Gå til indholdScholarGate
BibliotekMit bibliotekSkrivebordReview StudioAssistent
Log ind
Unmatched Count Technique/Bevis
Metodebevisregistrering

Unmatched Count Technique

The unmatched count technique (also called the item count technique or list experiment) is an indirect survey method for estimating the prevalence of sensitive attitudes or behaviors while protecting respondents' privacy. Respondents are randomly assigned to one of two versions of a question. The control group sees a list of several non-sensitive items and reports only how many of them apply to them; the treatment group sees the same list plus one additional sensitive item and likewise reports only the count. Because respondents report a number rather than which items apply, no one's answer reveals their stance on the sensitive item. The estimated prevalence of the sensitive attribute is simply the difference in mean counts between the treatment and control groups. By breaking the link between an individual and the sensitive item, the technique reduces social-desirability bias for topics like prejudice, illegal behavior, or stigmatized attitudes, as documented in validation work by Holbrook and Krosnick.

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Kilderegistrering

Citater kopieret ordret fra metodens kilderegistrering. Ingen påstandsniveauverifikation er udledt heraf.

Unmatched Count Technique (Item Count / List Experiment)
Taksonomisk metoderegistrering · process-pipeline / social-psychology
  • Holbrook, A. L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2010). Social desirability bias in voter turnout reports: Tests using the item count technique. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(1), 37-67. · DOI 10.1093/poq/nfp065
  • Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The 'false consensus effect': An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(3), 279-301. · DOI 10.1016/0022-1031(77)90049-X
Åbn fuld metode

Kuraterede påstande

Påstande gemt i bevis-loggen, hver med sin egen vurdering.

Ingen kuraterede påstande endnu

Denne visning opfinder ikke en påstandsvurdering, når loggen ingen har.

Relaterede metoder

Genereret fra metodegrafen og vist som maskinelt foreslåede relationer — ingen bevispåstand er udledt.

Same method familyBogus Pipelinemachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyFalse Consensus Paradigmmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyLost Letter Techniquemachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.

Bevisstatus

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Bibliographic sources are present. Claim-level evidence review has not been performed.

Kilder

2 registrerede citater, kopieret fra metodens kilderegistrering.

Handlinger

Åbn metodeside
ScholarGate

Et indholdsfokuseret opslagsbibliotek over forskningsmetoder — hvad hver metode er, hvordan den fungerer, og hvor den kommer fra.

Åbne data (CC-BY)

Opdag

  • Bibliotek
  • Søg i metoder…
  • Gennemse efter fagområde
  • Fagområder
  • Rejse
  • Sammenlign
  • Hvilken metode?

Reference

  • Fagområder
  • Atlas
  • Ordliste
  • Metodologi
  • Filosofi

Arbejdsområde

  • Mit bibliotek
  • Skrivebord
  • Chat

Virksomhed

  • Om
  • Priser
  • Kontakt
  • Foreslå en metode

Posterne er sammenstillet fra publicerede kilder til reference. Det er dit eget ansvar at kontrollere, at oplysningerne er korrekte og egnede til din anvendelse.

© 2026 ScholarGate · Et opslagsbibliotek over forskningsmetoder
  • Privatliv
  • Cookies
  • Vilkår
  • Slet konto