 What Drives Reticence? Reporting Bias from Monopolies and Distrustful Firm ManagersFola Malomo () Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, 2017, vol. 29, issue 2, 87-131 Abstract: This article examines the determinants of underreporting (reticence) on randomized response questions. A simple model is created to describe the interview process and draw some conclusion as to why people might misreport their true status despite given the assurance of institutional and statistical confidentiality. By looking at the relationship between firm-specific reticence and other firm-specific and industry-location-specific variables, it is found that (mis)trust (proxied by the proportion of contracts arranged before delivery) is a significant predictor of reticence. Underreporting does not seem to be significantly related to a misunderstanding of the procedure, education, profit levels or guilt. This seems to suggest that firms which are more cautious in their business dealings are also more cautious with the randomized response (RR) technique. In such cases, weighted estimates of the prevalence of sensitive traits might be derived without the use of the RR technique but through the use of variables relating to the nature of firm-level contracts. Moreover, more accurate data on sensitive topics can be extracted from large homogeneous populations. JEL: C81, C83, D81 Keywords: Trust; behavioural economics; social behaviour; risk; reticence (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:jinter:v:29:y:2017:i:2:p:87-131 Access Statistics for this article More articles in Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.