Submitted 3 weeks ago by brisk@aussie.zone to australianpolitics@aussie.zone
In assuming all respondents have a religion, the framing of the question produces acquiescence bias that inflates data — by as much as 11 points, according to a number of surveys — in favour of religious affiliation.
Of all the things going on in the country, the specific wording of a census question is right up there on my list. 😃
Who the fuck is promoting this except for Christian evangelicals? I can’t see how this would benefit active else…
Regrettably, the ABS backed down following a media campaign by the Catholic hierarchy — who wanted to keep the question as it was, to ensure comparable data with past Censuses — and following the Albanese Government’s intervention on the Census design just days out from the large-scale test.
I do wonder what the problem is when there’s a ‘No religion’ option, though.
Per the article, without a “no religion” option people will pick the religion of their parents even if they’re now atheist.
If ever the option of Atheist / Agnostic / Non-Religious is missing, then I’ll opt to mis-classify as a Sikh, Hindu or other peaceful minority religion so that they have more of a chance to be recognised.
On the one hand, changing the way the question is asked might make it more accurate as one snapshot in time. On the other, it makes comparisons between years harder, and the change could mask other religious changes currently happening in the community.
I’m also not sure if asking if they’re religious first and only asking for which if they say yes, won’t have no bias in a different way. I used to know people who would say: “The Bible is truth and not religion”, and those people would be counted as not being religious if the changes were to occur. Then again, those people are rare, and might feel compelled to answer that they are religious anyway, even if they don’t think of themselves as such.
Psythik@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Anti-Lock Brakes?
brisk@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
Australian Bureau of Statistics