The objective of this paper is to evaluate the adaptation of telephone surveys to electoral forecasting to see if they show substantial improvements when compared to face-to-face surveys. To do so, two similar samples were used, one surveyed with face-to-face interviews and the other using telephone interviews. The objective is to compare the results in answering three questions concerning: 1) the important differences in results of the two methods which could notably affect their extrapolation; 2) telephone surveys’ higher evaluation of the intention to vote and more sincere responses (closer to the electoral results); 3) the important differences in the evaluation of the economic and political situation, definition of the most important social problems, and nationalist and regionalist sentiments.
Effets (et défauts) de l’enquête téléphonique dans les enquêtes d’opinion — Sommes-nous en train d’abuser de l’enquête téléphonique ? : L’objectif de cet article est d’évaluer l’adaptation des enquêtes téléphoniques pour les prévisions électorales et de voir si elles présentent des améliorations substantielles par rapport aux enquêtes en face-à-face. Pour ce faire, une enquête a été réalisée dans un comté de l’Espagne en utilisant deux échantillons similaires, un questionné par entretiens en face-à-face et l’autre par entretiens téléphoniques. L’objectif est de comparer les résultats obtenus par les deux enquêtes dans le but de répondre à trois questions concernant : 1) des différences importantes de résultats entre les deux méthodes de collecte de données, des différences qui pourraient notamment affecter l’extrapolation des résultats ; 2) des sondages téléphoniques produisent une plus grande intention de voter et des réponses plus sincères (plus près des résultats électoraux) ; 3) des différences importantes entre les méthodes dans l’évaluation de la situation économique et politique, les problèmes sociaux, et des sentiments nationalistes et régionalistes.
American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) ( 2009) Standard Definitions-Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. Deerfield, IL: AAPOR. Available at: http://www.aapor.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Standard_Definitions&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=1819 (accessed 21 May 2010).
2.
Beck F., Guilbert P., Gautier A. and Arwidson P. ( 2008) L’acharnement téléphonique dans les enquêtes, est-il justifié? In: Guilbert P, Haziza D, Ruiz-Gazen A and Tillé Y (eds) Méthodes de sondages - Cours et cas pratiques . Paris: Dunod, 254-259.
3.
Beck F., Legleye S. and Peretti-Watel P. ( 2004) Using the Telephone in General Population Surveys on Drugs . In: Decorte T, Korf DJ (eds) European Studies on Drugs and Drug Policy. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference of the European Society for Social Drug Research (ESSD) in Ghent from 2-4 October 2003. Brussels: VUB Press, 113-140.
4.
Belli RF, Traugott MW and Beckman MN ( 2001) What Leads to Voting Overreports? Contrast of Overreporters to Validated Voters and Admitted Nonvoters in the American National Election Studies. Journal of Official Statistics17: 479-498.
5.
Bernstein R., Chadha A. and Montjoy R. ( 2001) Overreporting Voting: Why It Happens and Why It Matters . Public Opinion Quarterly65: 22-44.
6.
Blumberg SJ, Luke JV, Cynamon ML and Frankel M. ( 2008) Recent Trends in Household Telephone Coverage in the United States. In: Lepkowski J et al. (eds) Advances in Telephone Survey Methodologies. New York: Willey, 56-86.
7.
Bowers J. and Ensley MJ ( 2003) Issues in Analyzing Data from the Dual-Mode 2000 American National Election Study. Washington, DC: NES Technical Report.
8.
Brick JM and Lepkowski JM ( 2008) Múltiple Mode and Frame Telephone Surveys. In: Lepkowski J et al. (eds) Advances in Telephone Survey Methodologies. New York: Willey, 149-169.
9.
Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas ( 2005a) Preelectoral de Galicia. Elecciones autonómicas 2005. Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas, study number2,608.
10.
Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas ( 2005b) Estimación de voto del estudio 2608/0: ‘‘Preelectoral de Galicia. Elecciones Autonómicas 2005’’. Available at: http://www.cis.es/cis/opencms/-Archivos/Marginales/2600_2619/2608/e260800.html (accessed 4 October 2007).
11.
Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas ( 2008) El CIS. Available at: http://www.cis.es/cis/opencms/ES/7_cis/
12.
