Advertisement

Journal of Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 439–467 | Cite as

Effects of Anonymity, Gender, and Erotophilia on the Quality of Data Obtained from Self-Reports of Socially Sensitive Behaviors

  • Lauren E. Durant
  • Michael P. Carey
  • Kerstin E. E. Schroder
Article

Abstract

This study examined the effects of anonymity, gender, and erotophilia on the quality of self-reports of socially sensitive health-related behaviors. A sample of 155 male and 203 female undergraduate students was randomly assigned to an anonymous and a confidential (i.e., nonanonymous) assessment condition. Gender, erotophilia, self-reports (of substance use, sexual behaviors, illegal activity), and perceived item threat were assessed by questionnaire. Data quality was strongly affected by experimental condition and gender. Thus, terminations were more frequent in the confidential condition and among women. In the confidential condition, women were significantly more likely to “prefer not to respond” to sensitive items compared to men. Both female gender and confidential condition were associated with lower frequency reports of sensitive health behaviors, and greater perceived threat of the assessment questions. Self-reported engagement in sensitive behaviors was positively related to both perceived question threat and erotophilia. Path analyses suggest that question threat mediates the effects of anonymity manipulations and gender on data quality (item refusal, termination), and that erotophilia mediates the effects of gender on incidence and frequency self-reports. The results indicate that anonymous assessments as well as male gender are associated with better data quality.

