AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 12, Issue 6, pp 964–973 | Cite as

Identifying Multiple Submissions in Internet Research: Preserving Data Integrity

  • Anne M. BowenEmail author
  • Candice M. Daniel
  • Mark L. Williams
  • Grayson L. Baird
Original Paper


Internet-based sexuality research with hidden populations has become increasingly popular. Respondent anonymity may encourage participation and lower social desirability, but associated disinhibition may promote multiple submissions, especially when incentives are offered. The goal of this study was to identify the usefulness of different variables for detecting multiple submissions from repeat responders and to explore incentive effects. The data included 1,900 submissions from a three-session Internet intervention with a pretest and three post-test questionnaires. Participants were men who have sex with men and incentives were offered to rural participants for completing each questionnaire. The final number of submissions included 1,273 “unique”, 132 first submissions by “repeat responders” and 495 additional submissions by the “repeat responders” (N = 1,900). Four categories of repeat responders were identified: “infrequent” (2–5 submissions), “persistent” (6–10 submissions), “very persistent” (11–30 submissions), and “hackers” (more than 30 submissions). Internet Provider (IP) addresses, user names, and passwords were the most useful for identifying “infrequent” repeat responders. “Hackers” often varied their IP address and identifying information to prevent easy identification, but investigating the data for small variations in IP, using reverse telephone look up, and patterns across usernames and passwords were helpful. Incentives appeared to play a role in stimulating multiple submissions, especially from the more sophisticated “hackers”. Finally, the web is ever evolving and it will be necessary to have good programmers and staff who evolve as fast as “hackers”.


Internet research Multiple submissions Repeat responders Validity Rural MSM 



The project was supported in part by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (MH-63667); The Wyoming Rural AIDS Prevention Projects. All work and opinions herein are solely those of the authors. I would also like to thank reviewers for providing very useful and easy to follow suggestions that have resulted in significant improvements in the manuscript.


  1. Birnbaum, M. H. (2000). Psychological experiments on the Internet. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  2. Birnbaum, M. H. (2004). Human research and data collection via the Internet. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 803–832.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowen, A. M. (2005). Internet sexuality research with rural MSM: Can we recruit and retain them? Journal Sex Research, 42(4), 317–323.Google Scholar
  4. Bowen, A. M., Williams, M. W., & Horvath, K. (2004). Using the Internet to recruit rural MSM for HIV risk assessment: Sampling issues. AIDS & Behavior, 8(3), 311–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Catania, J. (1999). A comment on advancing the frontiers of sexological methods. The Journal of Sex Research, 36, 1–2.Google Scholar
  6. Joinson, A. N. (Ed.). (1998). Causes and implications of disinhibited behavior on the Net. NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Konstan, J., Rosser, B. R. S., Ross, M., Stanton, J., & Edwards, W. (2005). The story of subject naught: A cautionary but optimistic tale of Internet survey research [Electronic Version]. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10. Retrieved May 28, 2007 from
  8. Kraut, R., Olson, J., Banaji, M., Bruckman, A., Cohen, J., & Couper, M. (2004). Psychological research online. American Psychologist, 59(2), 105–117.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Michalak, E., & Szabo, A. (1998). Guidelines for Internet research: An update. European Psychologist, 3, 70–75.Google Scholar
  10. Musch, J., & Reips, U.-D. (2000). A brief history of Web experimentation. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  11. Mustanski, B. S. (2001). Getting wired: Exploiting the Internet for the collection of valid sexuality data. The Journal of Sex Research, 38(4), 292–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwalk, A. G. (2002). E-research: Ethics, security, design and control in psychological research on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pequegnat, W., Rosser, B. R. S., Bowen, A. M., Bull, S. S., DiClemente, R., Bockting, W. O., et al. (2006). Conducting Internet-based HIV/STD prevention survey research: Considerations in design and evaluation. AIDS & Behavior, 11, 505–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Reips, U.-D. (Ed.). (2000). The Web experiment method: Advantages, disadvantages, and solutions. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  15. Reips, U.-D. (2002a). Internet-based psychological experimenting: Five dos and five don’ts. Social Science Computer Review, 20(3), 241–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Reips, U.-D. (2002b). Standards for Internet-based experimenting. Experimental Psychology, 49(4), 243–256.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ross, M., Rosser, B., Coleman, E., & Mazin, R. (2006). Misrepresentation on the Internet and in real life about sex and HIV: A study of Latino men who have sex with men. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 8, 133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne M. Bowen
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Candice M. Daniel
    • 1
  • Mark L. Williams
    • 3
  • Grayson L. Baird
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WyomingLaramieUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WyomingLaramieUSA
  3. 3.Center for Health Promotion and Prevention Research, UT-H SPHHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations