Editing Response bias (section)

==History of research==
Awareness of response bias has been present in [[psychology]] and [[sociology]] literature for some time because self-reporting features significantly in those fields of research. However, researchers were initially unwilling to admit the degree to which they impact, and potentially invalidate research utilizing these types of measures.<ref name="Gove 1977"/> Some researchers believed that the biases present in a group of subjects cancel out when the group is large enough.<ref>Hyman, H; 1954. [https://books.google.com/books?id=Lj0OAQAAIAAJ ''Interviewing in Social Research.''] Chicago: University of Chicago Press.</ref> This would mean that the impact of response bias is random noise, which washes out if enough participants are included in the study.<ref name="Gove 1977"/> However, at the time this argument was proposed, effective methodological tools that could test it were not available.<ref name="Gove 1977"/> Once newer methodologies were developed, researchers began to investigate the impact of response bias.<ref name="Gove 1977"/> From this renewed research, two opposing sides arose.

The first group supports Hyman's belief that although response bias exists, it often has minimal effect on participant response, and no large steps need to be taken to mitigate it.<ref name="Gove 1977"/><ref name="Clancy 1974">{{cite journal|last1=Clancy|first1=Kevin|last2=Gove|first2=Walter|title=Sex Differences in Mental Illness: An Analysis of Response Bias in Self-Reports|journal=American Journal of Sociology|date=1974|volume=80|issue=1|pages=205–216|jstor=2776967|doi=10.1086/225767|s2cid=46255353}}</ref><ref name="Campbell 1976">Campbell, A. Converse, P. Rodgers; 1976. [https://books.google.com/books?id=h_QWAwAAQBAJ ''The Quality of American Life: Perceptions, Evaluations and Satisfaction.''] New York: Russell Sage.</ref> These researchers hold that although there is significant literature identifying response bias as influencing the responses of study participants, these studies do not in fact provide [[empirical evidence]] that this is the case.<ref name="Gove 1977"/> They subscribe to the idea that the effects of this bias wash out with large enough samples, and that it is not a systematic problem in [[mental health]] research.<ref name="Gove 1977"/><ref name="Clancy 1974"/> These studies also call into question earlier research that investigated response bias on the basis of their [[List of psychological research methods|research methodologies]]. For example, they mention that many of the studies had very small [[Sample (statistics)|sample sizes]], or that in studies looking at [[Social desirability bias|social desirability]], a subtype of response bias, the researchers had no way to [[Quantification (science)|quantify]] the desirability of the statements used in the study.<ref name="Gove 1977"/> Additionally, some have argued that what researchers may believe to be artifacts of response bias, such as differences in responding between men and women, may in fact be actual differences between the two groups.<ref name="Clancy 1974"/> Several other studies also found evidence that response bias is not as big of a problem as it may seem. The first found that when comparing the responses of participants, with and without controls for response bias, their answers to the surveys were not [[Statistical significance|different]].<ref name="Clancy 1974"/> Two other studies found that although the bias may be present, the effects are extremely small, having little to no impact towards dramatically changing or altering the responses of participants.<ref name="Campbell 1976"/><ref name="Gove 1976">{{cite journal|doi=10.1016/0037-7856(76)90118-9|pmid=1006342|title=Response bias in community surveys of mental health: Systematic bias or random noise?|journal=Social Science & Medicine |volume=10|issue=9–10|pages=497–502|year=1976|last1=Gove|first1=Walter R.|last2=McCorkel|first2=James|last3=Fain|first3=Terry|last4=Hughes|first4=Michael D.}}</ref>

The second group argues against Hyman's point, saying that response bias has a significant effect, and that researchers need to take steps to reduce response bias in order to conduct sound research.<ref name="Furnham"/><ref name="Nederhof"/> They argue that the impact of response bias is a [[systematic error]] inherent to this type of research and that it needs to be addressed in order for studies to be able to produce accurate results. In psychology, there are many studies exploring the impact of response bias in many different settings and with many different [[Variable and attribute (research)|variables]]. For example, some studies have found effects of response bias in the reporting of [[Major depressive disorder|depression]] in elderly patients.<ref name="Knauper 1994">{{cite journal|doi=10.1016/0022-3956(94)90026-4|pmid=7932277|title=Diagnosing major depression in the elderly: Evidence for response bias in standardized diagnostic interviews?|journal=Journal of Psychiatric Research|volume=28|issue=2|pages=147–164|year=1994|last1=Knäuper|first1=Bärbel|last2=Wittchen|first2=Hans-Ulrich}}</ref> Other researchers have found that there are serious issues when responses to a given survey or questionnaire have responses that may seem desirable or undesirable to report, and that a person's responses to certain questions can be biased by their culture.<ref name="Nederhof"/><ref name="Fischer 2004">{{cite journal|doi=10.1177/0022022104264122|title=Standardization to Account for Cross-Cultural Response Bias: A Classification of Score Adjustment Procedures and Review of Research in JCCP|journal=Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology|volume=35|issue=3|pages=263–282 |year=2004|last1=Fischer|first1=Ronald|s2cid=32046329}}</ref> Additionally, there is support for the idea that simply being part of an experiment can have dramatic effects on how participants act, thus biasing anything that they may do in a research or experimental setting when it comes to self-reporting.<ref name="Orne 1962"/> One of the most influential studies was one which found that social desirability bias, a type of response bias, can account for as much as 10–70% of the [[variance]] in participant response.<ref name="Nederhof"/> Essentially, because of several findings that illustrate the dramatic effects response bias has on the outcomes of self-report research, this side supports the idea that steps need to be taken to mitigate the effects of response bias to maintain the accuracy of research.

While both sides have support in the literature, there appears to be greater empirical support for the significance of response bias.<ref name="Furnham"/><ref name="Nederhof"/><ref name="Orne 1962"/><ref name="Fischer 2004"/><ref name="Reese 2013">{{cite journal|doi=10.1002/jclp.21946|pmid=23349082|title=The Influence of Demand Characteristics and Social Desirability on Clients' Ratings of the Therapeutic Alliance|journal=Journal of Clinical Psychology|volume=69|issue=7|pages=696–709|year=2013|last1=Reese|first1=Robert J.|last2=Gillaspy|first2=J. Arthur|last3=Owen|first3=Jesse J.|last4=Flora|first4=Kevin L.|last5=Cunningham|first5=Linda C.|last6=Archie|first6=Danielle|last7=Marsden|first7=Troymichael}}</ref><ref name="Cronbach">{{cite journal|doi=10.1037/h0054677|title=Studies of acquiescence as a factor in the true-false test|journal=Journal of Educational Psychology|volume=33|issue=6|pages=401–415|year=1942|last1=Cronbach|first1=L. J.}}</ref> To add strength to the claims of those who argue the importance of response bias, many of the studies that reject the significance of response bias report multiple methodological issues in their studies. For example, they have extremely small samples that are not representative of the population as a whole, they only considered a small subset of potential variables that could be affected by response bias, and their measurements were conducted over the phone with poorly worded statements.<ref name="Gove 1977"/><ref name="Clancy 1974"/>