Daily Data Collection of Sexual and Other Health-related Behaviors - Statistical Data Included

Journal of Sex Research, Feb, 2001 by Mary Rogers Gillmore, Jae Gaylord, Jane Hartway, Marilyn J. Hoppe, Diane M. Morrison, Barbara C. Leigh, Damian T. Rainey

Studies of sexual behavior in the U.S. typically have relied on self-reported behaviors that are recalled retrospectively, sometimes over a rather long time, or have asked respondents to report about their most recent sexual event. Shiffman and Stone (1998) point out that the former gives rise to inaccuracies not only because of forgetfulness, but because the task is cognitively complex. They point to a body of research that indicates that recall is not a simple process of retrieving facts from memory, but rather a reconstruction of events that can lead to considerable bias in the data. Although asking about a specific event, such as the most recent sexual occasion, reduces the cognitive complexity of the task, Shiffman and Stone argue that even in such cases respondents often invoke an "heuristic reconstruction" that can introduce bias (p. 121). Moreover, it is not known to what extent a specific event is a typical event in the life of a given respondent. Because they are less subject to recall bias, yet provide data on more than one event of interest, some researchers have favored the use of daily diaries to study sexual behaviors (Fortenberry, Orr, Zimet, & Blythe, 1997; Gold & Rosenthal, 1995; Leigh, 1993; Leigh, Gillmore, & Morrison, 1998).

Although diaries have not been used widely to study sexual behaviors, their use in studies of other social and health phenomena is neither new nor rare. A review of research published in the past 5 years revealed over 300 citations to diary studies involving daily data collection in the psychological literature alone. In these studies, diaries have been used for two primary purposes. First, they have been used in nonexperimental research to obtain data on diverse behaviors such as sexual behavior (Fortenberry et al., 1997; Gold & Rosenthal, 1995; Leigh, 1993; Leigh et al., 1998), smoking (Thomsson, 1997), drug and alcohol use (Carney, Tennen, Affleck, del-Boca, & Kranzler, 1998; Leigh et al., 1998; Rabow & Duncan, 1995; Webb, Redman, Sanson-Fisher, & Gibberd, 1990), mood states (Campbell, Chew, & Scratchley, 1991; Edelmann & Connolly, 1998; Vittengl & Holt, 1998), and health behaviors (Berg, Dunbar, & Rohay, 1998). Second, diaries have been used as a method of self-monitoring, or treatment, to help motivate changes in behaviors such as drinking (Cronin, 1996), smoking (Abueg, Colletti, & Kopel, 1985; Moss, Prue, Lomax, & Martin, 1982; Singh & Leung, 1988), and inappropriate social behaviors (Pope & Jones, 1996).

When diaries are used for assessment, rather than for treatment, it is necessary to assume that the method of data collection does not alter the behaviors under observation. In view of demonstrated treatment effects for self-monitoring, this assumption has been questioned. Some time ago, Fremouw and Brown (1980) argued that "self-monitoring studies almost invariably include some implicit or explicit demands to change behavior" (p. 212). About the same time, and citing evidence from several studies, Verbrugge (1980) pointed out that frequent data collection also can produce fatigue effects (i.e., a decline over time in the amount or frequency of behavior reported). Indeed, several diary studies have shown evidence of response decay over time (e.g., Gerstel, Harford, & Pautler, 1980; Leigh, 1993; Verbrugge, 1980), but others have not (Lemmens, Knibbe, & Tan, 1988; Persky, Strauss, Leif, Miller, & O'Brien, 1981; Searles, Perrine, Mundt, & Helzer, 1995). Stone, Kessler, and Haythornthwaite (1991) suggested that, in addition to reflecting possible fatigue effects, response decay also might be the result of other types of reactivity (changes in behavior as a result of its being measured), such as socially desirable responding. Some diary studies have shown evidence of such reactivity (Berg et al., 1998; Mulheim, Allison, Heshka, & Heymsfield, 1998), yet others have not (Cruise, Broderick, Porter, Kaell, & Stone, 1996; Samo, Tucker, & Vuchinich, 1989; Sobell, Bogardis, Schuller, Leo, & Sobell, 1989). It is generally believed that studies of sensitive behaviors, like sexual behavior, are especially prone to reactivity.

The motivations of study participants in the different types of diary studies (e.g., assessment or treatment) may be one factor affecting the likelihood of reactivity. It may not be frequent self-recordings per se that produce the effect, but heightened sensitivity to one's behavior when one is consciously trying, or senses a demand, to alter that behavior, as might occur in a treatment study. Reactivity effects also may dissipate over time as people become more habituated to the self-recordings. Kopp (1988), in a review of self-monitoring studies, noted that many studies followed participants for no more than 3 weeks, making it difficult to tell if such effects would wear off over time. If effects of frequent self-recording are of limited duration, then frequent self-recording may produce valid data when the period of data collection is long enough for some types of reactivity effects to wear off. However, longer periods of data collection may increase the likelihood of other types of reactivity, such as fatigue effects.