Christian LM, Dillman DA and Smyth JD ( 2008) The Effects of Mode and Format on Answers to Scalar Questions in Telephone and Web Surveys. In: Lepkowski JM et al. (eds) Advances in Telephone Survey Methodology . New York: Wiley, 250-275.
13.
Coxon APM (ed.) (1992) Sample Design Issues in a Panel Survey: The Case of the British Household Panel Study. Working Papers of the ESRC Research Centre on Micro-social Change. Paper 3 . Colchester: University of Essex .
14.
De Leeuw ED and Hox JJ ( 1988) The Effects of Response-Stimulating Factors on Response Rates and Data Quality in Mail Surveys. Journal of Official Statistics4: 241-249.
15.
De Leeuw ED, Hox JJ and Dillman DA ( 2008) Mixed Mode Surveys: When and Why. In: de Leeuw ED, Hox JJ and Dillman DA (eds) International Handbook of Survey Methodology. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates and Asociación Europea de Metodología, 299-315.
16.
Díaz de Rada V. and Ayerdi P. ( 2007) Algunos problemas de la encuesta telefónica para la proyección electoral. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas118: 153-204.
17.
El País, newspaper (2005) El PP pierde el Gobierno de Galicia, 20 June. Available at: http://www.elpais.com/comunes/2005/elecciones_gallegas/.NES (National Election Studies) Technical Reports 8 June 2007.
18.
Ellis C. and Krosnick JA ( 1999) Comparing Telephone and Face to Face Surveys in Terms of Sample Representativeness: A Meta-Analysis of Demographics Characteristics . NES (National Election Studies) Technical Reports . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan . Available at: http://www.umich.edu/(nes/resources/papers/papers.htm (accessed 1 march 2005).
19.
Faria AJ, Dickinson JR and Filipic TV ( 1990) The Effect of Telephone versus Letter Prenotification on Mail Survey Response Rate. Journal of the Market Research Society32: 551-568.
20.
Gautier A. et al. (2006) Téléphones portables exclusifs: Résultats d’une méthode de génération par tielle de numéros. In: Lavallée P and Rivest L (eds) Méthodes d’enquêtes et sondages - Pratiques européenne et nord-américaine. Québec: Dunod, 60-64.
21.
Green MC, Krosnick JA and Holbrook AL ( 2001) The Survey Response Process in Telephone and Face-to-Face Surveys. Differences in Respondent Satisficing and Social Desirability Response Bias. Available at: http://www.umich.edu/(nes/resources/techrpts/tech-abs/tech-ab62.htm (accessed 23 June 2004).
22.
Groves RM ( 1989) Survey Error and Survey Cost. New York : Wiley.
23.
Groves RM and Kahn R. ( 1979) Surveys by Telephone. New York: Academic Press.
24.
Harbaugh WT ( 1996) If People Vote Because They Like To, Then Why Do So Many of Them Lie?Public Choice89: 63-76.
25.
Hawaday CK, Marler PL and Chaves M. ( 1993) What the Polls Don’t Know Show: A Closer Look at US Church Attendance. American Sociological Review58: 741-752.
26.
Holbrook AL, Green MC and Krosnick JA ( 2003) Telephone versus Face-to-Face Interviewing of National Probability Samples with Long Questionnaires. Public Opinion Quarterly67: 79-125.
27.
Jäckle A., Roberts C. and Lynn P. ( 2006) Telephone versus Face-to-Face Interviewing: Mode Effects on Data Quality and Likely Causes. Report on Phase II of the ESS-Gallup Mixed Mode Methodology Project, ISER Working Paper 2006-41. Colchester: University of Essex.
28.
Kalsbeek WD and Agans RP ( 2008) Sampling and Weighting in Household Telephone Surveys . In: Lepkowski J et al. (eds) Advances in Telephone Survey Methodologies. New York: Willey: 29-55.
29.
Karp JA and Brockington D. ( 2005) Social Desirability and Response Validity: A Comparative Analysis of Overreporting Voter Turnout in Five Countries. Journal of Politics67: 825-840.
30.
Keeter S. et al. (2000) Consequences of Reducing Nonresponse in a National Telephone Survey. Public Opinion Quarterly64: 125-148.
31.
Krosnick JA ( 1991) Response Strategies for Coping with the Cognitive Demands of Attitude Measures in Surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology5: 213-236.
32.
Krosnick JA ( 1999) Survey Research. Annual Review of Psychology50: 537-567.
33.
Kuusela V., Callegaro M. and Vehovar V. ( 2008) The Influence of Mobile Telephones on Telephone Surveys . In: Lepkowski J et al. (eds) Advances in Telephone Survey Methodologies. New York: Willey, 87-112.
34.
Martínez de Luna I. ( 2008) Encuestas de opinión: De la teoría a la práctica. Metodología de Encuestas10: 7-25.
35.
McClendon M. ( 1991) Acquiescence and Recency Response-Order Effects in Interview Surveys. Sociological Methods and Research20: 60-103.
36.
Méndez Lago M. and Martínez Casinello R. ( 2007) Encuestas telefónicas vs. presenciales: Análisis de la encuesta pre-electoral del CIS de las elecciones gallegas de 2005. XV Seminario de Investigaciones Políticas y Sociológicas. Madrid, 15-16 November 2007. Organizado por la Asociación Española de Estudios de Mercado, Marketing y Opinión (AEDEMO).
37.
Narayan S. and Krosnick JA ( 1996) Education Moderates Some Response Effect in Attitude Measurement . Public Opinion Quarterly60: 58-88.
38.
National Statistics Institute (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, INE) (2005a) Revisión del Padrón municipal a 1 de enero de 2005. Madrid: INE.
39.
National Statistics Institute (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, INE) (2005b) Current Employment Surveys (in Spanish titled Economically Active Population Survey, Encuesta de Población Activa 2005). Madrid: INE.
40.
National Statistics Institute (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, INE) (2008a) Padrón municipal: Cifras oficiales de población a 1 de enero de 2007. Madrid : INE.
41.
National Statistics Institute (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, INE) (2008b) Entorno Físico: Territorio . Madrid: INE.
42.
National Statistics Institute (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, INE) (2009) Encuesta de Tecnologías de la Información en los Hogares. Madrid: INE. Available at: http://www.ine.es
43.
Nicolaas G., Thomson K. and Lynn P. ( 2000) The Feasibility of Conducting Electoral Surveys in the UK by Telephone. London: National Centre for Social Research.
44.
Noelle-Neumann E. ( 1986) Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion, Our Social Skin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
45.
Poe GL et al. (1988) ‘‘Don’t Know’’ Boxes in Factual Questions in a Mail Questionnaire. Public Opinion Quarterly52: 212-222.
46.
Presser S. ( 1990) Can Context Change Reduce Vote Overreporting? Public Opinion Quarterly54: 586-593.
47.
Presser S. and Stinson L. ( 1998) Data Collection Mode and Social Desirability Bias in Self-reported Religious Attendance. American Sociological Review63: 137-145.
48.
Schumann H. and Presser S. ( 1981) Questions and Answers in Attitudes Surveys: Experiments in Question Form, Wording and Context. San Diego: Academic Press.
49.
Silver BD, Anderson BA and Abramson PR ( 1986) Who Overreports Voting?American Political Science Review80: 613-624.
50.
Smith TW ( 1995) Trends in Non-Response Rates. International Journal of Public Opinion Research7: 157-171.
51.
Sykes W. and Collins M. ( 1988) Effects of Mode of Interview: Experiment in the UK. In: Groves RM et al. (eds) Telephone Survey Methodology. New York: Wiley, 301-320.
52.
Tucker C., Brick JM and Meekins B. ( 2007) Household Telephone Service and Usage Patterns in the United States in 2004: Implications for Telephone Samples. Public Opinion Quarterly61: 3-22.
53.
Tucker C., Lepkowski JM and Piekarski L. ( 2002) The Current Efficiency of List-Assisted Telephone Sampling Designs. Public Opinion Quarterly66: 321-338.
54.
Voogt RJ and Saris WE ( 2005) Mixed Mode Designs: Finding the Balance Between Nonresponse Bias and Mode Effects. Journal of Official Statistics21: 367-387.
55.
Wessell D., Rahn W. and Rudolph T. ( 2000) An Analysis of the 1998 NES Mixed-Mode Design. NES (National Election Studies) Technical Reports. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Available at: http://www.umich.edu/(nes/resources/papers/papers.htm (accessed 1 March 2005).
