Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Mini-Conference
Browse By Division
Browse By Session or Event Type
Browse Sessions by Fields of Interest
Browse Papers by Fields of Interest
Search Tips
Virtual Exhibit Hall
Change Preferences / Time Zone
Sign In
X (Twitter)
Political scientists use list experiments to address sensitive attitudes and behaviors, yet a recent review suggests that the technique is generally underpowered to capture the extent of sensitivity bias in most applications. An under-explored suggestion to overcome this limitation is to implement double list experiments, a variant of the list experiment that presents subjects with two baseline lists and randomly assigns the sensitive item to appear in one of the lists. However, to yield valid prevalence estimates, the researcher must guarantee that both lists are comparable. Aside from recommendations on how to construct lists, the discipline currently lacks a standard to determine whether two lists are indeed comparable, which means the researcher cannot disentangle a true effect from a design effect. Leveraging the placement of the sensitive item, this paper proposes a statistical test to detect design effects in double list experiments based on the difference in correlations across different treatment regimes. I illustrate the properties of this test with a reanalysis of a study on support for anti-immigration organizations in California, along with simulations and an original validation study.