Abstract
Factors related to the research context, such as inquiry mode, setting, and experimenter contact, may affect participants’ comfort with and willingness to disclose certain sexual attitudes or admit to engaging in sensitive sexual behaviors. In this study, 255 female undergraduates (42.7 % non-White) completed a survey containing measures of sexual behavior and attitudes. The level of experimenter contact (high vs. low contact), setting (in lab vs. out of lab), and inquiry mode (pencil-and-paper vs. computer) were manipulated and participants were randomly assigned to conditions. We hypothesized that low-contact, out-of-lab, computer conditions would be associated with more liberal sexual attitudes and higher rates of reported sexual behaviors than high-contact, in-lab, and paper-and-pencil conditions, respectively. Further, we hypothesized that effects would be moderated by race, such that differences would be greater for non-White participants because of concerns that reporting socially undesirable behavior might fuel racial stereotypes. For attitudinal measures, White participants endorsed more liberal attitudes toward sex in high-contact conditions and non-White participants endorsed more liberal attitudes in low-contact conditions. For behavioral measures, non-White participants reported more behaviors on pencil-and-paper surveys than on computers. White participants demonstrated no significant mode-related differences or reported more sexual behaviors in computer conditions than paper-and-pencil conditions. Overall, results suggest that experimenter contact and mode significantly impact sexual self-report and this impact is often moderated by race.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The complete measure is available by request from the corresponding author.
References
Alexander, M. G., & Fisher, T. D. (2003). Truth and consequences: Using the bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self-reported sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 27–35. doi:10.1080/00224490309552164.
Brown, J. L., & Vanable, P. A. (2009). The effects of assessment mode and privacy level on self-reports of risky sexual behaviors and substance use among young women. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 2756–2778. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00547.x.
Browning, J. R., Hatfield, E., Kessler, D., & Levine, T. (2000). Sexual motives and interactions with gender. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 139–152.
Catania, J. A., Gibson, D. R., Chitwood, D. D., & Coates, T. J. (1990). Methodological problems in AIDS behavioral research: Influences on measurement error and participation bias in studies of sexual behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 339–362. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.108.3.339.
Cowart-Steckler, D., & Pollack, R. H. (1998). The Cowart-Pollack Scale of Sexual Experience. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 104–105). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2003). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological critique of two decades of research. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 13–26. doi:10.1080/00224490309552163.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. doi:10.4324/9780203127698.
Feigelson, M., & Dwight, S. (2000). Can asking questions by computer improve the candidness of responding?: A meta-analytic perspective. Consulting Psychology Journal, 52, 248–255. doi:10.1037/1061-4087.52.4.248.
Fisher, W. A., Byrne, D., White, L. A., & Kelley, K. (1988). Erotophobia-erotophillia as a dimension of personality. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 123–151. doi:10.1080/00224498809551448.
Gwaltney, C. J., Shield, A. L., & Shiffman, S. (2008). Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: A meta-analytic review. Value in Health, 11, 322–333. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00231.
Hamilton, D., & Morris, M. (2010). Consistency of self-reported sexual behavior in surveys. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 842–860. doi:10.1007/s10508-009-9505-7.
Hardré, P. L., Crowson, H. M., & Xie, K. (2012). Examining contexts-of use for web-based and paper-based questionnaires. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72, 1015–1038. doi:10.1177/0013164412451977.
Langhaug, L., Sherr, L., & Cowan, F. (2010). How to improve the validity of sexual behaviour reporting: Systematic review of questionnaire delivery modes in developing countries. Tropical Medicine & International Health, 15, 362–381. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3156.2009.02464.x.
McAuliffe, T., DiFranceisco, W., & Reed, B. (2007). Effects of question format and collection mode on the accuracy of retrospective surveys of health risk behavior: A comparison with daily sexual activity diaries. Health Psychology, 26, 60–67. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.26.1.60.
McCallum, E. B., & Peterson, Z. D. (2012). Investigating the impact of inquiry mode on self-reported sexual behavior: Theoretical considerations and review of the literature. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 212–226. doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.658923.
Meston, C. M., Heiman, J. R., Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Socially desirable responding and sexuality self-reports. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 148–157. doi:10.1080/00224499809551928.
Morrison-Beedy, D., Carey, M. P., & Tu, X. (2006). Accuracy of audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) and self-administered questionnaires for the assessment of sexual behavior. AIDS and Behavior, 10, 541–552. doi:10.1007/s10461-006-9081-y.
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.60.6.870.
Testa, M., Livingston, J. A., & VanZile-Tamsen, C. (2005). The impact of questionnaire administration mode on response rate and reporting of consensual and nonconsensual sexual behavior. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 345–352. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00234.x.
Turchik, J. A., & Garske, J. P. (2009). Measurement of sexual risk taking among college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 936–948. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9388-z.
Vannier, S. A., & O’Sullivan, L. F. (2008). The feasibility and acceptability of handheld computers in a prospective diary study of adolescent sexual behaviour. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 17, 183–192.
Weigold, A., Weigold, I. K., & Russell, E. J. (2013). Examination of the equivalence of self-report survey-based pencil-and-paper and internet data collection methods. Psychological Methods, 18, 53–70. doi:10.1037/a0031607.
Wood, E., Nosko, A., Desmarais, S., Ross, C., & Irvine, C. (2006). Online and traditional pencil-and-paper survey administration: Examining experimenter presence, sensitive material and long surveys. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 15, 147–155.
Acknowledgments
This research was conducted as part of Ethan McCallum’s dissertation at the University of Missouri-St. Louis under the supervision of Zoё Peterson. The authors are grateful to Steve Bruce, Kristin Carbone-Lopez, and Matthew Taylor for their feedback on this project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McCallum, E.B., Peterson, Z.D. Effects of Experimenter Contact, Setting, Inquiry Mode, and Race on Women’s Self-Report of Sexual Attitudes and Behaviors: An Experimental Study. Arch Sex Behav 44, 2287–2297 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0590-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0590-5