Interviewing Style and Respondent Behavior

Abstract

Guided by the model of the question-answer process as developed by Cannell and his coworkers, our main research question focused on how interviewers should behave in order to obtain adequate responses in survey interviews. A field experiment was conducted in which the interviewers adopted one of two behavioral styles, namely, a personal versus a formal style of interviewing. The dependent variables concerned measures of accuracy, social desirability, and the degree of relevant as well as irrelevant information. In addition, by experimentally manipulating the interviewer's alleged opinion, it was possible to ascertain conformity effects. Two different hypotheses were proposed to account for the effect of interviewing style on the dependent variables. The motivation hypothesis proposed that a personal style, compared with a formal style, would motivate the respondent to do well on the task and to give responses that would be as accurate and as adequate as possible. According to the ingratiation hypothesis, respondents interviewed in a personal style would be more inclined to attempt to ingratiate themselves with the interviewer, leading to more socially desirable responses, conformity, and irrelevant information. The results supported the motivation hypothesis. We contend that both motivation and ingratiation are important mechanisms in the question-answer process. However, it may be easier to influence the respondent's motivational level by means of the style of interviewing or other interviewing techniques than the respondent's ingratiation tendencies.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

BACK, K. W. and K. J. GERGEN (1963) “Idea orientation and ingratiation in the interview: a dynamic model of response bias.” Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section of the American Statistical Association.

BRADBURD, N. M. and S. SUDMAN (1979) Improving Interview Method and Questionnaire Design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

BRENNER, M. , J. BROWN , and D. CANTER (1985) The Research Interview: Uses and Approaches. New York: Academic Press.

BROWN, J. S. and B. G. GILMARTIN (1969) “Sociology today: Lacunae, emphases and surfeit.” Amer. Sociologist 4: 283-291.

CANNEL, C. F. , P. V. MILLER , and L. OKSENBERG (1981) “Research on interviewing techniques,” in S. Leinhardt (ed.) Sociological Methodology 1981. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

CANNELL, C. F. , L. OKSENBERG , and J. M. CONVERSE [eds.] (1979) Experiments in Interviewing Techniques. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan.

DIJKSTRA, W. (1983) “How interviewer variance can bias the results of research on interviewer effects.” Quality and Quantity 17: 179-187.

DIJKSTRA, W. and VAN DER ZOUWEN [eds.] (1982) Response Behaviour in the Survey-Interview. London: Academic Press.

DILLMAN, D. A. (1987) Mail and Telephone Surveys. New York: John Wiley.

10.

FREITAG, C. B. and J. R. BARRY (1974) “Interaction and interviewer bias in a survey of the aged.” Psych. Reports 34: 771-774.

11.

GOUDY, W. J. and H. R. POTTER (1975) “Interview rapport: demise of a concept.” Public Opinion Q. 39: 530-543.

12.

GROVES, R. M. and N. H. FULTZ (1985) “Gender effects among telephone interviewers in a survey of economic attitudes.” Soc. Methods and Research 14, 1: 31-52.

13.

HAGENAARS, J. A. and T. G. HEINEN (1982) “Effects of role-independent interviewer characteristics on responses,” in W. Dijkstra and J. van der Zouwen (eds.) Response Behaviour in the Survey-Interview. London: Academic Press.

14.

HENSON, R. , C. F. CANNELL , and S. LAWSON (1976) “Effects of interviewer style on quality of reporting in a survey interview.” J. of Psychology 93: 221-227.

15.

HENSON, R. M. , C. F. CANNELL , and S. LAWSON (1979) “An experiment in interviewer style and questionnaire form,” in C. F. Cannell et al. (eds.) Experiments in Interviewing Techniques. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan.

16.

HYMAN, H. H. et al. (1954) Interviewing in Social Research. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

17.

LOOSVELDT, G. (1985) “De effecten van een interviewertraining op de kwaliteit van gegevens bekomen via het survey-interview” (The effects of interviewer training on survey data). Dissertation, Catholic University, Leuven.

18.

PHILLIPS, D. L. (1971) Knowledge from What? Chicago: Rand McNally.

19.

ROGERS, T. F. (1976) “Interviews by telephone and in person: quality of responses and field performance.” Public Opinion Q. 40: 51-65.

20.

SCHUMAN, H. and S. PRESSER (1981) Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording and Context. New York: Academic Press.

21.

SUDMAN, S. and N. M. BRADBURN (1982) Asking Questions: A Practical Guide to Questionnaire Design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

22.

WAHLKE, J. C. (1979) “Pre-behavioralism in political science.” Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev. 73: 9-30.

23.

WEISS, C. H. (1968) “Validity of welfare mother's interview responses.” Public Opinion Q. 32: 622-633.

24.

WEISS, C. H. (1970) “Interaction in the research interview: the effects of rapport on response.” Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section of the American Statistical Association.

25.

WINER, B. J. (1971) Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York: McGraw-Hill.