Testing the Validity of the Crosswise Model: A Study on Attitudes Towards Muslims

David Johann; Kathrin Thomas

doi:10.13094/SMIF-2017-00001

Testing the Validity of the Crosswise Model: A Study on Attitudes Towards Muslims

David Johann^* (Corresponding Author), Kathrin Thomas

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

3 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This paper investigates the concurrent validity of the Crosswise Model when “high incidence behaviour” is concerned by looking at respondents’ self-reported attitudes towards Muslims. We analyse the concurrent validity by comparing the performance of the Crosswise Model to a Direct Question format. The Crosswise Model was designed to ensure anonymity and confidentiality in order to reduce Social Desirability Bias induced by the tendency of survey respondents to present themselves in a favourable light. The article suggests that measures obtained using either question format are fairly similar. However, when estimating models and comparing the impact of common predictors of negative attitudes towards Muslims, some puzzling results are revealed raising concerns about the validity of the Crosswise Model.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1-7
Number of pages	7
Journal	Survey Methods: Insights from the Field
Early online date	16 May 2017
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.13094/SMIF-2017-00001
Publication status	Published - 16 May 2017

Bibliographical note

This work was supported by the Austrian National Election Study (AUTNES), a National Research Network (NFN) sponsored by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [S10902-G11]. We thank Ben Jann for his kind support and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback.

Keywords

attitudes towards Muslims
crosswise model
validity

Access to Document

10.13094/SMIF-2017-00001Licence: CC BY

Johann et al SMIF Testing the validity VOR
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Final published version, 264 KBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{c3db783a8ded445392c5a691a3e30b71,

title = "Testing the Validity of the Crosswise Model: A Study on Attitudes Towards Muslims",

abstract = "This paper investigates the concurrent validity of the Crosswise Model when “high incidence behaviour” is concerned by looking at respondents{\textquoteright} self-reported attitudes towards Muslims. We analyse the concurrent validity by comparing the performance of the Crosswise Model to a Direct Question format. The Crosswise Model was designed to ensure anonymity and confidentiality in order to reduce Social Desirability Bias induced by the tendency of survey respondents to present themselves in a favourable light. The article suggests that measures obtained using either question format are fairly similar. However, when estimating models and comparing the impact of common predictors of negative attitudes towards Muslims, some puzzling results are revealed raising concerns about the validity of the Crosswise Model.",

keywords = "attitudes towards Muslims, crosswise model, validity",

author = "David Johann and Kathrin Thomas",

note = "This work was supported by the Austrian National Election Study (AUTNES), a National Research Network (NFN) sponsored by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [S10902-G11]. We thank Ben Jann for his kind support and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback.",

year = "2017",

month = may,

day = "16",

doi = "10.13094/SMIF-2017-00001",

language = "English",

pages = "1--7",

journal = "Survey Methods: Insights from the Field",

issn = "2296-4754",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Testing the Validity of the Crosswise Model

T2 - A Study on Attitudes Towards Muslims

AU - Johann, David

AU - Thomas, Kathrin

N1 - This work was supported by the Austrian National Election Study (AUTNES), a National Research Network (NFN) sponsored by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [S10902-G11]. We thank Ben Jann for his kind support and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback.

PY - 2017/5/16

Y1 - 2017/5/16

N2 - This paper investigates the concurrent validity of the Crosswise Model when “high incidence behaviour” is concerned by looking at respondents’ self-reported attitudes towards Muslims. We analyse the concurrent validity by comparing the performance of the Crosswise Model to a Direct Question format. The Crosswise Model was designed to ensure anonymity and confidentiality in order to reduce Social Desirability Bias induced by the tendency of survey respondents to present themselves in a favourable light. The article suggests that measures obtained using either question format are fairly similar. However, when estimating models and comparing the impact of common predictors of negative attitudes towards Muslims, some puzzling results are revealed raising concerns about the validity of the Crosswise Model.

AB - This paper investigates the concurrent validity of the Crosswise Model when “high incidence behaviour” is concerned by looking at respondents’ self-reported attitudes towards Muslims. We analyse the concurrent validity by comparing the performance of the Crosswise Model to a Direct Question format. The Crosswise Model was designed to ensure anonymity and confidentiality in order to reduce Social Desirability Bias induced by the tendency of survey respondents to present themselves in a favourable light. The article suggests that measures obtained using either question format are fairly similar. However, when estimating models and comparing the impact of common predictors of negative attitudes towards Muslims, some puzzling results are revealed raising concerns about the validity of the Crosswise Model.

KW - attitudes towards Muslims

KW - crosswise model

KW - validity

U2 - 10.13094/SMIF-2017-00001

DO - 10.13094/SMIF-2017-00001

M3 - Article

SN - 2296-4754

SP - 1

EP - 7

JO - Survey Methods: Insights from the Field

JF - Survey Methods: Insights from the Field

ER -

Testing the Validity of the Crosswise Model: A Study on Attitudes Towards Muslims

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this