The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Gender Differences in Social Desirability and Social Approval Bias in Dietary Self-report
Abstract
Social desirability (the tendency to respond in such a way as to avoid criticism) and social approval (the tendency to seek praise) are two prominent response set biases evident in answers on structured questionnaires. These biases were tested by comparing nutrient intakes as estimated from a single 24-hour diet recall interview (24 HR) and a 7-day dietary recall (7DDR). Data were collected as part of the Worcester Area Trial for Counseling in Hyperlipidemia, a randomized, physician-delivered nutrition intervention trial for hypercholesterolemic patients conducted in Worcester, Massachusetts, from 1991 to 1995. Of the 1,278 total study subjects, 759 had complete data for analysis. Men overestimated their fat and energy intakes on the 7DDR as compared with the 24HR according to social approval: One unit increase in the social approval score was associated with an overestimate of 21.5 kcal/day in total energy intake and 1.2 g/day in total fat intake. Women, however, underestimated their dietary intakes on the 7DDR relative to the 24HR according to social desirability: One unit increase in the social desirability score was associated with an underestimate of 19.2 kcal/day in energy intake and 0.8 g/day in total fat. The results from the present study indicate that social desirability and social approval biases appear to vary by gender. Such biases may lead to misclassification of dietary exposure estimates resulting in a distortion in the perceived relation between health-related outcomes and exposure to specific foods or nutrients. Because these biases may vary according to the perceived demands of research subjects, it is important that they be assessed in a variety of potential research study populations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Reproducibility and validity of a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire
WILLETT, W. C., SAMPSON, L., STAMPFER, M. J., ROSNER, B., BAIN, C., WITSCHI, J., HENNEKENS, C. H., & SPEIZER, F. E. (1985) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114086 · Cited by 4,274
Cited by
The summary of diabetes self-care activities measure: results from 7 studies and a revised scale.
Toobert, D. J., Hampson, S. E., & Glasgow, R. E. (2000) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/diacare.23.7.943 · Cited by 2,561
The Effect of Social Desirability and Social Approval on Self-Reports of Physical Activity
Adams, S. A. (2005) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwi054 · Cited by 1,160
Markers of the Validity of Reported Energy Intake
Livingstone, M. B. E., & Black, A. E. (2003) · The Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1093/jn/133.3.895s · Cited by 1,081
Rao, J. K., Anderson, L. A., Inui, T. S., & Frankel, R. M. (2007) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000254516.04961.d5 · Cited by 469
PSYCHOSOCIAL CORRELATES OF DIETARY INTAKE: Advancing Dietary Intervention
Baranowski, T., Cullen, K. W., & Baranowski, J. (1999) · Annual Review of Nutrition · doi:10.1146/annurev.nutr.19.1.17 · Cited by 426
Metadata
- Authors
- Hebert, J. R., Ma, Y., Clemow, L., Ockene, I. S., Saperia, G., Stanek, E. J., Merriam, P. A., & Ockene, J. K.
- Venue
- American Journal of Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1997-12-15
- Volume
- 146
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1046-1055
- ISSN
- 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-6256
- OpenAlex
- W2074079685
- Cited by
- 522
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 32.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Gender Differences in Social Desirability and Social Approval Bias in Dietary Self-report. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009233
- The paper
- Hebert, J. R., Ma, Y., Clemow, L., Ockene, I. S., Saperia, G., Stanek, E. J., Merriam, P. A., & Ockene, J. K. (1997). Gender Differences in Social Desirability and Social Approval Bias in Dietary Self-report. American Journal of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009233
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.