Gå til innholdScholarGate
BibliotekMitt bibliotekPultenReview StudioAssistent
Logg inn
Unmatched Count Technique/Bevis
Metodebevisregister

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

Kilderegister

Siteringer kopiert ordrett fra metodens kilderegister. Ingen påstandsnivåverifisering er underforstått fra dem.

Unmatched Count Technique (Item Count / List Experiment)
Taksonomisk metoderegister · 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
Åpne full metode

Kuraterte påstander

Påstander lagret i bevishovedboken, hver med sin egen vurdering.

Ingen kuraterte påstander ennå

Denne visningen finner ikke opp en påstandsvurdering når hovedboken ikke har noen.

Relaterte metoder

Generert fra metodegrafen og vist som maskinforslåtte relasjoner – ingen bevispåstand er underforstått.

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 registrerte siteringer, kopiert fra metodens kilderegister.

Handlinger

Åpne metodeside
ScholarGate

Et innholdsfokusert oppslagsbibliotek for forskningsmetoder — hva hver metode er, hvordan den fungerer, og hvor den kommer fra.

Åpne data (CC-BY)

Oppdag

  • Bibliotek
  • Søk i metoder…
  • Bla etter fagfelt
  • Fagfelt
  • Reise
  • Sammenlign
  • Hvilken metode?

Referanse

  • Fagområder
  • Atlas
  • Ordliste
  • Metodikk
  • Filosofi

Arbeidsområde

  • Mitt bibliotek
  • Pulten
  • Chat

Selskap

  • Om
  • Priser
  • Kontakt
  • Foreslå en metode

Oppføringene er sammenstilt fra publiserte kilder til referansebruk. Å kontrollere at informasjonen er korrekt og egnet for ditt eget bruk, er fremdeles ditt eget ansvar.

© 2026 ScholarGate · Et oppslagsbibliotek for forskningsmetoder
  • Personvern
  • Informasjonskapsler
  • Vilkår
  • Slett konto