Sex Roles

, Volume 24, Issue 11–12, pp 669–680

Sex differences in reporting sensitive behavior: A comparison of interview methods

  • Timothy P. Johnson
  • James G. HouglandJr.
  • Robert W. Moore
Article

Abstract

While telephone surveys generally are considered to be comparable to in-person interviews for the collection of survey data, their utility for the acquisition of sensitive information from respondents remains in question. This paper examines the effect of interview method upon self-reports of a threatening topic—substance use—for male and female college students. It is hypothesized that males may be less likely to admit sensitive behaviors in telephone interviews, compared to face-to-face encounters, due to an interaction of a characteristic of the telephone medium (i.e., the lack of balanced exchange of identifying information between the interviewer and respondent) and aspects of the male sex role, which discourages self-revelation. Findings indicate that differences in reported use of both legal and illegal substances by interview method were greater among males than females. These gender differences in reporting behavior by survey method remained after statistical controls were applied.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Afifi, A. A., & Clark, V. (1984). Computer-Aided Multivariate Analysis. Belmont, CA: Lifetime Learning Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Aneshensel, C. S., Frerichs, R. R., Clark, V. A., & Yokopenic, P. A. (1982a). Telephone versus in-person surveys of community health status. American Journal of Public Health, 72, 1017–1021.Google Scholar
  3. Aneshensel, C. S., Frerichs, R. R., Clark, V. A., & Yokopenic, P. A. (1982b). Measuring depression in the community: A comparison of telephone and personal interviews. Public Opinion Quarterly, 46, 110–121.Google Scholar
  4. Aquilino, W. S., & LoSciuto, L. A. (1989). Effects of interview made on the validity of drug use surveys. In F. J. Fowler (Ed.), Health survey research methods, Conference Proceedings, DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 89-3447. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  5. Bradburn, N. M. (1983). Response effects. In P. H. Rossi, J. D., Right, & A. B. Anderson, (Eds.), Handbook of survey research. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bradburn, N. M., & Sudman, S. (1979). Improving interview method and questionnaire design: Response effects to threatening questions in survey research. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Bradburn, N. M., Sudman, S., Blair, E., & Stoching, C. (1970). Question threat and response bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 221–234.Google Scholar
  8. Cahalan, D. (1968). Correlates of respondent accuracy in the Denver Validity Survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 32, 607–621.Google Scholar
  9. Clayton, R. R., Voss, H. L., Robbins, C., & Skinner, W. F. (1986). Gender differences in drug use: An epidemiological perspective. In B. A. Ray & M. C. Brande (Eds.), Women and drugs: A new ERA for research, National Institute of Drug Abuse Research Monograph Series 65, DHHS Pub. No. (ADM) 87-1447. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  10. Colombotos, J. (1969). Personal versus telephone interviews: Effect on responses. Public Health Reports, 84, 773–782.Google Scholar
  11. Cozby, P. C. (1973). Self-disclosure: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 79, 73–91.Google Scholar
  12. Czaja, R. (1987–88). Asking sensitive behavioral questions in telephone interviews. International Quarterly of Community Health Education, 8, 23–32.Google Scholar
  13. Frank, B. (1985). Telephone surveying for drug abuse: Methodological issues and an application. In B. A. Rouse, Kozel, N. J., & L. G. Richards (Eds.), Self-report methods of estimating drug use: Meeting current challenges to validity, National Institute Drug Abuse Research Monograph Series 57, DHHS Pub. No. (ADM) 85-1402. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  14. Frey, J. H. (1983). Survey research by telephone. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Groves, R. M. (1989). Survey errors and survey costs. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  16. Groves, R. M., & Kahn, R. L. (1979). Surveys by telephone: A National comparison with personal interviews. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hill, C. T., & Stull, D. E. (1987). Gender and self-disclosure: Strategies for exploring the issues. In V. J. Derlega, J. H. Berg (Eds.), Self disclosure: Theory, research, and therapy. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  18. Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  19. Jabine, T. B., Straf, M. L., Tanur, J. M., & Tourangeau, R. (1984). Cognitive aspects of survey methodology: Building a bridge between disciplines. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  20. Janovsky, I. (1971). Affective self-disclosure in telephone versus face-to-face interviews. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 1, 93–103.Google Scholar
