Do Men and Women Report Their Sexual Partnerships Differently? Evidence from Kisumu, Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At least two other explanations for such gender differences are plausible.First, differences may stem from sample selection bias, which may occur if, on average, men have more sexual partners outside the study area than do women, have partners younger than the minimum age of sample respondents (typically age 15 or 18) or have partners, such as commercial sex workers, who are not likely to be interviewed in standard surveys.These types of bias would tend to inflate aggregate gender differences in both the average number of partners and other reported sexual behaviors, such as condom use, frequency of sex and relationship duration.To limit the effects of sample selection bias, one study in Tanzania attempted to interview all men and women of reproductive age in four villages and restricted their sample of partners to those who resided in these villages and were the same age as the respondents (aged 15-64).5 Unfortunately, since only 84% of eligible women and 77% of eligible men participated in the survey, the investigators could not entirely eliminate the potential for sample selection effects.Nonetheless, they found that, on average, women reported significantly fewer nonmarital sexual partners than men, as well as longer sexual relationships, leading them to conclude that in general men "swagger" (i.e., exaggerate their sexual activities), while women are Do Men and Women Report Their Sexual Partnerships Differently? Evidence from Kisumu, KenyaCONTEXT: It is generally believed that men and women misreport their sexual behaviors, which undermines the ability of researchers, program designers and health care providers to assess whether these behaviors compromise individuals' sexual and reproductive health. METHODS:Data on 1,299 recent sexual partnerships were collected in a 2007 survey of 1,275 men and women aged 18-24 and living in Kisumu, Kenya.Chi-square and t tests were used to examine how sample selection bias and selective partnership reporting may result in gender differences in reported sexual behaviors.Correlation coefficients and kappa statistics were calculated in further analysis of a sample of 280 matched marital and nonmarital couples to assess agreement on reported behaviors.RESULTS: Even after adjustment for sample selection bias, men reported twice as many partnerships as women (0.5 vs. 0.2), as well as more casual partnerships.However, when selective reporting was controlled for, aggregate gender differences in sexual behaviors almost entirely disappeared.In the matched-couples sample, men and women exhibited moderate to substantial levels of agreement for most relationship characteristics and behaviors, including type of relationship, frequency of sex and condom use.Finally, men and women tended to agree about whether men had other nonmarital partners, but disagreed about women's nonmarital partners. CONCLUSIONS: Both sample selection bias and selective partnership reporting can influence the level of agreement between men's and women's reports of sexual behaviors. Although men report more casual partners than do women, accounts of sexual behavior within reported relationships are generally reliable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".