Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (55)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by HOLBROOK, A. L.
Right arrow Articles by KROSNICK, J. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Public Opinion Quarterly 67:79-125 (2003)
© 2003 American Association for Public Opinion Research


Articles

Telephone versus Face-to-Face Interviewing of National Probability Samples with Long Questionnaires: Comparisons of Respondent Satisficing and Social Desirability Response Bias*

ALLYSON L. HOLBROOK, MELANIE C. GREEN and JON A. KROSNICK

Abstract

The last 50 years have seen a gradual replacement of face-to-face interviewing with telephone interviewing as the dominant mode of survey data collection in the United States. But some of the most expensive and large-scale nationally funded, long-term survey research projects involving national area-probability samples and long questionnaires retain face-to-face interviewing as their mode. In this article, we propose two ways in which shifting such surveys to random digit dialing (RDD) telephone interviewing might affect the quality of data acquired, and we test these hypotheses using data from three national mode experiments. Random digit dialing telephone respondents were more likely to satisfice (as evidenced by no-opinion responding, nondifferentiation, and acquiescence), to be less cooperative and engaged in the interview, and were more likely to express dissatisfaction with the length of the interview than were face-to-face respondents, despite the fact that the telephone interviews were completed more quickly than the face-to-face interviews. Telephone respondents were also more suspicious about the interview process and more likely to present themselves in socially desirable ways than were face-to-face respondents. These findings shed light on the nature of the survey response process, on the costs and benefits associated with particular survey modes, and on the nature of social interaction generally.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and DevelopmentHome page
C. W. Koth, C. P. Bradshaw, and P. J. Leaf
Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation--Checklist: Development and Factor Structure
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, April 1, 2009; 42(1): 15 - 30.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Eur J Public HealthHome page
B. J. Mullally, B. A. Greiner, S. Allwright, G. Paul, and I. J. Perry
The effect of the Irish smoke-free workplace legislation on smoking among bar workers
Eur J Public Health, April 1, 2009; 19(2): 206 - 211.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Int J Public Opin ResHome page
D. Heerwegh
Mode Differences Between Face-to-Face and Web Surveys: An Experimental Investigation of Data Quality and Social Desirability Effects
Int. J. Public Opin. Res., March 1, 2009; 21(1): 111 - 121.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Public Opin QHome page
F. Kreuter, S. Presser, and R. Tourangeau
Social Desirability Bias in CATI, IVR, and Web Surveys: The Effects of Mode and Question Sensitivity
Public Opin Q, January 26, 2009; (2009) nfn063v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Public Opin QHome page
D. Heerwegh and G. Loosveldt
Face-to-Face versus Web Surveying in a High-Internet-Coverage Population: Differences in Response Quality
Public Opin Q, December 1, 2008; 72(5): 836 - 846.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
The Harvard International Journal of Press/PoliticsHome page
A. Pease and P. R. Brewer
The Oprah Factor: The Effects of a Celebrity Endorsement in a Presidential Primary Campaign
International Journal of Press/Politics, October 1, 2008; 13(4): 386 - 400.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Eval RevHome page
T. Kolar and I. Kolar
What Respondents Really Expect From Researchers
Eval Rev, August 1, 2008; 32(4): 363 - 391.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Political Research QuarterlyHome page
T. Kuran and E. J. McCaffery
Sex Differences in the Acceptability of Discrimination
Political Research Quarterly, June 1, 2008; 61(2): 228 - 238.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
S. W. Vernon, J. A. Tiro, R. W. Vojvodic, S. Coan, P. M. Diamond, A. Greisinger, and M. E. Fernandez
Reliability and Validity of a Questionnaire to Measure Colorectal Cancer Screening Behaviors: Does Mode of Survey Administration Matter?
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., April 1, 2008; 17(4): 758 - 767.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Int J Public Opin ResHome page
F. Flores-Macias and C. Lawson
Effects of Interviewer Gender on Survey Responses: Findings from a Household Survey in Mexico
Int. J. Public Opin. Res., March 1, 2008; 20(1): 100 - 110.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Med. EthicsHome page
M. Bendiane, A Galinier, R Favre, C Ribiere, J-M Lapiana, Y Obadia, and P Peretti-Watel
French district nurses' opinions towards euthanasia, involvement in end-of-life care and nurse patient relationship: a national phone survey
J. Med. Ethics, December 1, 2007; 33(12): 708 - 711.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Field MethodsHome page
V. Stocke and C. Hunkler
Measures of Desirability Beliefs and Their Validity as Indicators for Socially Desirable Responding
Field Methods, August 1, 2007; 19(3): 313 - 336.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
POLIT ANALHome page
D. Sanders, H. D. Clarke, M. C. Stewart, and P. Whiteley
Does Mode Matter For Modeling Political Choice? Evidence From the 2005 British Election Study
Political Analysis, July 1, 2007; 15(3): 257 - 285.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
POLIT ANALHome page
N. Malhotra and J. A. Krosnick
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, July 1, 2007; 15(3): 286 - 323.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Public Opin QHome page
K. Olson and A. Peytchev
Effect of Interviewer Experience on Interview Pace and Interviewer Attitudes
Public Opin Q, June 7, 2007; (2007) nfm007v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Int J Public Opin ResHome page
D. Heerwegh and G. Loosveldt
Personalizing E-mail Contacts: Its Influence on Web Survey Response Rate and Social Desirability Response Bias
Int. J. Public Opin. Res., June 1, 2007; 19(2): 258 - 268.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Int J Public Opin ResHome page
V. Stocke
Response Privacy and Elapsed Time Since Election Day as Determinants for Vote Overreporting
Int. J. Public Opin. Res., June 1, 2007; 19(2): 237 - 246.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Int J Public Opin ResHome page
K. M. Hansen
The Effects of Incentives, Interview Length, and Interviewer Characteristics on Response Rates in a CATI-Study
Int. J. Public Opin. Res., March 1, 2007; 19(1): 112 - 121.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Eval RevHome page
A. L. Holbrook, I. C. Farrar, and S. J. Popkin
Surveying a Chicago Public Housing Development: Methodological Challenges and Lessons Learned
Eval Rev, December 1, 2006; 30(6): 779 - 802.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Public Opin QHome page
R. Tourangeau, M. P. Couper, and F. Conrad
Spacing, Position, and Order: Interpretive Heuristics for Visual Features of Survey Questions
Public Opin Q, September 1, 2004; 68(3): 368 - 393.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.