Literature DB >> 28768226

You can be too thin (but not too tall): Social desirability bias in self-reports of weight and height.

Mary A Burke1, Katherine G Carman2.   

Abstract

Previous studies of survey data from the U.S. and other countries find that women tend to understate their body weight on average, while both men and women overstate their height on average. Social norms have been posited as one potential explanation for misreporting of weight and height, but lack of awareness of body weight has been suggested as an alternative explanation, and the evidence presented to date is inconclusive. This paper is the first to offer a theoretical model of self-reporting behavior for weight and height, in which individuals face a tradeoff between reporting an accurate weight (or height) and reporting a socially desirable weight (or height). The model generates testable implications that help us to determine whether self-reporting errors arise because of social desirability bias or instead reflect lack of awareness of body weight and/or other factors. Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 1999 to 2010, we find that self-reports of weight offer robust evidence of social desirability bias. However, lack of awareness of weight may also contribute to self-reporting biases, and this factor appears to be more important within some demographic groups than others. Among both women and men, self-reports of height exhibit significant social desirability bias only among those of below-average height, and very few individuals underreport their height. Implied self-reports of BMI exhibit gender-specific patterns similar to those observed for self-reporting of weight, and the inferred social norms for BMI (20.8 for women and 24.8 for men) are within the "normal" range established by public health institutions. Determining why individuals misreport their weight has important implications for survey design as well as for clinical practice. For example, our findings suggest that health care providers might take additional steps to increase self-awareness of body weight. The framework also helps to explain previous findings that the degree of self-reporting bias in weight is stronger in telephone surveys than it is in in-person surveys.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BMI; Height; Misreporting biases; Self-reported weight; Social norms

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28768226     DOI: 10.1016/j.ehb.2017.06.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Econ Hum Biol        ISSN: 1570-677X            Impact factor:   2.184


  20 in total

1.  Is the public sweet on sugary beverages? Social desirability bias and sweetened beverage taxes.

Authors:  Melissa A Knox; Vanessa M Oddo; Lina Pinero Walkinshaw; Jessica Jones-Smith
Journal:  Econ Hum Biol       Date:  2020-05-07       Impact factor: 2.184

2.  Two components of body-image disturbance are differentially associated with distinct eating disorder characteristics in healthy young women.

Authors:  Yumi Hamamoto; Shinsuke Suzuki; Motoaki Sugiura
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-01-12       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  The Association Between Obesity and Key Health or Psychosocial Outcomes Among Autistic Adults: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Daniel G Gilmore; Anne Longo; Brittany N Hand
Journal:  J Autism Dev Disord       Date:  2021-09-15

4.  Discrepancies in self-reported and measured anthropometric measurements and indices among older Australians: prevalence and correlates.

Authors:  Jane M Fry; Jeromey B Temple
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2022-10-17       Impact factor: 4.135

5.  Associations between the traditional and novel neighbourhood built environment metrics and weight status among Canadian men and women.

Authors:  Vikram Nichani; Mohammad Javad Koohsari; Koichiro Oka; Tomoki Nakaya; Ai Shibata; Kaori Ishii; Akitomo Yasunaga; Liam Turley; Gavin R McCormack
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2020-07-22

6.  Comparing Methods to Identify Wear-Time Intervals for Physical Activity With the Fitbit Charge 2.

Authors:  Sophie E Claudel; Kosuke Tamura; James Troendle; Marcus R Andrews; Joniqua N Ceasar; Valerie M Mitchell; Nithya Vijayakumar; Tiffany M Powell-Wiley
Journal:  J Aging Phys Act       Date:  2020-12-16       Impact factor: 1.961

7.  A Comparison of Common Health Indicators From Two Surveys of Latinos in the Bronx, New York.

Authors:  Aldo Crossa; Jillian Jessup; Sze Yan Liu; Carmen R Isasi; David B Hanna; Simin Hua; Fangtao He; Amber Levanon Seligson; Sungwoo Lim
Journal:  Hisp Health Care Int       Date:  2020-01-29

8.  Extreme under-reporting of body weight by young adults with obesity: relation to social desirability.

Authors:  B M King; V M Cespedes; G K Burden; S K Brady; L R Clement; E M Abbott; K S Baughman; S E Joyner; M M Clark; C L S Pury
Journal:  Obes Sci Pract       Date:  2018-02-02

9.  Is social exposure to obesity associated with weight status misperception? Assessing Australians ability to identify overweight and obesity.

Authors:  C A Opie; K Glenister; J Wright
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2019-09-04       Impact factor: 3.295

10.  Lifestyle, sick leave and work ability among Norwegian employees with asthma-A population-based cross-sectional survey conducted in Telemark County, Norway.

Authors:  Marit Müller De Bortoli; Anne Kristin Møller Fell; Martin Veel Svendsen; Paul K Henneberger; Johny Kongerud; Inger M Oellingrath
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-04-17       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.