A problem for evaluators and researchers is that what people ‘say’ in an interview context is often different from what they do in the everyday world, in vivo. Elicitation techniques appear to be effective at revealing ‘hidden’ data but the theories about why they do so are inadequate. This paper examines literature from cognitive science, schema and survey research to identify ideas that may help explain why elicitation techniques work and how we can improve their use. The schema concept provides a testable mechanism for how elicitation may function and the conditions under which elicitation might work. It also raises questions for evaluators about the variability of people's responses in different contexts and the influence of the interview context on the results obtained.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndradeJ. (2005). Consciousness. In BraisbyN., & GellatlyA. (Eds.), Cognitive psychology (pp. 545–577). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
AndrésP. (2003). Frontal cortex as the central executive of working memory: Time to revise our view.Cortex, 39(4), pp. 871–895. doi: 10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70868-2
3.
BaarsB. J. (2005). Global workspace theory of consciousness: Toward a cognitive neuroscience of human experience. In StevenL. (Ed.), Progress in Brain Research: The boundaries of consciousness: Neurobiology and neuropathology (Volume 150, pp. 45–53): Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/S0079-6123(05)50004-9
4.
BarterC., & RenoldE. (1999). The use of vignettes in qualitative research.Social Research Update, (25). Retrieved from: http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU25.html
5.
BoddyC. (2008). Are projective techniques actually projective or are market researchers wasting their time?Australian Journal of Market & Social Research, 16(1), pp. 5–17.
6.
BodenhausenG., & WyerR. (1987). Social cognition and social reality: Information acquisition and use in the laboratory and the real world. In HipplerH. J., SchwarzN., & SudmanS. (Eds.), Social Information Processing and Survey Methodology.New York: Springer-Verlag. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-4798-2_2
7.
BreivikE., & SupphellenM. (2003). Elicitation of product attributes in an evaluation context: A comparison of three elicitation techniques.Journal of Economic Psychology, 24(1), pp. 77–98. doi: 10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00156-3
8.
BrewerN., WeberN., WoottonD., & LindsayD. S. (2012). Identifying the bad guy in a lineup using confidence judgments under deadline pressure.Psychological Science, 23(10), pp. 1208–1214. doi: 10.1177/0956797612441217
9.
BrewerW. (2003). Schema Theory. In GuthrieJ.W. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 1467–1469). New York: Thomson Gale.
10.
BrewerW., & TreyensJ. (1981). Role of schemata in memory for places.Cognitive Psychology, 13(2), pp. 207–230. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(81)90008-6
11.
BriggsC. L. (1986). Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in social science research.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
BrockmeierJ. (2010). After the archive: Remapping memory.Culture & Psychology, 16(5), pp. 5–35. doi: 10.1177/1354067X09353212
13.
BryanC. J., DweckC. S., RossL., KayA. C., & MislavskyN. O. (2009). Political mindset: Effects of schema priming on liberal-conservative political positions.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), pp. 890–895. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.007
14.
CatterallM., & IbbotsonP. (2000). Using projective techniques in education research.British Educational Research Journal, 26(2), pp. 245–256. doi: 10.1080/01411920050000971
15.
ChabrisC., & SimonsD. (2010). The invisible gorilla: How our intuitions deceive us.New York: Crown.
16.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1975). Play and intrinsic rewards.Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 15(3), pp. 41–63. doi: 10.1177/002216787501500306
17.
DehaeneS., ChangeuxJ. P., & NaccacheL. (2011). The global neuronal workspace model of conscious access: From neuronal architectures to clinical applications. In DehaeneS., & ChristenY. (Eds.), Characterizing Consciousness: From Cognition to the Clinic?Berlin: Springer-Verlag. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-18015-6_4
18.
DonoghueS. (2000). Projective techniques in consumer research.Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences /Tydskrif vir Gesinsekologie en Verbruikerswetenskappe, 28(1).
19.
EllsbergM., BradleyC., EganA., & HaddadA. (2008). Violence against women in Melanesia and East Timor: Building on global and regional promising approaches.Canberra: Office of Development Effectiveness, AusAID.
20.
FalkE. B., BerkmanE. T., & LiebermanM. D. (2012). From neural responses to population behavior: Neural focus group predicts population-level media effects.Psychological Science, 23(5), pp. 439–445. doi: 10.1177/0956797611434964
21.
GarrodS., & SanfordA. J. (2005). Language in action. In BraisbyN., & GellatlyA. (Eds.), Cognitive Psychology (pp. 231–264). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22.
GeiselmanR., FisherP., MacKinnonD., & HollandH. (2003). Enhancement of eyewitness memory with cognitive interview. In FieldingN. (Ed.), Interviewing (Vol. 1, Part 2) pp. 3–18. London: Sage.
23.
HaireM. (1950). Projective techniques in marketing research.The Journal of Marketing, 14(5), pp. 649–656. doi: 10.2307/1246942
24.
HarrisW. (1968). The nature and function of educational evaluations.Peabody Journal of Education, 46(2), pp. 95–99.
25.
HastieR. (1987). Information processing theory for the social researcher. In HipplerH. J., SchwarzN., & SudmanS. (Eds.), Social Information Processing and Survey Methodology.New York: Springer-Verlag.
26.
Haussman-MuelaS., & RiberaJ. M. (2003). Recipe knowledge: A tool for understanding some apparently irrational behaviour.Anthropology and Medicine, 10(1), pp. 87–103. doi: 10.1080/1364847032000094522
27.
