Bias in the perceived prevalence of open defecation: Evidence from Bihar, India

PLoS One. 2020 Sep 11;15(9):e0238627. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238627. eCollection 2020.

Abstract

People often form perceptions about how prevalent a behavior is in a social group. However, these perceptions can be inaccurate and biased. While persistent undesirable practices in low-income countries have drawn global attention, evidence regarding people's perception of how prevalent these practices are is scarce. Among those harmful practices, open defecation in India remains a significant public health concern, where it perpetuates the vicious cycle of disease and poverty. In this study, we focus on measuring the perceived prevalence of open defecation among respondents in Bihar, India. We examined the bias in perceived prevalence, which is defined as a pattern of deviation from the actual prevalence of open defecation. Results showed that respondents who defecate in the open overestimate the prevalence of open defecation, whereas those who consistently use toilets underestimate it. This finding suggests a false consensus bias in the perceived prevalence of open defecation. Scholars, policymakers, and program implementers who seek to correct misperceptions about open defecation by broadcasting real prevalence should be aware of biases in the perceived prevalence and address them in behavior change interventions.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adolescent
  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Attention / physiology
  • Defecation / ethics*
  • Defecation / physiology
  • Female
  • Humans
  • India / epidemiology
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Public Health / standards*
  • Public Health / trends
  • Sanitation / standards*
  • Social Behavior*
  • Social Class
  • Surveys and Questionnaires
  • Young Adult

Grants and funding

This project was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Grant No. INV-009118 / OPP1157257). The funder was not involved in study design, data collection, data analysis, and data interpretation. Kantar Republic managed sample selection and data collection, but had no role in study design, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.