anonymity self-report gender sexual behavior substance use 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organiz. Behav. Hum. Dec. Process. 50: 179–211.Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Health Behavior, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  3. Ajzen, I., and Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 22: 453–474.Google Scholar
  4. Berk, R., Abramson, P. R., and Okami, P. (1995). Sexual activities as told in surveys. In Abramson, P. R., and Pinkerton, S. D. (Eds.), Sexual Nature, Sexual Culture, University of Chicago, Chicago.Google Scholar
  5. Bjarnason, T., and Adalbjarnardottir, S. (2000). Anonymity and confidentiality in school surveys on alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis use. J. Drug Issues 22: 335–344.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, M. J., and Waters, W. E. (1989). Does anonymity increase response rate in postal questionnaire surveys about sensitive subjects?Arandomized trial. J. Epidemiol.Commun. Health 44: 75–76.Google Scholar
  7. Carey, M. P., Braaten, L. S., Maisto, S. A., Gleason, J. R., Forsyth, A. D., Durant, L. E., and Jaworski, B. C. (2000). Using information, motivational enhancement, and skills training to reduce the risk of HIV infection for low-income urban women: a second randomized clinical trial. Health Psychol. 19: 3–11.Google Scholar
  8. Carey, M. P., Carey, K. B., Maisto, S. A., Gordon, C. M., and Weinhardt, L. S. (2001). Assessing sexual risk behavior with the timeline followback (TLFB) approach: Continued development and psychometric evaluation. Int. J. STD and AIDS 12: 365–375.Google Scholar
  9. Carey, M. P., Carey, K. B., Maisto, S. A., Vanable, P. A., and Schroder, K. E. E. (2002). Reducing HIV risk among psychiatric outpatients: Results from a randomized controlled trial. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  10. Carey, M. P., Maisto, S. A., Kalichman, S. C., Forsyth, A. D., Wright, E. M., and Johnson, B. T. (1997). Enhancing motivation to reduce the risk of HIV infection for economically disadvantaged urban women. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 65: 531–541.Google Scholar
  11. Carifio, J., and Biron, R. (1978). Collecting sensitive data anonymously:TheCDRGP technique. Alc. Drug Educ. 23: 47–66.Google Scholar
  12. Catania, J. A., Gibson, D. R., Chitwood, D.D., and Coates, T. J. (1990). Methodological problems in AIDS behavioral research: Influences on measurement error and participation bias in studies of sexual behavior. Psychol. Bull. 108: 339–362.Google Scholar
  13. Catania, J. A., McDermott, L., and Pollack, L. (1986). Questionnaire response bias and face-to-face interview sample bias in sexuality research. J. Sex Res. 22: 52–72.Google Scholar
  14. Catania, J. A., Turner, H., Pierce, R. C., Golden, E., Stocking, C., Binson, D., and Mast, C. (1993). Response bias in surveys of AIDS-related sexual behavior. In Ostrow, D. G., and Kessler, R. C. (Eds.), Methodological Issues in AIDS Behavioral Research, Plenum, New York, pp. 133–162.Google Scholar
  15. Coxon, A. P. (1999). Parallel accounts? Discrepancies between self-report (diary) and recall (questionnaire) measures of the same sexual behaviour. AIDS Care 11: 221–234.Google Scholar
  16. Downey, L., Ryan, R., Roffman, R., and Kulich, M. (1995). How could I forget? Inaccurate memories of sexually intimate moments. J. Sex Res. 32: 177–191.Google Scholar
  17. Durant, L. E., and Carey, M. P. (2000). Self-administered questionnaires versus face-to-face interviews in assessing sexual behavior in young women. Arch. Sexual Behav. 29: 309–322.Google Scholar
  18. Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. The Effects of Anonymity 467Google Scholar
  19. Fisher, W. A., Byrne, D., White, L. A., and Kelley, K. (1988). Erotophilia as a dimension of personality. J. Sex Res. 25: 123–151.Google Scholar
  20. Gilbert, F. S., and Gamache, M. P. (1984). The sexual opinion survey: Structure and use. J. Sex Res. 20: 293–309.Google Scholar
  21. Jaworski, B. C., and Carey, M. P. (2001). Effects of a comprehensive STD-related information, enhanced motivation, and behavioral skills intervention on sexual behavior in female college students. J. Adolesc. Health 29: 417–425.Google Scholar
  22. Joereskog, K., and Soerbom, D. (1996a). LISREL 8: User's Reference Guide, Scientific Software International, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  23. Joereskog, K., and Soerbom, D. (1996b). PRELIS 2: User's Reference Guide, Scientific Software International, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  24. Leigh, B.C., Gillmore, M. R., and Morrison, D.M.(1998). Comparison of diary and retrospective measures for recording alcohol consumption and sexual activity. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 51: 119–127.Google Scholar
  25. Malvin, J. H., and Moskowitz, J. M. (1983). Anonymous versus identifiable self-reports of adolescent drug attitudes, intentions, and use. Public Opin. Q. 47: 557–566.Google Scholar
  26. O'Malley, P. M., Johnston, L. D., Bachman, J. G., and Schulenberg, J. (2000). A comparison of confidential versus anonymous survey procedures: Effects on reporting of drug use and related attitudes and beliefs in a national study of students. J. Drug Issues 30: 35–54.Google Scholar
  27. Ong, A.D., and Weiss, D. J. (2000). The impact of anonymity on responses to sensitive questions. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 30: 1691–1708.Google Scholar
  28. Schaeffer, N. C. (2000). Asking questions about threatening topics: A selective overview. In Stone, A. A., Turkkan, J. S., Bachrach, C. A. Jobe, J. B., and Kurtzman, H. S. (Eds.), The Science of Self-Report: Implications for Research and Practice, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 105–121.Google Scholar
  29. Schroder, K. E. E., Carey, M. P., and Vanable, P. A. (in press-a). Methodological issues in the assessment and analysis of sexual risk behavior: I. Item content and scaling. Ann. Behav. Med. Google Scholar
  30. Schroder, K. E. E., Carey, M. P., and Vanable, P. A. (in press-b). Methodological issues in the assessment and analysis of sexual risk behavior: II. Accuracy of self-reports. Ann. Behav. Med. Google Scholar
  31. Singer, E., Von Thurn, D. R., and Miller, E. R. (1995). Confidentiality assurances and response: A quantitative review of the experimental literature. Public Opin. Q. 59: 66–77.Google Scholar
  32. Tanner, W. M., and Pollack, R. H. (1988). The effect of condom use and erotic instructions on attitudes towards condoms. J. Sex Res., 25: 537–541.Google Scholar
  33. Tourangeau, R., Smith, T. W., and Rasinski, K. A. (1997). Motivation to report sensitive behaviors on surveys: Evidence from a bogus pipeline experiment. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 27: 209–222.Google Scholar
  34. Turner, H. F. (1999). Participation bias in AIDS-related telephone surveys: Results from the National AIDS Behavioral Survey (NABS) non-response study. J. Sex Res. 36: 52–58.Google Scholar
  35. Turner, C. F., Miller, H. G., and Rogers, S. M. (1997). Survey measurement of sexual behavior: Problems and progress. In Bancroft, J. (Ed.), Researching Sexual Behavior. Methodological Issues, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  36. Turner, C. F., Miller, H. G., Smith, T. K., Cooley, P. C., and Rogers, S.M. (1996). Telephone audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (T-ACASI) and survey measurements of sensitive behaviors: Preliminary results. Banks, R., Fairgrieve, Y., & Gerrard, L. (Eds.), Survey and Statistical Computing 1996, Association for Survey Computing, Chesham Bucks, UK.Google Scholar
  37. Weinhardt, L. S., Forsyth, A. D., Carey, M. P., Jaworski, B. C., and Durant, L. E. (1998). Reliability and validity of self-report measures of HIV-related sexual behavior: Progress since 1990 and recommendations for research and practice. Arch. Sexual Behav. 27: 155–180.Google Scholar
  38. Werch, C. E. (1990). Two procedures to reduce response bias in reports of alcohol consumption. J. Stud. Alc. 51: 327–330.Google Scholar
  39. Zagumny, M. J., Ramsey, R. J., and Upchurch, M. P. (1996). Is anonymity inportant in AIDS survey research? Psychol. Rep. 78: 270.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lauren E. Durant
    • 1
  • Michael P. Carey
  • Kerstin E. E. Schroder
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Health and BehaviorSyracuse UniversitySyracuse

Personalised recommendations