HitchG. J. (2005). Working memory. In BraisbyN., & GellatlyA. (Eds.), Cognitive Psychology, pp. 307–342. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28.
HollwayW., & JeffersonT. (2003). Eliciting narrative through the in-depth interview. In FieldingN. (Ed.), Interviewing (Vol. 1, Part 2, pp. 77–94). London: Sage.
29.
HuesmannL. R. (1998). The role of social information processing and cognitive schema in the acquisition and maintenance of habitual aggressive behavior. In GeenR. G., & DonnersteinE. (Eds.), Human Aggression: Theories, research and implications for social policy, pp. 73–109. San Diego: Academic Press.
30.
HuesmannL. R., & GuerraN. G. (1997). Children's normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 72(2), pp. 408–419.
31.
HurworthR., ClarkE., MartinJ., & ThomsenS. (2005). The use of photo-interviewing: Three examples from health evaluation and research.Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 4(1), pp. 52–62.
32.
HurworthR., & SweeneyM. (1995). The use of the visual image in a variety of Australian evaluations.Evaluation Practice, 16(2), pp. 153–164. doi: 10.1016/0886-1633(95)90024-1
JenkinsN., BloorM., FischerJ., BerneyL., & NealeJ. (2010). Putting it in context: The use of vignettes in qualitative interviewing.Qualitative Research, 10(2), pp. 175–198. doi: 10.1177/1468794109356737
35.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking Fast and Slow.New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.
36.
KahnemanD., SlovicP., & TverskyA. (Eds.). (1982). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
KrosnickJ. A. (1999). Survey research.Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), pp. 537–567.
38.
KvaleS. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing.Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
39.
LilienfeldS. O., WoodJ. M., & GarbH. N. (2000). The Scientific status of projective techniques.Psychological Science in the Public Interest1(2), pp. 27–66.
40.
MannayD. (2010). Making the familiar strange: Can visual research methods render the familiar setting more perceptible?Qualitative Research, 10(1), pp. 91–111. doi: 10.1177/1468794109348684
41.
MyersI. B. (1987). Introduction to type: A description of the theory and applications of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
42.
NormanD. A., & ShalliceT. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In DavidsonR., SchwartzG. E., & ShapiroD. (Eds.), Consciousness and Self-Regulation: Advances in Research and Theory (Vol. 4), pp. 1–18. New York: Plenum Press.
43.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
44.
PikeG., & EdgarG. (2005). Perception. In BraisbyN., & GellatlyA. (Eds.), Cognitive Psychology, pp. 71–111. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45.
RathboneC. J., MoulinC. J. A., ConwayM. A., & HolmesE. A. (2005). Autobiographical memory and the self. In BraisbyN., & GellatlyA. (Eds.), Cognitive Psychology (pp. 507–543). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46.
Reyes-CabelloA. L., Aliseda-LleraA., & Nepomuceno-FernándezÁ. (2006). Towards abductive reasoning in first-order logic.Logic Journal of the IGPL, 14(2), pp. 287–304. doi: 10.1093/jigpal/jzk019
47.
RutherfordA. (2005). Long-term memory: encoding to retrieval. In BraisbyN., & GellatlyA. (Eds.), Cognitive Psychology (pp. 269–305). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
48.
SchostakJ. (2006). Interviewing and representation in qualitative research.Maidenhead: Open University Press.
49.
SchutzA. (Ed.) (1970). Alfred Schultz on phenomenology and social relations.London: University of Chicago Press.
50.
SchützA. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world.Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press.
51.
SchwarzN., & HipplerH. J. (1987). What response effects may tell your respondents: informative functions of response alternatives. In HipplerH. J., SchwarzN., & SudmanS. (Eds.), Social Information Processing and Survey Methodology.New York: Springer-Verlag.
52.
ScrivenM. (1998). Minimalist theory: The least theory that practice requires.American Journal of Evaluation, 19(1), pp. 57–70. doi: 10.1016/S1098-2140(99)80180-5
53.
SilversteinB. H., SnodgrassM., ShevrinH., & KushwahaR. (2015). P3b, consciousness, and complex unconscious processing.Cortex, 73, pp. 216–227. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.09.004
54.
SirkenM., HerrmannD., SchechterS., SchwarzN., TanurJ., & TourangeauR. (Eds.) (1999). Cognition and Survey Research.New York: John Wiley & Sons.
55.
SmithE., GidlowB., & SteelG. (2012). Engaging adolescent participants in academic research: The use of photo-elicitation interviews to evaluate school-based outdoor education programs.Qualitative Research, 12(4), pp. 367–387. doi: 10.1177/1468794112443473
56.
Smith-JacksonT. L., & HallT. E. (2002). Information order and sign design: A schema-based approach.Environment and Behaviour, 34(4), pp. 479–492. doi: 10.1177/00116502034004004
57.
SudmanS., BradburnN. M., & SchwarzN. (1996). Thinking about answers: The application of cognitive processes to survey methodology.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
58.
TourangeauR. (1987). Attitude measurement: A cognitive perspective. In HipplerH. J., SchwarzN., & SudmanS. (Eds.), Social Information Processing and Survey Methodology.New York: Springe-Verlag.
59.
TourangeauR., & YanT. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys.Psychological Bulletin, 133(5), pp. 859–883. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.859
60.
WenZ. (2015). Working memory in second language acquisition and processing: The phonological/executive model. In WenZ., MotaM., & McNeillA. (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing, pp. 41–63. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
