and Imai 2012; Glynn 2013), and randomized response design (e.g., Blair et al. 2015). In the case of endorsement experiments and list experiments, a control group is used to compare the responses of the treatment group with a slightly changed questionnaire; and in the case of randomized response design, by accounting for the known probability of the response being uninformative to the sensitive question, the researcher can infer the response to sensitive questions at the population level.

However, these indirect methods have their limitations. Indirect approaches are limited in the types of things that can be asked and the specificity with which respondents can describe sometimes complicated viewpoints<sup>3</sup> ; the results of some of these approaches are highly dependent on the wording of questions and can significantly vary from experiment to experiment<sup>4</sup> ; and the inability to identify responses at the individual level limits the ability to further investigate the causes and consequences of sensitive decisions. As a consequence of some of these challenges, the estimates from indirect methods are often not very precise in the few instances that one has the ability to validate the results (e.g., Rosenfield et al. 2015; Kramon and Weghorst 2019; etc.).

But in addition to these indirect approaches, there is a second and more qualitative approach where an individual embeds themselves in communities to build a better rapport with respondents and populations of interest, who then might reveal things that they might not have in a more typical questionnaire (e.g., Blattman et al. 2016). But this approach can be time-consuming, costly, and difficult to perform on a large scale<sup>5</sup> ; and even if one builds rapport with respondents, given the lack of anonymity, it is still possible that respondents continue to underreport sensitive behaviors.<sup>6</sup>

> 3For example, an endorsement experiment can be used to try and infer support for a particular group, but cannot be used to understand what that support consisted of, the frequency of support, and so on. 4In the mobile phone survey analyzed here, we also included an endorsement experiment that resulted in a likely underestimate of support for parties to the conflict; and in the internet-based survey used here, we performed a series of endorsement and list experiments to evaluate support for parties to the conflict and found inconsistent results. It is difficult to know exactly why the results were not robust. For example, it is possible that some of actions that were endorsed by parties to the conflict were deemed too important to be impacted by partisan views, but regardless of the reason, the results were not robust across wordings, contexts, and modalities.

> 5For example, in Blattman et al. (2016), only a subset of the households that were part of the randomized control trial were able to be interviewed in this way.

> 6There is another approach that is direct and anonymous from the enumerator, where respondents are administered self-interviewing surveys through audio recordings and tablets. However, the respondent is made aware that their responses and identifying information will be accessible to researchers, and thus

6