780231221094749 |
| OpenAlex | W4285114980 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citas recibidas | 14 |
| Referencias citadas | 16 |
In Germany, studies have shown that official coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination coverage estimated using data collected directly from vaccination centers, hospitals, and physicians is lower than that calculated using surveys of the general population. Public debate has since centered on whether the official statistics are failing to capture the actual vaccination coverage. The authors argue that the topic of one’s COVID-19 vaccination status is sensitive in times of a pandemic and that estimates based on surveys are biased by social desirability. The authors investigate this conjecture using an experimental method called the item count technique, which provides respondents with the opportunity to answer in an anonymous setting. Estimates obtained using the item count technique are compared with those obtained using the conventional method of asking directly. Results show that social desirability bias leads some unvaccinated individuals to claim they are vaccinated. Conventional survey studies thus likely overestimate vaccination coverage because of misreporting by survey respondents
2019-20 coronavirus outbreak · Actuarial science · Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19 · Disease · Econometrics · Economics · Environmental health · Infectious disease (medical specialty · Non-response bias · Outbreak · Pandemic · Population · Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 · Social desirability · Social desirability bias · Social distance · Sociology · Statistics · Survey methodology · Vaccination · COVID-19 epidemiological studies · Demography · Mathematics · Medicine · Psychology · Social Psychology · Survey Sampling and Estimation Techniques · Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy · Virology
Assessing Nonignorable Response
What do people really think about the RSV vaccine? Study of unsolicited text replies from adults over 60
County-level barriers in the Covid-19 vaccine coverage index and their associations with willingness to receive the Covid-19 vaccine across racial/ethnic groups in the U.S
Who Gets Vaccinated? Cognitive and Non‐Cognitive Predictors of Individual Behaviour in Pandemics
Implicit discriminatory attitudes in surveys
Evaluating self-reported vaccination hesitancy in mobile phone surveys in low- and middle-income countries
Socioeconomic determinants and reasons for non-acceptance to vaccination recommendations during the 3rd - 5th waves of the Covid-19 pandemic in Hungary
Covid-19 vaccine intentions and attitudes in Black American emerging adults with asthma
Longitudinal social contact data analysis
Prevalence estimates for Covid-19-related health behaviors based on the cheating detection triangular model
Social Desirability Bias in Measures of Norm Violations and Compliance during the Covid-19 Pandemic
Beyond the records
Vaccine rhetoric on social media and Covid-19 vaccine uptake rates
Populist Party Support and Covid-19 Vaccination
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Combining List Experiment and Direct Question Estimates of Sensitive Behavior Prevalence
Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys
Risk, Trust, and Flawed Assumptions
Heikle Fragen in Interviews
What Can We Learn with Statistical Truth Serum
Sensitive Questions in Surveys
Statistical Analysis of List Experiments
Sensitive questions in surveys
When to Worry about Sensitivity Bias
A Meta-analysis of the Relative Effectiveness of the Item Count Technique Compared to Direct Questioning
| Obras citantes distintas | 14 |
|---|---|
| Citas por año | 4,67 |
| Intervalo de citas | 2023 - 2026 (4) |
| Velocidad de citación | current |
| Altamente citado | No |
| Tipos de cita | Neutras: 13 |