Cargando…

Faking self-reports of health behavior: a comparison between a within- and a between-subjects design

BACKGROUND: This study examines people's ability to fake their reported health behavior and explores the magnitude of such response distortion concerning faking of preventive health behavior and health risk behavior. As health behavior is a sensitive topic, people usually prefer privacy about i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Egele, Viktoria S., Kiefer, Laura H., Stark, Robin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Routledge 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8547881/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34712514
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2021.1991803
_version_ 1784590465861943296
author Egele, Viktoria S.
Kiefer, Laura H.
Stark, Robin
author_facet Egele, Viktoria S.
Kiefer, Laura H.
Stark, Robin
author_sort Egele, Viktoria S.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: This study examines people's ability to fake their reported health behavior and explores the magnitude of such response distortion concerning faking of preventive health behavior and health risk behavior. As health behavior is a sensitive topic, people usually prefer privacy about it or they wish to create a better image of themselves (Fekken et al., 2012; Levy et al., 2018). Nevertheless, health behavior is often assessed by self-report questionnaires that are prone to faking. Therefore, it is important to examine the possible impact of such faking. METHODS: To replicate the findings and test their robustness, two study designs were realized. In the within-subjects-design, 142 participants repeatedly answered a health behavior questionnaire with an instruction to answer honestly, fake good, and fake bad. In the between-subjects design, 128 participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups that filled out the health behavior questionnaire with only one of the three instructions. RESULTS: Both studies showed that successful faking of self-reported preventive and health risk behavior was possible. The magnitude of such faking effects was very large in the within-subjects design and somewhat smaller in the between-subjects design. CONCLUSION: Even though each design has its inherent merits and problems, caution is indicated regarding faking effects.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8547881
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Routledge
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85478812021-10-27 Faking self-reports of health behavior: a comparison between a within- and a between-subjects design Egele, Viktoria S. Kiefer, Laura H. Stark, Robin Health Psychol Behav Med Research Article BACKGROUND: This study examines people's ability to fake their reported health behavior and explores the magnitude of such response distortion concerning faking of preventive health behavior and health risk behavior. As health behavior is a sensitive topic, people usually prefer privacy about it or they wish to create a better image of themselves (Fekken et al., 2012; Levy et al., 2018). Nevertheless, health behavior is often assessed by self-report questionnaires that are prone to faking. Therefore, it is important to examine the possible impact of such faking. METHODS: To replicate the findings and test their robustness, two study designs were realized. In the within-subjects-design, 142 participants repeatedly answered a health behavior questionnaire with an instruction to answer honestly, fake good, and fake bad. In the between-subjects design, 128 participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups that filled out the health behavior questionnaire with only one of the three instructions. RESULTS: Both studies showed that successful faking of self-reported preventive and health risk behavior was possible. The magnitude of such faking effects was very large in the within-subjects design and somewhat smaller in the between-subjects design. CONCLUSION: Even though each design has its inherent merits and problems, caution is indicated regarding faking effects. Routledge 2021-10-22 /pmc/articles/PMC8547881/ /pubmed/34712514 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2021.1991803 Text en © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Egele, Viktoria S.
Kiefer, Laura H.
Stark, Robin
Faking self-reports of health behavior: a comparison between a within- and a between-subjects design
title Faking self-reports of health behavior: a comparison between a within- and a between-subjects design
title_full Faking self-reports of health behavior: a comparison between a within- and a between-subjects design
title_fullStr Faking self-reports of health behavior: a comparison between a within- and a between-subjects design
title_full_unstemmed Faking self-reports of health behavior: a comparison between a within- and a between-subjects design
title_short Faking self-reports of health behavior: a comparison between a within- and a between-subjects design
title_sort faking self-reports of health behavior: a comparison between a within- and a between-subjects design
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8547881/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34712514
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2021.1991803
work_keys_str_mv AT egeleviktorias fakingselfreportsofhealthbehavioracomparisonbetweenawithinandabetweensubjectsdesign
AT kieferlaurah fakingselfreportsofhealthbehavioracomparisonbetweenawithinandabetweensubjectsdesign
AT starkrobin fakingselfreportsofhealthbehavioracomparisonbetweenawithinandabetweensubjectsdesign