LEADER 01000naa a22002652 4500
001 NLM338197087
003 DE-627
005 20231226000129.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 231226s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1111/cobi.13908  |2 doi 
028 5 2 |a pubmed24n1127.xml 
035 |a (DE-627)NLM338197087 
035 |a (NLM)35288991 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rakwb 
041 |a eng 
100 1 |a Ibbett, Harriet  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Experimental validation of specialized questioning techniques in conservation 
264 1 |c 2022 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a ƒaComputermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a ƒa Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
500 |a Date Completed 03.10.2022 
500 |a Date Revised 01.07.2023 
500 |a published: Print-Electronic 
500 |a Citation Status MEDLINE 
520 |a © 2022 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology. 
520 |a Conservation increasingly relies on social science tools to understand human behavior. Specialized questioning techniques (SQTs) are a suite of methods designed to reduce bias in social surveys and are widely used to collect data on sensitive topics, including compliance with conservation rules. Most SQTs have been developed in Western, industrialized, educated, rich, and democratic countries, meaning their suitability in other contexts may be limited. Whether these techniques perform better than conventional direct questioning is important for those considering their use. We designed an experiment to validate the performance of four SQTs (unmatched count technique, randomized response technique, crosswise model, and bean method) against direct questions when asking about a commonly researched sensitive behavior in conservation, wildlife hunting. We developed fictional characters, and for each method asked respondents to report the answers that each fictional character should give when asked if they hunt wildlife. We collected data from 609 individuals living close to protected areas in two different cultural and socioeconomic contexts (Indonesia and Tanzania) to quantify the extent to which respondents understood and followed SQT instructions and to explore the sociodemographic factors that influenced a correct response. Data were modeled using binomial general linear mixed models. Participants were more likely to refuse to answer questions asked using SQTs compared with direct questions. Model results suggested that SQTs were harder for participants to understand. Demographic factors (e.g., age and education level) significantly influenced response accuracy. When sensitive responses to sensitive questions were required, all SQTs (excluding the bean method) outperformed direct questions, demonstrating that SQTs can successfully reduce sensitivity bias. However, when reviewing each method, most respondents (59-89%) reported they would feel uncomfortable using them to provide information on their own hunting behavior, highlighting the considerable challenge of encouraging truthful reporting on sensitive topics. Our results demonstrate the importance of assessing the suitability of social science methods prior to their implementation in conservation contexts 
650 4 |a Journal Article 
650 4 |a Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't 
650 4 |a bean method 
650 4 |a bias 
650 4 |a crosswise model 
650 4 |a direct questions 
650 4 |a modelo transversal 
650 4 |a método bean 
650 4 |a preguntas directas 
650 4 |a randomized response techniques 
650 4 |a rompimiento de reglas 
650 4 |a rule breaking 
650 4 |a sensibilidad 
650 4 |a sensitivity 
650 4 |a sesgo 
650 4 |a técnica de conteo sin par 
650 4 |a técnicas de respuesta aleatoria 
650 4 |a unmatched count technique 
650 4 |a 交叉模型 
650 4 |a 偏差 
650 4 |a 敏感性 
650 4 |a 无配对计数技术 
650 4 |a 直接提问 
650 4 |a 破坏规则 
650 4 |a 豆子法 
650 4 |a 随机回答技术 
700 1 |a Dorward, Leejiah  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Dwiyahreni, Asri A  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Jones, Julia P G  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Kaduma, Joseph  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Kohi, Edward M  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Mchomvu, Jesca  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Prayitno, Karlina  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Sabiladiyni, Humairah  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Sankeni, Stephen  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Saputra, Andie Wijaya  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Supriatna, Jatna  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
700 1 |a St John, Freya A V  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology  |d 1999  |g 36(2022), 5 vom: 14. Okt., Seite e13908  |w (DE-627)NLM098176803  |x 1523-1739  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:36  |g year:2022  |g number:5  |g day:14  |g month:10  |g pages:e13908 
856 4 0 |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13908  |3 Volltext 
912 |a GBV_USEFLAG_A 
912 |a SYSFLAG_A 
912 |a GBV_NLM 
912 |a GBV_ILN_350 
951 |a AR 
952 |d 36  |j 2022  |e 5  |b 14  |c 10  |h e13908