Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37377726›Full record

ArticleConservation science and practice2023

Topic sensitivity still affects honest responding, even when specialized questioning techniques are used.

Harriet Ibbett, Leejiah J Dorward, Edward M Kohi, Julia P G Jones, Stephen Sankeni, Joseph Kaduma, Jesca Mchomvu, Rose Mawenya, Freya A V St John

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation science and practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Harriet IbbettSchool of Natural Sciences, College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1213-4834
Leejiah J DorwardSchool of Natural Sciences, College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7756-8989
Edward M KohiWildlife Population Monitoring, Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI), Arusha Tanzania.
Julia P G JonesSchool of Natural Sciences, College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5199-3335
Stephen SankeniConservation and Human Behaviour Research Group, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
Joseph KadumaConservation and Human Behaviour Research Group, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
Jesca MchomvuConservation and Human Behaviour Research Group, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
Rose MawenyaConservation and Human Behaviour Research Group, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
Freya A V St JohnSchool of Natural Sciences, College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5707-310X
Bangor University · GBTanzania Wildlife Research Institute · TZ

Funding

European Research Council 755965
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To develop more effective interventions, conservationists require robust information about the proportion of people who break conservation rules (such as those relating to protected species, or protected area legislation). Developed to obtain more accurate estimates of sensitive behaviors, including rule-breaking, specialized questioning techniques such as Randomized Response Techniques (RRTs) are increasingly applied in conservation, but with mixed evidence of their effectiveness. We use a forced-response RRT to estimate the prevalence of five rule-breaking behaviors in communities living around the Ruaha-Rungwa ecosystem in Tanzania. Prevalence estimates obtained for all behaviors were negative or did not differ significantly from zero, suggesting the RRT did not work as expected and that respondents felt inadequately protected. To investigate, we carried out a second study to explore how topic sensitivity influenced respondents' propensity to follow RRT instructions. Results from this experimental study revealed respondents understood instructions well (~88% of responses were correct) but that propensity to follow RRT instructions was significantly influenced by the behavior asked about, and the type of answer they were required to provide. Our two studies highlight that even if RRTs are well understood by respondents, where topics are sensitive and respondents are wary of researchers, their use does not necessarily encourage more honest responding.

Indexed as

biashuntingnon-complianceRandomized Response Techniquerule-breakingsensitive topicssocial sciencesTanzania

Identifiers

PMID37377726
PMCPMC7614702
OpenAlexW4362464189

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.