Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768dbb666b-9qwsl Total loading time: 0.344 Render date: 2023-02-06T17:11:06.095Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

How Face-to-Face Interviews and Cognitive Skill Affect Item Non-Response: A Randomized Experiment Assigning Mode of Interview

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2016

Abstract

Technology and the decreased cost of survey research have made it possible for researchers to collect data using new and varied modes of interview. These data are often analyzed as if they were generated using similar processes, but the modes of interview may produce differences in response simply due to the presence or absence of an interviewer. In this paper, we explore the differences in item non-response that result from different modes of interview and find that mode makes a difference. The data are from an experiment in which we randomly assigned an adult population to an in-person or self-completed survey after subjects agreed to participate in a short poll. For nearly every topic and format of question, we find less item non-response in the self-complete mode. Furthermore, we find the difference across modes in non-response is exacerbated for respondents with low levels of cognitive abilities. Moving from high to low levels of cognitive ability, an otherwise average respondent can be up to six times more likely to say “don’t know” in a face-to-face interview than in a self-completed survey, depending on the type of question.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Andrew Gooch, Postdoctoral Fellow, Institution for Social and Policy Studies and the Center for the Study of American Politics, 77 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511 (andrew.gooch@yale.edu). Lynn Vavreck, Professor of Political Science and Communication Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, 4289 Bunche Hall Los Angeles, CA 90095 (lvavreck@ucla.edu). This research is supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (SES-1023940). The authors thank Brian Law for managing the project at the MGM Grand and Felipe Nunes, Sylvia Friedel, Gilda Rodriguez, Adria Tinnin, and Chris Tausanovitch for their participation in Las Vegas. Doug Rivers and Jeff Lewis provided programming support; John Aldrich, Larry Bartels, Alan Gerber, Gary Jacobson, Simon Jackman, Vince Hutchings, Gary Segura, John Zaller, and Brian Humes helped with the design of the experiment. Finally, the authors are grateful to Mike Thies who provided valuable feedback on drafts of the paper. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2016.20

