Social Indicators Research

, Volume 117, Issue 2, pp 489–504 | Cite as

Social Desirability Bias in Self-reports of Physical Activity: Is an Exercise Identity the Culprit?

Article

Abstract

Like that of other normative behaviors, much of the research on physical exercise is based on self-reports that are prone to overreporting. While research has focused on identifying the presence and degree of overreporting, this paper fills an important gap by investigating its causes. The explanation based in impression management will be challenged, using an explanation based in identity theory as an arguably better fitting alternative. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: (1) a web instrument using direct survey questions, or (2) a chronological reporting procedure using text messaging. Comparisons to validation data from a reverse record check indicate significantly greater rates of overreporting in the web condition than in the text condition. Results suggest that measurement bias is associated with the importance of the respondents’ exercise identity, prompted by the directness of the conventional survey question. Findings call into question the benefit of self-administration for bias reduction in measurement of normative behaviors.

Keywords

Survey research Measurement Social desirability bias Identity Exercise 

References

  1. Adams, S. A., Matthews, C. E., Ebbeling, C. B., Moore, C. G., Cunningham, J. E., Fulton, J., et al. (2005). The effect of social desirability and social approval on self-reports of physical activity. American Journal of Epidemiology, 161(4), 389–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ainsworth, B. E., Jacobs, D. R., & Leon, A. S. (1993). Validity and reliability of self-reported physical activity status: the Lipid Research Clinics questionnaire. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 25(1), 92–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albanes, D., Conway, J. M., Taylor, P. R., Moe, P. W., & Judd, J. (1990). Validation and comparison of eight physical activity questionnaires. Epidemiology, 1(1), 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aquilino, W. S., & LoSciuto, L. (1990). Effects of interview mode on self-reported drug use. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54(3), 362–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baranowski, T. (1988). Validity and reliability of self report measures of physical activity: An information-processing perspective. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 59(4), 314–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bassett, D. R. (2000). Validity and reliability issues in objective monitoring of physical activity. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71(2 Supplement), S30–S36.Google Scholar
  7. Belli, R. F., Traugott, M. W., Young, M., & McGonagle, K. A. (1999). Reducing vote overreporting in surveys: Social desirability, memory failure, and source monitoring. Public Opinion Quarterly, 63(1), 90–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernstein, R., Chadha, A., & Montjoy, R. (2001). Overreporting voting: Why it happens and why it matters. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65(1), 22–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 579–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brenner, P. S. (2011). Identity importance and the overreporting of religious service attendance: Multiple imputation of religious attendance using the american time use study and the general social survey. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50(1), 103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brenner, P. S., & DeLamater, J. D. (2013). Paradata correlates of data quality in an SMS time use study: Evidence from a validation study. Center for Demography and Ecology Working Paper No. 2013-03. University of Wisconsin-Madison. http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/2013-02.pdf. Accessed 29 May 2013.
  12. Burke, P. J. (1980). The self: Measurement implications from a symbolic interactionist perspective. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43(1), 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cannell, C. F., Marquis, K. H., & Laurent, A. (1977). A summary of studies of interviewing methodology. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 2, 1–68.Google Scholar
  14. Cannell, C. F., Miller, P. V., & Oksenberg, L. (1981). Research on interviewing techniques. Sociological Methodology, 11, 389–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chase, D. R., & Godbey, G. C. (1983). The accuracy of self-reported participation rates. Leisure Studies, 2(2), 231–235.Google Scholar
  16. Chaves, M., & Stephens, L. (2003). Church attendance in the United States. In M. Dillon (Ed.), Handbook of the Sociology of Religion (pp. 85–95). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987). Validity and reliability of the experience-sampling method. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175(9), 526–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Durante, R., & Ainsworth, B. E. (1996). The recall of physical activity: Using a cognitive model of the question-answering process. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 28(10), 1282–1291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ervin, L. H., & Stryker, S. (2001). Theorizing the relationship between self-esteem and identity. In T. J. Owens, S. Stryker, & N. Goodman (Eds.), Extending self-esteem theory and research: sociological and psychological currents (pp. 29–55). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Groves, R. M. (1989/2004). Survey errors and survey costs. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Hadaway, C. K., Marler, P. L., & Chaves, M. (1998). Overreporting church attendance in America: Evidence that demands the same verdict. American Sociological Review, 63(1), 122–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jacobs, D. R., Ainsworth, B. E., Hartman, T. J., & Leon, A. S. (1993). A simultaneous evaluation of 10 commonly used physical activity questionnaires. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 25(1), 81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klesges, R. C., Eck, L. H., Mellon, M. W., Fulliton, W., Somes, G. W., & Hanson, C. L. (1990). The accuracy of self-reports of physical activity. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 22(5), 690–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kreuter, F., Presser, S., & Tourangeau, R. (2008). Social desirability bias in CATI, IVR, and web surveys: The effects of mode and question sensitivity. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 847–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leenders, N. Y. J. M., Sherman, W. M., Nagaraja, H. N., & Kien, C. L. (2001). Evaluation of methods to access physical activity in free-living conditions. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 33(7), 1233–1240.Google Scholar
