Further, the alternative methods are unlikely to introduce new reasons for people to report IPV that they have not experienced. This is particularly true for the list experiment, where answers are anonymous by design, hence individuals have no incentive to overreport given they cannot be followed-up with to provide aid or program services. Therefore, it seems likely that the method with the highest reporting indicates the method that best addresses respondents’ reasons for misreporting and is closest to truth.

This assumption is supported by empirical evidence from the only study we that compares an observed sensitive behavior with self-reported behavior measured using direct and indirect methods including the list experiment. Rosenfeld, Imai and Shapiro (2016) found that when they were asked directly, people underreported their past voting behavior on a sensitive abortion referendum in Mississippi. However, rates were higher and closer to truth when they were asked using the list experiment. No method yielded rates higher than the true ‘socially undesirable’ outcome of voting against tightened abortion restrictions. This study suggests that indirect methods such as the list experiment, which mask a respondent’s true answer, can reduce misreporting bias.<sup>13</sup> Overall, evidence on the measurement of sensitive topics suggests that misreporting appears to be highly issue and context dependent (Blair, Coppock and Moor, 2018; Langhaug, Sherr and Cowan, 2010; Tourangeau and Yan, 2007), presumably affected by factors such as the interview setting, cultural norms, security and safety, and confidence in data privacy. Therefore, this paper primarily relates to misreporting about intimate partner and sexual violence, and in contexts similar to those studied here.

# **3 Experimental design**

## **3.1 Context, data & design**

Rwanda and Nigeria have high rates of IPV compared to the global average. According to data gathered using the direct face-to-face method, 45 percent of Rwandan women and 31 percent of Nigerian women report having experienced physical or sexual IPV in the past 12 months (Global Burden of Disease, 2017). This compares to 13 percent of women in the United States and United Kingdom, 42 percent in Kenya, 39 percent in India, and 31 percent in South Africa. In terms of IPV predictors, poorer, less educated women report IPV at higher rates in Rwanda, while richer, more educated women report more IPV in Nigeria (DHS, 2016, 2014).

Both experiments described below were conducted in accordance with WHO guidelines on the safe and ethical collection of data on violence against women (WHO, 2001, 2016).

### **3.1.1 Rwanda**

In Rwanda, the measurement experiment was conducted on a sample of 2,728 heterosexual couples who were participating in the baseline survey of an IPV prevention study. To be eligible for the intervention, couples had to be aged 18 years or over and married or cohabiting for at least 12 months. The study took place in Eastern Province, in eight sectors selected by the Government of Rwanda for high rates of IPV and a high concentration of Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs) (which the intervention was

> 13It also demonstrates that experiments that compare reporting rates across methods can put a sign and bounds on the likely misreporting bias of standard survey methods.

6