Characterizing Misreporters: Evidence on LGBQ Wage and Mental Health Gaps

• In Event: Responses to Risk and Marginalization among LGBTQ+ Populations

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 Prolific, I apply these methods to re-estimate economic and mental-health disparities for LGBQ Americans.

Author

• Cameron Hill Deal, Harvard University
  Presenting Author