  21. Jessor, R. T. (1979). Marijuana: A review of recent psychosocial research. In R. Dupont, A. Goldstein, & J. O'Donnel (Eds.), Handbook on drug abuse, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, T. P., Hougland, J. G., & Clayton, R. R. (1989). Obtaining reports of sensitive behavior: A comparison of substance-use reports from telephone and face-to-face interviews. Social Science Quarterly, 70, 174–183.Google Scholar
  23. Jordan, L. A., Marcus, A. C., & Reeder, L. G. (1980). Response styles in telephone and household interviews: A field experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 210–222.Google Scholar
  24. Jourard, S. M. (1971). Self disclosure: An experimental analysis of the transparent self. New York: Wiley—Interscience.Google Scholar
  25. Kandel, D. B. (1980). Drug and drinking behavior among youth. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 235–285.Google Scholar
  26. Kaplan, H. B., Martin, S. S., Johnson, R. J., & Raffin, C. A. (1986). Escalation of marijuana use: Application of general theory of deviation behavior. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 27, 44–61.Google Scholar
  27. Klecka, W. R., & Tuchfarber, A. J. (1978). Random digit dialing: A comparison to personal surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 105–114.Google Scholar
  28. Mangione, T. W., Hingson, R., & Barrett, J. (1982). Collecting sensitive data: A comparison of three survey strategies. Sociological Methods and Research, 10, 337–346.Google Scholar
  29. Martin, E. (1983). Surveys as social indicators: problems in monitoring trends. In: P. H. Rossi, J. D. Wright, & A. B. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of survey research. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  30. Mellinger, G. D., Balter, M. B., Manheimer, D. I., Cisin, I. H., & Perry, H. J. (1978). Psychic distress, life crisis, and use of psychotherapeutic medications. Archives of General Psychiatry, 35, 1045–1052.Google Scholar
  31. Miller, J. D., Cisin, I. H., Gardner, Keaton, H., Harrell, A. V., Wirtz, P. W., Abelson, H. I., & Fishburne, P. M. (1983). National survey of drug abuse: Main findings 1982, DHHS Pub. No. (ADM) 83-1263, Public Health Service. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  32. Murphy, P. A., & Binson, D. (1988). Who says “no” to whom: Respondent-interviewer interaction in refusal to sensitive questions. Paper presented at annual meeting of American Association for Public Option Research, Toronto.Google Scholar
  33. Murray, D. M., & Perry, C. L. (1985). The prevention of adolescent drug abuse: Implications of etiological, developmental, behavioral and environmental models. In C. L. James, R. J. Battjes (Eds.), Etiology of drug abuse: Implications for prevention, National Institute of Drug Abuse Research Monograph Series 56, DHHS Pub. No. (ADM) 87-1335. Washington DC: U.S. government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  34. Pleck, J. H. (1976). The male sex role: Definitions, problems, and sources of change. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 155–164.Google Scholar
  35. Rogers, T. F. (1976). Interviews by telephone and in person: Quality of responses and field performance. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40, 51–65.Google Scholar
  36. Snell, W. E., Belk, S. S., & Hawkins, R. C. (1987). Alcohol and drug use in stressful times: The influence of the masculine role and sex-related personality attributes. Sex Roles, 16, 359–373.Google Scholar
  37. Suchman, E. A. (1968). The “Hang-loose” ethic and the spirit of drug use. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 9, 146–155.Google Scholar
  38. Suffett, F., & Brotman, R. (1976). Female drug use: Some observations. International Journal of the Additions, 11, 19–33.Google Scholar
  39. Sykes, W., & Collins, M. (1988). Effects of model of interview: Experiments in the U.S. In R. M. Groves, P. P. Biemer, L. E. Lyberg, J. T. Massey, W. L. Nicholls, & J. Wansberg (Eds.), Telephone survey methodology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  40. Thornberry, O. T. (1987). An experimental comparison of telephone and personal health interview surveys, Data Evaluation and Methods Research Series 2, No. 106, DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 87-1380, Public Health Service. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  41. Waltman, H. F., Turner, A. G., & Bushery, J. M. (1980). A comparison of three mixed-mode interviewing procedures in the National Crime Survey. Jouranl of the American Statistical Association, 75, 534–543.Google Scholar
  42. Weeks, M. F., Kulka, R. A., Lessler, J. T., & Whitmore, R. W. (1983). Personal versus telephone surveys for collecting household health data at the local level. American Journal of Public Health, 73, 1389–1394.Google Scholar
  43. Wister, A. V., & Avison, W. R. (1982). ‘Friendly persuasion’: A social network analysis or sex differences in marijuana use.” International Journal of the Addictions, 17, 523–541.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy P. Johnson
    • 1
  • James G. HouglandJr.
    • 2
  • Robert W. Moore
    • 2
  1. 1.University of IllinoisUSA
  2. 2.University of KentuckyUSA

Personalised recommendations