Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 522

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

Hebert, J. R., Ma, Y., Clemow, L., Ockene, I. S., Saperia, G., Stanek, E. J., Merriam, P. A., Ockene, J. K.·1997·American Journal of Epidemiology
DOI 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009233
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009233

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

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
DOI
10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009233
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

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.