Resolving questions about bias in real and hypothetical referenda

Despite 10 years of research on behavior in hypothetical referenda, conflict remains in the literature on whether or not the mechanism generates biased responses compared to real referenda, and the nature and source of any such bias. Almost all previous inquiry in respect of this issue has concentrated on bias at the aggregate level. This paper reports a series of three experiments which focuses on bias at the individual level and how this can translate to bias at the aggregate level. The authors argue that only an individual approach to hypothetical bias is consistent with the concept of incentive compatibility. The results of these experiments reflect these previous conflicting findings but go on to show that individual hypothetical bias is a robust result driven by the differing influence of pure self-interest and other-regarding preferences in real and hypothetical situations, rather than by a single behavioral theory such as free riding. In a hypothetical situation these preferences cause yea-saying and non-demand revealing voting. This suggests that investigation of individual respondents in other hypothetical one-shot binary choices may also provide us with insights into aggregate behavior in these situations.

Recruitment bias and clinical characterstics of participants with severe cerebral palsy in a cross-sectional survey

Aim.  This article is a report of recruitment bias in a sample of 5–25-year-old patients with severe cerebral palsy.

Background.  The way in which study participants are recruited into research can be a source of bias.

Method.  A cross-sectional survey of 5–25-year-old patients with severe cerebral palsy using standardized questionnaires with parents/carers was undertaken in 2007/2008. A case register was used as the sampling frame, and 260 families were approached: 178/260 (68%) responded and 82/260 families never replied (non-respondents). Among responders: 127/178 (71%) opted in to the study, but only 123/127 were assessed, and 82/178 were opted out (or refused). Multivariable logistic regression giving odds ratios was used to study the association between participant characteristics and study outcomes (responders vs. non-responders; opting in vs. opting out; assessed vs. eligible, but not assessed).

Results.  Responders (compared with non-responders) were significantly more likely to have a family member with cerebral palsy who was male and resident in more affluent areas. Families who opted in (compared with those opting out and refusing) were more likely to have a family member with cerebral palsy and intellectual impairment and to reside in certain geographical areas. Families who were actually assessed (compared with all eligible, but not assessed) were more likely to have a family member with cerebral palsy and intellectual impairment.

Conclusion.  Several sources of bias were identified during recruitment for this study. This has implications for the interpretation and conclusions of surveys of people with disabilities and complex needs.

IS THERE A PHYSIOLOGICAL-BASIS FOR THE COUVADE AND ONSET OF PATERNAL CARE

Couvade is the male experience of pregnancy and couvade syndrome incorporates a range of symptoms suffered by ''pregnant'' men. The aetiology of the couvade syndrome is unknown. Anthropologists, psychiatrists, nurses and sociologists have provided explanations for behaviour changes in ''pregnant'' men in terms of cultural pressure, intrapsychic processes and psychosocial adaptation to a new situation. The adoption of a biological perspective allows us to ask a new question: is there a physiological basis for the couvade syndrome? A fresh research agenda would include measurement of physiological change and a search for causation. Implications for nursing are outlined.