References

Acree, Michael, Ekstrand, Maria, Coates, Thomas J., and Stall, Ron. 1999. ‘Mode Effects in Surveys of Gay Men: A Within-Individual Comparison of Responses by Mail and Telephone’. The Journal of Sex Research 36(1):6775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Althaus, Scott L. 2003. Collective Preferences in Democratic Politics: Opinion Surveys and the Will of the People. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Schaffner, Brian F.. 2014. ‘Does Survey Mode Still Matter? Findings from a 2010 Multi-Mode Comparison’. Political Analysis 22(3):285304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkeson, Lonna Rae, Adams, Alex N., and Alvarez, R. Michael. 2014. ‘Nonresponse and Mode Effects in Self- and Interviewer-Assisted Surveys’. Political Analysis 22(3):304320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J. 2004. Silent Voices: Public Opinion and Political Participation in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bishop, George, and Smith, Andrew. 2001. ‘Response-Order Effects and the Early Gallup Split-Ballots’. Public Opinion Quarterly 65(4):479505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, George F., Hippler, Hans-Juergen, Schwarz, Norbert, and Strack, Fritz. 1988. ‘A Comparison of Response Effects in Self-Administered and Telephone Surveys’. In Robert M. Groves, Paul P. Biemer, Lars E. Lyberg, James T. Massey, William L. Nicholls and Joseph Waksberg (eds), Telephone Survey Methodology, 321339. New York: Wiley Press.Google Scholar
Bless, Herbert, Mackie, Diane M. and Schwarz, Norbert. 1992. ‘Mood Effects on Attitude Judgments: Independent Effects of Mood Before and After Message Elaboration’. Journal of personality and social psychology 63(4):585.Google Scholar
Bradburn, Norman M., and Sudman, Seymour. 1988. Polls and Surveys: Understanding What They Tell Us. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Press.Google Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A.. 1980. ‘The Two Faces of Issue Voting’. American Political Science Review 74(1):7891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, John B. 2003. ‘The Higher-Stratum Structure of Cognitive Abilities: Current Evidence Supports G and About Ten Broad Factors’. In Helmuth Nyborg (ed.), The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen, 521. New York: Pergamon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Linchiat, and Krosnick, Jon A.. 2010. ‘Comparing Oral Interviewing with Self-Administered Computerized Questionnaires: An Experiment’. Public Opinion Quarterly 74(1):154167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Jean M. 1976. ‘Predicting No Opinion in Polls’. Public Opinion Quarterly 40(4):515530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. ‘The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics’. In David E. Apter (ed.), Ideology and Discontent, 206261. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1970. ‘Attitudes and Non-Attitudes: Continuation of a Dialogue’. In Edward R. Tufte (ed.), The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems, 168189. Reading: Addison-Wesley Press.Google Scholar
Coombs, Clyde H., and Coombs, Lolagene C.. 1976. ‘“Don’t Know”: Item Ambiguity or Respondent Uncertainty?’. Public Opinion Quarterly 40(4):497514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, Lee J. 1946. ‘Response Sets and Test Validity’. Educational and Psychological Measurement 6(4):475494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Leeuw, Edith D. 1992. Data Quality in Mail, Telephone and Face-to-Face Surveys. Amsterdam: T.T.-publikaties.Google Scholar
Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Keeter, Scott. 1996. What Americans Know About Politics and Why it Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Feick, Lawrence F. 1989. ‘Latent Class Analysis of Survey Questions That Include Don’t Know Responses’. Public Opinion Quarterly 53(4):525547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Floyd J., Roman, Anthony M., and Xiao Di, Zhu. 1998. ‘Mode Effects in a Survey of Medicare Prostate Surgery Patients’. Public Opinion Quarterly 62(1):2946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, Joe D., and Busch, Lawrence. 1975. ‘What We Now Know About “I Don’t Know”’. Public Opinion Quarterly 39(2):207218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gano-Phillips, Susan, and Fincham, Frank D.. 1992. ‘Assessing Marriage Via Telephone Interviews and Written Questionnaires: A Methodological Note’. Journal of Marriage and Family 54(3):630635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan S. and Green, Donald P.. 2012. Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation. New York, NY: WW Norton.Google Scholar
Gooch, Andrew. 2015. ‘Measurements of Cognitive Skill by Survey Mode: Marginal Differences and Scaling Similarities’, Research & Politics 2(3):111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heerwegh, Dirk. 2009. ‘Mode Differences Between Face-to-Face and Web Surveys: An Experimental Investigation of Data Quality and Social Desirability Effects’. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 21(1):111121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heerwegh, Dirk, and Loosveldt, Geert. 2008. ‘Face-to-Face Versus Web Surveying in a High-Internet-Coverage Population: Differences in Response Quality’. Public Opinion Quarterly 72(5):836846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holbrook, Allyson L., Green, Melanie C., and Krosnick, Jon A.. 2003. ‘Telephone Versus Face-to-Face Interviewing of National Probability Samples with Long Questionnaires: Comparisons of Respondent Satisficing and Social Desirability Response Bias’. Public Opinion Quarterly 67(1):79125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiesler, Sara, and Sproull, Lee S.. 1986. ‘Response Effects in the Electronic Survey’. Public Opinion Quarterly 50(3):402413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A. 1991. ‘Response Strategies for Coping with the Cognitive Demands of Attitude Measures in Surveys’. Applied cognitive psychology 5(3):213236.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A. 2010. ‘Response Strategies for Coping with the Cognitive Demands of Attitude Measures in Surveys’. Applied Cognitive Psychology 5(3):213236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A, Holbrook, Allyson L., Berent, Matthew K., Carson, Richard T., Hanemann, W. Michael, Kopp, Raymond J., Mitchell, Robert Cameron, Presser, Stanley, Ruud, Paul A., Smith, V. Kerry, Moody, Wendy R., Green, Melanie C., and Conaway, Michael. 2002. ‘The Impact of “No Opinion” Response Options on Data Quality: Non-Attitude Reduction or an Invitation to Satisfice?’. Public Opinion Quarterly 66(3):371403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malhotra, Neil, and Krosnick, Jon A.. 2007. ‘The Effect of Survey Mode and Sampling on Inferences About Political Attitudes and Behavior: Comparing the 2000 and 2004 ANES to Internet Surveys With Nonprobability Samples’. Political Analysis 15(3):286323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malhotra, Neil, Krosnick, Jon A., and Haertel, Edward. 2007. The Psychometric Properties of the GSS Wordsum Vocabulary Test. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center.Google Scholar
Mondak, Jeffery J. 2001. ‘Developing Valid Knowledge Scales’. American Journal of Political Science 45(1):224238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondak, Jeffery J., and Davis, Belinda Creel. 2001. ‘Asked and Answered: Knowledge Levels When We Will Not Take” ‘Don’t Know” for an Answer’. Political Behavior 23(3):199224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppenheim, Abraham N. 1992. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing, and Attitude Measurement. London: Pinter Press.Google Scholar
Rapoport, Ronald B. 1982. ‘Sex Differences in Attitude Expression: A Generational Explanation’. Public Opinion Quarterly 46(1):8696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, David, Clarke, Harold D., Stewart, Marianne C., and Whiteley, Paul. 2007. ‘Does Mode Matter for Modeling Political Choice? Evidence from the 2005 British Election Study’. Political Analysis 15(3):257285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, N.Bless, H. Bless, H., H.J., Hippler, F., Strack, and S, Sudman., 1994. ‘Cognitive and Communicative Aspects of Survey Measurement’. Trends and Perspectives in Empirical Social Research, pp. 257285.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Norbert, and Bohner, Gerd. 2001. ‘The Construction of Attitudes’. In Abraham Tesser and Norbert Schwarz (eds), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intraindividual Processes, 436457. New York: Wiley Press.Google Scholar
Strack, Fritz, Schwarz, Norbert, and Wanke, Michaela. 2010. ‘Response Strategies for Coping With the Cognitive Demands of Attitude Measures in Surveys’. Applied Cognitive Psychology 5(3):213236.Google Scholar
Sudman, Seymour, and Bradburn, Norman M.. 1974. Response Effects in the Electronic Survey. Chicago, IL: Aldine Press.Google Scholar
Sudman, Seymour, Bradburn, Norman M. and Schwarz, Norbert. 1996. Thinking About Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology. San Fransico, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Tourangeau, Roger, Rips, Lance J., and Rasinski, Kenneth. 2000. The Psychology of Survey Response. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Gooch and Vavreck supplementary material

Gooch and Vavreck supplementary material 1

Download Gooch and Vavreck supplementary material(File)
File 148 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Gooch and Vavreck supplementary material

Gooch and Vavreck supplementary material 2

Download Gooch and Vavreck supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 33 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Gooch and Vavreck supplementary material

Gooch and Vavreck supplementary material 3

Download Gooch and Vavreck supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 181 KB
Supplementary material: File

Gooch and Vavreck supplementary material

Gooch and Vavreck supplementary material 4

Download Gooch and Vavreck supplementary material(File)
File 87 KB
18
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

How Face-to-Face Interviews and Cognitive Skill Affect Item Non-Response: A Randomized Experiment Assigning Mode of Interview
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

How Face-to-Face Interviews and Cognitive Skill Affect Item Non-Response: A Randomized Experiment Assigning Mode of Interview
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

How Face-to-Face Interviews and Cognitive Skill Affect Item Non-Response: A Randomized Experiment Assigning Mode of Interview
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *