Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Telling tails explain the discrepancy in sexual partner reports

  • Letter
  • Published:

From Nature

View current issue Submit your manuscript

Abstract

AN anomaly often noted in surveys of sexual behaviour is that the number of female sexual partners reported by men exceeds the number of male partners reported by women1–3. This discrepancy is sometimes interpreted as evidence that surveys produce unreli-able data due to sex-linked response and sampling bias. We report here that among the 90% of respondents reporting fewer than 20 lifetime partners, however, the ratio of male to female reports drops from 3.2:1 to 1.2:1. The anomaly thus appears to be driven by the upper tail of the contact distribution, an example of the general principle of outlier influence in data analysis. The implica-tion is that sexual behaviour surveys provide reliable data in the main, and that simple improvements can increase precision in the upper tail to make these data more useful for modelling the spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Johnson, A. M., Wadsworth, J., Wellings, K., Bradshaw, S. & Field, J. Nature 360, 410–412 (1992).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. ACSF Investigators Nature 360, 407–409 (1992).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. Smith, T. W. J. Off. Stat. 8, 309–325 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Johnson, A. M., Wadsworth, J., Wellings, K. & Anderson, R. M. Nature 343, 109 (1990).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wellings, K. et al. Nature 348, 276–278 (1990).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Smith, T. W. General Social Survey Methodological Report No. 68 (NORC, 1991).

  7. Potterat, J. J., Woodhouse, D. E., Muth, J. B. & Muth, S. Q. J. Sex Res. 27, 233–243 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rodriguez, G. & Trussell, T. Pop. Stud. J. Demog. 35, 321–328 (1981).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hethcote, H. & Yorke, J. A. Gonorrhea Transmission Dynamics and Control (Springer, Berlin, 1984).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Hethcote, H. & Van Ark, J. W. Modeling HIV Transmission and AIDS in the United States (Springer, Berlin, 1992).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Jacquez, J., Simon, C. & Koopman, J. in Epidemic Models: their Structure and Relation to Data (ed. Mollison, D.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  12. May, R. M. & Anderson, R. M. Nature 326, 137–142 (1987).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Anderson, R. M. & May, R. M. Nature 333, 514–519 (1988).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Blythe, S. & Castillo-Chavez, C. Nature 344, 202 (1990).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Blower, S. M., Samuel, W. C. & Wiley, J. A. J. AIDS 5, 633–634 (1992).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Burt, R. S. Soc. Net. 6, 293–339 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Morris, M. Math. Biosc. 107, 349–377 (1991).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Morris, M. Soc. Meth. Res. 22, 97–124 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Davis, J. A. & Smith, T. W. The NORC General Social Survey (Sage, Newbury Park, California, 1992).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Morris, M. Telling tails explain the discrepancy in sexual partner reports. Nature 365, 437–440 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1038/365437a0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/365437a0

  • Springer Nature Limited

This article is cited by

Navigation