Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T16:28:51.655Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Candor, Privacy, and “Legal Immunity” In Business Ethics Research: An Empirical Assessment of the Randomized Response Technique (RRT)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Dan R. Dalton ,
James C. Wimbush  and
Catherine M. Daily
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many areas of business ethics research are “sensitive.” We provide an empirical assessment of the randomized response technique which provides absolute anonymity to subjects and “legal immunity” to the researcher. Beyond that, RRT techniques provide complete disclosure to subjects, unconditional privacy is maintained, and there is no deception.

Type
Response Articles
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , January 1996 , pp. 87 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Psychological Association. (1982). Ethical Principles in the Conduct of Research With Human Participants. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
American Psychological Association. (1991). Questionnaires used in the Prediction of Trustworthiness in Pre-employment Selection Decisions: An APA Task Force Report.Google Scholar
Bergmann, T. J., Mundt, D. H., & Illgen, E. J. (1990). “The Evolution of Honesty Rights and Means for their Evaluation,” Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 3, 215–223.Google Scholar
Berry, L. E., Harwood, G. B., & Katz, J. L. (1987). “Performance of Auditing Procedures by Governmental Auditors: Some Preliminary Evidence,” The Accounting Review, 62, 14–28.Google Scholar
Boruch, R. F., & Cecel, J. S. (1979). Assuring the Confidentiality of Social Research Data. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Buchman, T. A. (1983). “The Reliability of Internal Auditors’ Working Papers,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 3, 92–103.Google Scholar
Buchman, T. A., & Tracy, J. A. (1982). “Obtaining Responses to Sensitive Questions: Conventional Questionnaire versus Randomized Response Technique,” Journal of Accounting Research, 20, 263–271.Google Scholar
Chaudhuri, A., & Mukerjee, R. (1988). Randomized Responses: Theory and Techniques. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.Google Scholar
Dalton, D. R., & Metzger, M. B. (1992a). “Towards Candor, Cooperation, and Privacy in Applied Business Ethics,” Business Ethics Quarterly, 2: 207–221.Google Scholar
Dalton, D. R., & Metzger, M. B. (1992b). “‘Integrity Testing’: A Delicate Balance,” Ethikos, 5: 14–17.Google Scholar
Dalton, D. R., & Metzger, M. B. (1993). “‘Integrity Testing’ for Personnel Selection: An Unsparing Perspective,” Journal of Business Ethics, 12: 147–56.Google Scholar
Dawes, R. M., & Smith, T. L. (1985). “Attitude and Opinion Measurement,” In Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (Eds.). The Handbook of Social Psychology. New York: Random House, pp. 509–566.Google Scholar
Durham, A. M., & Lichtenstein, M. J. (1983). “Response Bias in Self-report Surveys: Evaluation of Randomized Responses,” in Waldo, G.P. (Ed.). Measurement Issues in Criminal Justice. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Fox, J. A., & Tracy, P. E. (1986). Randomized Response: A Method for Sensitive Surveys. Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberger, D. B., Miceli, M. P., & Cohen, D. J. (1987). “Oppositionists and Group Norms: The Reciprocal Influence of Whistle-blowers and Co-workers,” Journal of Business Ethics, 6: 527–542.Google Scholar
Hosseini, J. C., & Armacost, R. L. (1990). “Randomized Responses: A Better Way to Obtain Sensitive Information,” Business Horizons, 33 (3), 82–86.Google Scholar
Jones, J. W., Ash, P., & Soto, C. (1990). “Employee Privacy Rights and Pre-employment Honesty Tests,” Employee Relations Law Journal, 15, 561–575.Google Scholar
Kaplan, A. (1964). The Conduct of Inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Kotz, S., & Stroup, D. F. (1983). Educated Guessing: How to Cope in an Uncertain World. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Lee, R. M., & Renzetti, C. M. (1990). “The Problems of Researching Sensitive Topics,” American Behavioral Scientist, 33: 510–528.Google Scholar
Manhardt, P. J. (1989). “Base Rates and Test of Deception: Has I/O Psychology Shot Itself in the Foot?” The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 26(2), 48–50.Google Scholar
Martin, S. J., & Battle, T. E. (1991). The Professional's Guide to Real Estate Auctions. Chicago: Dearborn Financial Publishing.Google Scholar
Martin, S. L., & Terris, W. (1991). “Predicting Infrequent Behavior: Clarifying the Impact on False-positive Rates,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 484–487.Google Scholar
Melton, G., & Gray, J. (1988). “Ethical Dilemmas in AIDS Research: Individual Privacy and Public Health,” American Psychologist, 43: 60–64.Google Scholar
Metzger, M. B. & Dalton, D. R. 1992. “‘Just Say No’ To Integrity Testing,” Journal of Law and Public Policy, 4: 9–38.Google Scholar
Moore, R. W., & Stewart, R. M. (1989). “Evaluating Employee Integrity: Moral and Methodological Problems.” Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 203–215.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R. (1987). “Detecting Infrequent Deception.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 611–614.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R. (1989). “Maybe We Should Shoot Ourselves in the Foot: Reply to Manhardt.” The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 26(3), 45–46.Google Scholar
National Academy of Sciences. (1979). “Report on the Panel on Privacy and Confidentiality as Factors in Survey Response.” Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
O'Bannon, R. M., Goldinger, L. A., & Appleby, G. S. (1988). Honesty and Integrity Testing: A Practical Guide. Atlanta, GA: Applied Information Resources.Google Scholar
Randall, D. M., & Gibson, A. M. (1990). “Methodology in Business Ethics Research: A Review and Critical Assessment.” Journal of Business Ethics, 9: 457–665.Google Scholar
Reinmuth, J. E., & Geurts, M. D. (1975). “The Collection of Sensitive Information using a Two-stage, Randomized Response Model.” Journal of Marketing Research, 402–407.Google Scholar
Sackett, P. R., Burris, L. R., & Callahan, C. (1989). “Integrity Testing for Personnel Selection: An Update.” Personnel Psychology, 42, 491–528.Google Scholar
Schneider, A., & Wilner, N. (1990). “A Test of Audit Deterrent to Financial Reporting Irregularities using the Randomized Response Technique.” The Accounting Review, 65, 668–681.Google Scholar
Schuman, H., & Kalton, G. (1985). “Survey Methods.” In Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (Eds.). The Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 635–698. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Seiber, J. E., & Stanley, B. (1988). “Ethical and Professional Dimensions of Socially Sensitive Research.” American Psychologist, 43: 49–55.Google Scholar
Steeh, C. G. (1981). “Trends in Nonresponse Rates, 1952-1979.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 45, 40–57.Google Scholar
Trevino, L. K. (1992). “Experimental Approaches to Studying Ethical-unethical Behavior in Organizations.” Business Ethics Quarterly, 2: 121–136.Google Scholar
Trevino, L. K., & Victor, B. (1992). “Peer Reporting of Unethical Behavior: A Social Context Perspective.” Academy of Management Journal, 35: 38–64.Google Scholar
Tracy, P. E., & Fox, J. A. (1981). “The Validity of Randomized Response for Sensitive Measurements.” American Sociological Review, 46, 187–200.Google Scholar
U. S. Congress. (1991). “The Use of Integrity Tests for Pre-employment Screening.” Office of Technical Assistance. Washington, DC: United States Printing Office.Google Scholar
Warner, S. L. (1965). “RR: A Survey Technique for Eliminating Evasive Answer Bias.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 60, 63–69.Google Scholar