Strangers in the Field

Abstract

Evaluating a long–term methodological norm – the use of interviewers who have no prior social relationship to respondents – we compare response patterns across levels of interviewer–respondent familiarity. We differentiate three distinct levels of interviewer–respondent familiarity, based on whether the interviewer is directly acquainted with the respondent or their family, acquainted with the research setting, or is a complete outsider. We also identify three mechanisms through which variability in interviewer–respondent familiarity can affect survey responses: the effort a respondent is willing to make; their level of trust in the interviewer; and interview–specific situational factors. Using data from a methodological experiment fielded in the Dominican Republic, we then gauge the effects of each of these on a range of behavioral and attitudinal questions. Empirical results suggest that respondents expend marginally more effort in answering questions posed by insider–interviewers, and that they also lie less to insider–interviewers. Differences in responses to “trust” questions also largely favor insider–interviewers. Overall, therefore, local interviewers, including those whom, in blatant violation of the stranger–interviewer norm, have a prior relationship with the respondent, collect superior data on some items. And on almost no item do they collect data that are measurably worse.