Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Research to improve the quality of social surveys has shown that methodological factors have a significant impact on respondent cooperation. The research presented here is inspired by the sociology of work and studies the impact of interviewers' sense of motivation and “self-efficacy” in convincing respondents to answer surveys. To do so, a survey of interviewers working for three private pollsters was conducted during the Canadian federal election campaign of November 2000. The results indicate some evidence of relationships between motivation, sense of self-efficacy (and associated behaviour), and interviewer performance. However, some of the results could be better explained by differences in training. In addition, the lack of a better measure of performance may also explain the weakness of the results. Future studies should examine performance measurement and try take into account how performance changes over time. Surveys, Interviewers, Interviewer Performance, Interviewer Attitudes, Measurement of Interviewer Performance.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Blalock, Hubert M. (1979): Social Statistics, Second Revised Edition. McGraw-Hill, chapters 14 and 16.

DeLeeuw, Edith (1999): “How do Successful and Less Successful Interviewers Differ in Tactics for Combatting Survey Nonresponse?” Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique 62, 29–42.

Feertchak, Hélene (1996): Les motivations et les valeurs en psycho-sociologie. “Cursus” collection, “Psychologie” series. Paris: Armand Colin, chapter 14, 144–156.

Fowler Jr., Floyd J., and Thomas W. Mangione (1990): Standardized Survey Interviewing: Minimizing Interviewer-related Error. Newbury Park: Sage.

Francès, Robert (1987): “La motivation au travail.” Traité de psychologie du travail. Claude Levy-Leboyer and Jean-Claude Sperandio (eds). Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 347–355.

Herzberg, Frederick, Bernard Mausner, and Barbara Bloch Snydernam (1959): The Motivation to Work, Second edition. New York: Wiley.

Hox, Joop (1999): The Influence of Interviewer's Attitude and Behavior on Household Survey Nonresponse: An International Comparison. International Conference on Survey Nonresponse. http://www.jpsm.umd.edu/icsn/main/abstractsList.htm.

Knighton, Tamara, Jennifer Hubbard, and Sylvie Michaud (1999): Interviewer Attitudes and Response Rates: Implications for the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY), Statistics Canada. International Conference on Survey Nonresponse, Portland, Oregon.

Lehtonen, Risto (1996): “Interviewer Attitudes and Unit Nonresponse in Two Different Interviewing Schemes.” International Perspectives on Nonresponse, Seppo Laaksonen (ed). Helsinki: Tilastokeskus, 130–140.

10.

Link, Michael W., and Polly P. Armsby (2001): Predicting Persistence and Performance among Newly Recruited Telephone Interviewers. American Association for Public Opinion Research, 56th Annual Conference, Montreal, Quebec, May 18–20, 2001.

11.

Loosveldt, Geert, Ann Carton, and Jaak Billiet (1999): Evaluation of the Relationship Between Data Quality and Interviewer Behavior during Doorstep Contact in Face-to-Face Interviews, International Conference on Survey Nonresponse. Portland, Oregon, October 28–31, 1999.

12.

Lowe, Graham S. (2000): The Quality of Work: A People-Centred Agenda, Oxford: Oxford Univerity Press.

13.

Morton-William, Jean (1993): Interviewer Approaches. Dartmouth: Aldershot.

14.

Schober, Michael F. , and Frederick G. Conrad (1997): “Does Conversational Interviewing Reduce Survey Measurement Error?” Public Opinion Quaterly 61, 576–602.

15.

Sudman, Seymour, Norman M. Bradburn, Ed Blair, and Carol Stocking (1977): “Modest Expectations: The Effect of Interviewer Prior Expectations on Response.” Sociological Methods and Research (6), 177–182.

The Effect Of Interviewer Attitude on Survey Cooperation

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References