Search

Summary Doubts concerning the validity of questionnaire data have been raised recently. Sensitive data collected via questionnaire are of even more doubtful validity, and unobtrusive ways to gather information have been suggested in the literature. Nevertheless questionnaires appear necessary when the nature of the data is either private or cognitive. The random response technique which recently received renewed attention may be a solution to this problem. Fidler and Kleinknecht's important paper on this technique is discussed here, and criticisms concerning cost of the random device, areas of investigation, and place of interview are formulated. Such improvements as the utilization of a die as the random device and having people interviewed in public places by male and female interviewers were implemented in a study conducted at Laval University. Data from 405 male and female students on a variety of sensitive matters are presented. Suggestions are made for a better utilization of the technique, and interpretations of the data collected are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The goal of this paper was to disentangle the contributions of type of measurement and relational domain to the lack of concordance between adult attachment measures. Eighty-six college students completed the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) and self-reported measures of attachment security adapted to their relationships with four different relational partners. Results showed that whereas the AAI main dimensions were unrelated to self-reports relative to any partner, reports of attachment security with different partners were interrelated. Further, very few of the AAI State of Mind scales related to self-reported attachment security, but the AAI Experience scales did relate to self-reports in a theoretically consistent manner. Finally, the AAI scales of Idealization and Lack of Recall correlated positively with self-reported attachment when controlling for experiences reported on the AAI. The results suggest that a fundamental distinction between adult attachment measures could be the degree of automaticity of the constructs tapped, and that attachment self-reports may be biased by defensive information-processing strategies among dismissing individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]