  26. Matthews, C. E., & Freedson, P. S. (1995). Field trial of a three-dimensional activity monitor: Comparison with self-report. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 27(7), 1071–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Matthews, C. E., Freedson, P. S., Hebert, J. R., Stanek, E. J., I. I. I., Merriam, P. A., & Ockene, I. S. (2000). Comparing physical activity assessment methods in the Seasonal Variation of Blood Cholesterol Study. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 32(5), 976–984.Google Scholar
  28. Motl, R. W., McAuley, E., & DiStefano, C. (2005). Is social desirability associated with self-reported physical activity? Preventative Medicine, 40(6), 735–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Niemi, I. (1993). Systematic error in behavioral measurement: Comparing results from interview and time budget studies. Social Indicators Research, 30(2–3), 229–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Patterson, P. (2000). Reliability, validity, and methodological response to the assessment of physical activity via self-report. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71(2 Supplement), 15–20.Google Scholar
  31. Robinson, J. P. (1985). The validity and reliability of diaries versus alternative time use measures. In F. T. Juster & F. P. Stafford (Eds.), Time, goods, and well-being (pp. 33–62). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
  32. Robinson, J. P. (1999). The time-diary method: Structure and uses. In W. E. Pentland, A. S. Harvey, M. P. Lawton, & M. A. McColl (Eds.), Time use research in the social sciences (pp. 47–90). New York: Klewer/Plenum.Google Scholar
  33. Rzewnicki, R., Vanden Auweele, Y., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2003). Addressing overreporting on the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) telephone survey with a population sample. Public Health Nutrition, 6(3), 299–305.Google Scholar
  34. Sallis, J. F., & Saelens, B. E. (2000). Assessment of physical activity by self-reports: Status, limitations, and future directions. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71(2 Supplement), 1–14.Google Scholar
  35. Schuman, H. (1982). Artifacts are in the eye of the beholder. American Sociologist, 17(1), 21–28.Google Scholar
  36. Shephard, R. J. (2003). Limits to the measurement of habitual physical activity by questionnaires. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 37(3), 197–206.Google Scholar
  37. Stinson, L. L. (1999). Measuring how people spend their time: A time use survey design. Monthly Labor Review, 122(1), 12–19.Google Scholar
  38. Stocké, V. (2007). Response privacy and elapsed time since election day as determinants for vote overreporting. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(2), 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stryker, S. (1980/2003). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Caldwell, NJ: The Blackburn Press.Google Scholar
  40. Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 284–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. (1982). Commitment, identity salience, and role behavior: Theory and research example. In W. Ickes & E. S. Knowles (Eds.), Personality, roles, and social behavior (pp. 199–218). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. (1994). Identity salience and psychological centrality: Equivalent, overlapping, or complimentary concepts? Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(1), 16–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Taylor, C. B., Coffey, T., Berra, K., Iaffaldano, R., & Casey, K. (1984). Seven-day activity and self-report compared to a direct measure of physical activity. American Journal of Epidemiology, 120(6), 818–820.Google Scholar
  44. Tourangeau, R. (1984). Cognitive science and survey methods. In T. Jabine, M. Straf, J. Tanur, & R. Tourangeau (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of survey design: Building a bridge between disciplines. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  45. Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. A. (2000). The psychology of survey response. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008). 2008 Physical activity guidelines for Americans. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, ODPHP U0036.Google Scholar
  47. Washburn, R., Heath, G. W., & Jackson, A. W. (2000). Reliability and validity issues concerning large-scale surveillance of physical activity. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71(2 Supplement), 104–113.Google Scholar
  48. Weisberg, H. F. (2005). The total survey error approach: A guide to the new science of survey research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Williams, E., Klesges, R. C., Hanson, C. L., & Eck, L. (1989). A prospective study of the reliability and convergent validity of three physical activity measures in a field research trial. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 42(12), 1161–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Woodberry, R. D. (1998). When surveys lie and people tell the truth: How surveys oversample church attenders. American Sociological Review, 63(1), 119–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zerubavel, E. (1989). The seven day circle: The history and meaning of the week. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  52. Zuzanek, J., & Smale, B. J. A. (1999). Life-cycle and across-the-week allocation of time to daily activities. In W. E. Pentland, A. S. Harvey, M. P. Lawton, & M. A. McColl (Eds.), Time use research in the social sciences (pp. 127–154). New York: Klewer/Plenum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology, Center for Survey ResearchUniversity of Massachusetts, BostonBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of SociologyUniversity of Wisconsin, MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations