Affiliations: [a] Department of Sociology, University of Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany | [b] GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Mannheim, Germany
Correspondence:
[*]
Corresponding author: Uta Landrock, Department of Sociology, University of Kaiserslautern, Erwin-Schroedinger-Strasse 57, 67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany. Tel.: +49 631 205 4604; Fax: +49 631 205 4610; E-mail:[email protected]
Abstract: Falsification of survey data in face-to-face surveys has
been intensively discussed in the literature. The results about the impact
of falsifications on survey data are equivocal. While some authors report a
strong impact, others find only little differences between real and
falsified data. We argue that the impact of falsifications cannot be
neglected, particularly when theory-driven analyses are conducted and not ad
hoc analyses. The latter reproduce stereotypes used by both, researchers and
falsifiers. To test this assumption we compare the results of multivariate
regression analyses with real and falsified data by using a) theory-driven
predictors and b) ad hoc predictors. As an example of theory-driven analyses
we used the theory of planned behavior (TPB) for predicting self-reported
healthy eating behavior. As ad hoc predictors we included socio-demographic
information about the respondents known to the falsifiers as well as
variables, which are indicated by everyday theories. The results show that
theory-driven relationships were more strongly pronounced in the real data.
In contrast, stereotypical and non-theory-driven relationships were more
strongly pronounced in the falsified data. The results provide insights in
the area of social cognition when predicting the behavior of others.
Keywords: Interviewer falsifications, falsified survey data, data quality
