Estimating the prevalence of xenophobia and anti-Semitism in Germany: A comparison of randomized response and direct questioning

An experimental CATI-survey (N = 2041), asking sensitive questions about xenophobia and anti-Semitism in Germany, was conducted to compare the randomized response technique (RRT) and the direct questioning technique. Unlike the vast majority of RRT surveys measuring the prevalence of socially undesirable behaviors, only few studies have explored the effectiveness of the RRT with respect to the disclosure of socially undesirable opinions. Results suggest that the RRT is an effective method eliciting more socially undesirable opinions and yielding more valid prevalence estimates of xenophobia and anti-Semitism than direct questioning (‘more-is-better’ assumption). Furthermore, the results indicate that with increasing topic sensitivity, the benefits of using the RRT also increase. Finally, adapted logistic regression analyses show that several covariates such as education and generalized trust are related to the likelihood of being prejudiced towards foreigners and Jews.

► The randomized response technique (RRT) is evaluated regarding the measurement of unsocial opinions.
► It can be shown that the RRT yields more valid prevalence estimates than direct questioning.
► Those unwilling to use the RRT (’RRT-direct’) are explicitly integrated in the data analyses.
► This study accounts for possible self-selection problems when comparing the RRT with direct questioning.