The results of Joyce's questionnaire were tabulated several years before her book was published if I remember right. Although there was not much good information at the time on anemone husbandry, people active in the marine aquarium community were having much greater success with BTAs (and Haddoni carpets) than with other host species. So, the numbers she gives are in the very least skewed towards the more difficult anemones.
Also realize that the information and technology to keep anemones alive (lighting 4-8 greater than what was the norm) had only been around for about 5 years in 1995 or so, when she did her questionnaire. So at that time, there wasn't really much of a way you could have had an anemone for much more than 3 years.
Phil, you are correct that the study started out as something small which eventually morphed into a piece that was presented, and published broadly. It started as something almost as casual as this thread - "hey I am curious about people's experiences with anemones". At no time was there an attempt to create an actual scientific protocol - and the study makes every possible research mistake you can make. It is junk. The only thing worse than NO research is BAD research. This survey makes mistakes that a student in Marketing Research 101 would get an "F" for making...
For example - it is a survey of people's memories, so it is strictly qualitative research. At no time can you report quantitative results from qualitative research. It is like asking someone "are summers now warmer than you remember them being when you were a child? How much warmer?" and reporting the results as proof of global warming. "According to a survey of 1000 people, summers are now 4.7 degrees warmer than they were 20 years ago..."
There was no attempt to make it a representative sample of marine hobbyists. Maybe people who read about her survey were all beginners? Maybe they were all experts? Who knows? Since we don't know, we can't reach any conclusion about the results as they project out to the entire population of marine hobbyists.
As you yourself pointed out, there was no attempt to isolate species. Anemones are anemones, at least according to this study. We know this is not the case - some anemones are notoriously difficult to keep, others are asexually reproducing in hobbyist aquariums quite frequently. One person could be reporting on their experience with one species, while another person could be reporting on something else. Worse, many people didn't know for sure which species they had - or even if their memories were 100% accurate.
I could go on, but there is no point. It certainly isn't going to remove ink from a printed page. Wilkerson quoted liberally from the "results" of this study to advance her own personal agenda. I wince when I think that I participated in this "stream of consciousness" turned science.
Ironically, when I was taking a class in Marketing Research at Northwestern University as part of my graduate degree, I actually surveyed the entire student body on attitudes related to marine aquariums
You can bet that I was able to prove my statistical significance
