IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0136445.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Over-Reporting in Handwashing Self-Reports: Potential Explanatory Factors and Alternative Measurements

Author

Listed:
  • Nadja Contzen
  • Sandra De Pasquale
  • Hans-Joachim Mosler

Abstract

Handwashing interventions are a priority in development and emergency aid programs. Evaluation of these interventions is essential to assess the effectiveness of programs; however, measuring handwashing is quite difficult. Although observations are considered valid, they are time-consuming and cost-ineffective; self-reports are highly efficient but considered invalid because desirable behaviour tends to be over-reported. Socially desirable responding has been claimed to be the main cause of inflated self-reports, but its underlying factors and mechanisms are understudied. The present study investigated socially desirable responding and additional potential explanatory factors for over-reported handwashing to identify indications for measures which mitigate over-reporting. Additionally, a script-based covert recall, an alternative interview question intended to mitigate recall errors and socially desirable responding, was developed and tested. Cross-sectional data collection was conducted in the Borena Zone, Ethiopia, through 2.5-hour observations and 1-hour interviews with the primary caregivers in households. A total sample of N = 554 was surveyed. Data were analysed with correlation and multiple regression analyses and dependent t-tests. Over-reporting of handwashing was associated with factors assumed to be involved in (1) socially desirable responding, (2) encoding and recall of information, and (3) dissonance processes. The latter two factor groups explained over-reported handwashing beyond socially desirable responding. The alternative interview question—script-based covert recall—reduced over-reporting compared to conventional self-reports. Although the difficulties involved in measuring handwashing by self-reports and observations are widely known, the present study is the first to investigate the factors which explain over-reporting of handwashing. This research contributes to the limited evidence base on a highly important subject: how to evaluate handwashing interventions efficiently and accurately.

Suggested Citation

  • Nadja Contzen & Sandra De Pasquale & Hans-Joachim Mosler, 2015. "Over-Reporting in Handwashing Self-Reports: Potential Explanatory Factors and Alternative Measurements," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-22, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0136445
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136445
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0136445
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0136445&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0136445?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anatol-Fiete Näher & Ivar Krumpal, 2012. "Asking sensitive questions: the impact of forgiving wording and question context on social desirability bias," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 1601-1616, August.
    2. Menon, Geeta, 1993. "The Effects of Accessibility of Information in Memory on Judgments of Behavioral Frequency," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(3), pages 431-440, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sha Yang & Yi Zhao & Ravi Dhar, 2010. "Modeling the Underreporting Bias in Panel Survey Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 525-539, 05-06.
    2. repec:lic:licosd:37516 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Thorben C. Kundt & Florian Misch & Birger Nerré, 2017. "Re-assessing the merits of measuring tax evasion through business surveys: an application of the crosswise model," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 24(1), pages 112-133, February.
    4. Daum, T. & Birner, R. & Buchwald, H. & Gerlicher, A., 2018. "Times have changed. Using a Pictorial Smartphone App to Collect Time Use Data in Rural Zambia," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277076, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Schmidt, Karolin, 2016. "Explaining and promoting household food waste-prevention by an environmental psychological based intervention study," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 53-66.
    6. David Comerford & Liam Delaney & Colm Harmon, 2009. "Experimental Tests of Survey Responses to Expenditure Questions," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 30(Special I), pages 419-433, December.
    7. Friedman, Jed & Beegle, Kathleen & De Weerdt, Joachim & Gibson, John, 2017. "Decomposing response error in food consumption measurement: Implications for survey design from a randomized survey experiment in Tanzania," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 94-111.
    8. Minson, Julia A. & VanEpps, Eric M. & Yip, Jeremy A. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2018. "Eliciting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: The effect of question phrasing on deception," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 76-93.
    9. repec:pbs:ecofin:2023-05 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Lieberman, Alicea & Amir, On & Carmon, Ziv, 2023. "The entrenchment effect: Why people persist with less-preferred behaviors," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    11. Emile, Renu, 2011. "Retrospection on the impact of Wallendorf and Brucks' "Introspection in consumer research: Implementation and implications"," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 194-198, February.
    12. Mukherjee, Ashesh & Burnham, Thomas & King, Dan, 2021. "Anticipated firm interaction can bias expressed customer satisfaction," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    13. Arthi, Vellore & Beegle, Kathleen & De Weerdt, Joachim & Palacios-López, Amparo, 2018. "Not your average job: Measuring farm labor in Tanzania," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 160-172.
    14. Zoe Y. Lu & Christopher K. Hsee & Kaiyang Wu, 2024. "Short-Asking with Long-Encouraging (SALE): A simple method to increase purchase quantity," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1152-1170, July.
    15. Hart, Einav & VanEpps, Eric M. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2021. "The (better than expected) consequences of asking sensitive questions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 136-154.
    16. Daum, Thomas & Buchwald, Hannes & Gerlicher, Ansgar & Birner, Regina, 2018. "Using A Smartphone App To Collect Data On Smallholder Farming Systems In Zambia," 58th Annual Conference, Kiel, Germany, September 12-14, 2018 275839, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    17. Ivar Krumpal & Thomas Voss, 2020. "Sensitive Questions and Trust: Explaining Respondents’ Behavior in Randomized Response Surveys," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(3), pages 21582440209, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0136445. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.