Characterizing Misreporters: Evidence from List Experiments

Last registered on September 15, 2025
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Characterizing Misreporters: Evidence from List Experiments
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0016555
Initial registration date
September 12, 2025

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
September 15, 2025, 9:44 AM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Country
United States of America
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Cameron Deal
Affiliation
Harvard University
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2025-09-22
End date
2025-09-23
Keywords
Behavior, Gender, Health, Labor
Additional Keywords
JEL code(s)
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Many surveys ask about topics—sexual orientation, suicidal thoughts, and polarizing policies—that people conceal due to social desirability bias. Studies that use anonymous methods (e.g., list experiments) routinely uncover large gaps in reported behavior and attitudes. For example, LGBTQ identity is 60-70% higher when anonymously reported. While list experiments have been used extensively across domains to estimate the level of misreporting, they are unable to describe the misreporters. I propose a technique for doing so. I re-interpret this design as an instrumental-variables (IV) problem: the extra item acts like an instrument that identifies the otherwise-hidden group of misreporters, allowing me to describe who they are and how they differ from people who disclose freely.
With a nationally representative sample recruited on the Prolific online platform, the project will outline the theory underlying this tool and apply it to three substantive settings: (1) economic and mental-health disparities among LGBQ Americans; (2) under-reporting of suicidal ideation; and (3) whether apparent left-right divides on abortion and climate change are exaggerated by social desirability bias.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Deal, Cameron. 2025. "Characterizing Misreporters: Evidence from List Experiments." AEA RCT Registry. September 15. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.16555-1.0
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
A treatment group of approximately 1250 respondents will see lists of 5 items, including 1 sensitive item, while a control group of roughly the same size will see shortened lists that omit the sensitive items, and be directly asked the sensitive item.
Intervention (Hidden)
The sensitive items of interest are:
1. I consider myself to be heterosexual.
2. I am sexually attracted to members of the same sex.
3. I have had a sexual experience with someone of the same sex.
4. During the past year, I seriously considered attempting suicide.
5. During the past year, I felt so sad or hopeless almost every day for at least two weeks in a row that I stopped doing my usual activities.
6. During the past year, I took medication that was prescribed to me to help with my mental health, emotions, or behavior
7. During the past year, I received professional counseling or therapy for my mental health, emotions, or behavior.
8. With respect to abortion, I consider myself to be pro-choice.
9. I think human activity contributes a great deal to global climate change.

The non-sensitive items come from Coffman, Coffman, and Ericson (Management Science, 2016).
Intervention Start Date
2025-09-22
Intervention End Date
2025-09-23

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
This study will use the outlined method to examine the level of misreporting in three domains:
1. LGBTQ identity
2. Mental health and treatment utilization
3. Political polarization on abortion rights and climate change

Additionally, the study will use the outlined methods to characterize the following covariates for direct reporters, the full complier population, and misreporters:
1. LGBTQ identity: Earnings, employment, parent's earnings, usual weekly hours, mental health (PHQ-8 and GAD-7 scores), age, sex/gender, religious affiliation, political affiliation/ideology, vote choice, and race.
2. Mental health: Mental health (PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores), age, sex/gender, religious affiliation, political affiliation/ideology, vote choice, and race.
3. Policy polarization: Political affiliation/ideology, vote choice, age, sex/gender.

Additionally, the study will compare these results to those obtained when stratifying by the above covariate values and comparing the magnitude of underreporting via regression. Finally, to account for the possibility of misreporting in both sexual orientation and mental health status, I will obtain corrected mental health estimates via a cross-randomized list experiment with suicidal ideation and sadness/hopelessness, then use these measures to establish disparities in mental health for the LGBQ population, accounting for misreporting with respect to both the outcome and the independent variable of interest.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
The study will also use the results from the mental health component to estimate the accuracy improvements of predictive algorithms based on directly reported vs. corrected covariate values and simulate the effects of interventions under both versions of targeting.

Additionally, secondary analysis will examine the efficacy of Bayesian shrinkage methods and/or empirical welfare maximization that incorporate direct reports and corrected reports to more accurately estimate covariate distributions and predict misreported outcomes.

Finally, we will incorporate tests for list experiment validity such as those developed by Chuang et al (2021).
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The study will randomly select roughly half of respondents to receive the veiled vs. direct report condition.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Survey software (Qualtrics)
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
2500 individuals
Sample size: planned number of observations
2500 individuals
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
1250 treatment, 1250 control
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Harvard University-Area Committee on the Use of Human Subjects
IRB Approval Date
2025-09-12
IRB Approval Number
IRB00000109
Analysis Plan

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials