Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Surveys of egocentric networks are especially vulnerable to methods effects. This study combines a true experiment—random assignment of respondents to receive essentially identical questions from either an in-person interviewer or an online survey—with audio recordings of the in-person interviews. We asked over 850 respondents from a general population several different name-eliciting questions. Face-to-face interviews yielded more cooperation and higher-quality data but fewer names than did the web surveys. Exploring several explanations, we determine that interviewer differences account for the mode difference: Interviewers who consistently prompted respondents elicited as many alters as did the web survey and substantially more than did less active interviewers. Although both methods effects substantially influenced the volume of alters listed, they did not substantially modify associations of other variables with volume.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bowling

2005. Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. Journal of Public Health 27:281–91.

Brashears

M. E.

2013. Humans use compression heuristics to improve the recall of social networks. Scientific Reports 3:1513.

Burkill

Copas

Couper

M. P.

Clifton

Prah

Datta

Conrad

et al. Using the web to collect data on sensitive behaviours: A study looking at mode effects on the British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles. PLoS One 11:e0147983. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147983 (accessed June 12, 2019).

Cornwell

Laumann

E. O.

. 2015. The health benefits of network growth: New evidence from a national survey of older adults. Social Science & Medicine 125:94–106.

de Leeuw

Berzelak

. 2016. Survey mode or survey modes? In The Sage handbook of survey methodology, eds. Wolf

Joye

Smith

T. W.

Y.-C.

, 142–56. London: Sage.

Eagle

D. E.

Proeschold-Bell

R. J.

. 2015. Methodological considerations in the use of name generators and interpreters. Social Networks 40:75–83.

Fischer

C. S.

2012. Results of 2010 GSS network experiment. INSNA Listserv, SOCNET Archives. https://lists.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1209&L=SOCNET&P=2399 (accessed June 12, 2019).

Gravlee

C. C.

Bernard

H. R.

Maxwell

C. R.

Jacobsohn

. 2013. Mode effects in free-list elicitation. Social Science Computer Review 31:119–32.

Harling

Perkins

J. M.

Gómez-Olivé

F. X.

Morris

Wagner

R. G.

Montana

Kabudula

C. W.

et al. 2018. Interviewer-driven variability in social network reporting: Results from health and aging in Africa: A longitudinal study of an INDEPTH community (HAALSI) in South Africa. Field Methods 30:140–54.

10.

Heerwegh

2009. Mode differences between face-to-face and web surveys: An experimental investigation of data quality and social desirability effects. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 21:111–21.

11.

Herz

Petermann

. 2017. Beyond interviewer effects in the standardized measurement of ego-centric networks. Social Networks 50:70–82.

12.

Hogan

Melville

J. R.

Phillips

G. L.

II Janulis

Contractor

Mustanski

B. S.

Birkett

. 2016. Evaluating the paper-to-screen translation of participant-aided sociograms with high-risk participants. CHI ‘16 Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems:5360–71. doi: 10.1145/2858036.2858368.

13.

Holbrook

A. L.

Green

M. C.

Krosnick

J. A.

. 2003. Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing of national probability samples with long questionnaires: Comparisons of respondent satisficing and social desirability response bias. Public Opinion Quarterly 67:79–125.

14.

Homola

Jackson

Gill

. 2016. A measure of survey mode differences. Electoral Studies 44:255–74.

15.

Houtkoop-Steenstra

1996. Probing behaviour of interviewers in the standardised semi-open research interview. Quality and Quantity 30:205–30.

16.

Josten

Trappmann

. 2016. Interviewer effects on a network size filter question. Journal of Official Statistics 32:349–73.

17.

Kolenikov

Kennedy

. 2014. Evaluating three approaches to statistically adjust for mode effects. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology 2:126–58.

18.

Kreuter

Presser

Tourangeau

. 2008. Surveys: The effects of mode and question sensitivity. Public Opinion Quarterly 72:847–65.

19.

Liu

Conrad

F. G.

Sunghee

. 2017. Comparing acquiescent and extreme response styles in face-to-face and web surveys. Quality & Quantity 51:941–58.

20.

Marsden

P. V.

2003. Interviewer effects in measuring network size using a single name generator. Social Networks 25:1–16.

21.

Martin

Childs

J. H.

DeMaio

Hill

Reiser

Gerber

Styles

Dillman

. 2007. Guidelines for designing questionnaires for administration in different modes. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

22.

Matzat

Snijders

. 2010. Does the online collection of ego-centered network data reduce data quality? An experimental comparison. Social Networks 32:105–11.

23.

McCarty

Govindaramanujam

. 2005. A modified elicitation of personal networks using dynamic visualization. Connections 26:61–69.

24.

McPherson

Smith-Lovin

Brashears

M. E.

. 2006. Social isolation in America: Changes in core discussion networks over two decades. American Sociological Review 71:353–75.

25.

Mittereder

Durow

West

B. T.

Kreuter

Conrad

F. G.

. 2017. Interviewer–Respondent interactions in conversational and standardized interviewing. Field Methods 30:3–21.

26.

Paik

Sanchagrin

. 2013. Social isolation in America: An artifact. American Sociological Review 78:339–60.

27.

Perry

B. L.

Pescosolido

B. A.

Borgatti

S. P.

. 2018. Egocentric network analysis: Foundations, methods, and models. New York: Cambridge University Press.

28.

Pew Research Center. 2015. From telephone to the web: The challenge of mode of interview effects in public opinion Polls. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org/2015/05/13/from-telephone-to-the-web-the-challenge-of-mode-of-interview-effects-in-public-opinion-polls/ (accessed June 12, 2019).

29.

Pew Research Center. 2017. Personal finance questions elicit slightly different answers in phone surveys than online. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/04/personal-finance-questions-elicit-slightly-different-answers-in-phone-surveys-than-online (accessed June 12, 2019).

30.

Pickery

Loosveldt

Carton

. 2001. The effects of interviewer and respondent characteristics on response behavior in panel surveys. Sociological Methods and Research 29:509–23.

31.

Public Opinion Quarterly. 2017. Special issue: Survey research, today and tomorrow, 81(S1).

32.

Schouten

van den Brakel

Buelens

van der Laan

Klausch

. 2013. Disentangling mode-specific selection and measurement bias in social surveys. Social Science Research 42:1555–70.

33.

Stark

T. H.

Krosnick

J. A.

. 2017. GENSI: A new graphical tool to collect ego-centered network data. Social Networks 48:36–45.

34.

Tubaro

Casilli

A. A.

Mounier

. 2014. Eliciting personal network data in web surveys through participant-generated sociograms. Field Methods 26:107–25.

35.

Valente

T. W.

Dougherty

Stammer

. 2017. Response bias over time: Interviewer learning and missing data in egocentric network surveys. Field Methods 29:303–16.

36.

van der Zouwen

van Tilburg

. 2001. Reactivity in panel studies and its consequences for testing causal hypotheses. Sociological Methods & Research 30:35–56.

37.

van Tilburg

1998. Losing and gaining in old age: Changes in personal network size and social support in a four-year longitudinal study. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences 53B:S313–23.

38.

Vehovar

Manfreda

K. L.

Koren

Hlebec

. 2008. Measuring ego-centered social networks on the web: Questionnaire design issues. Social Networks 30:213–22.

39.

Vriens

van Ingen

. 2018. Does the rise of the Internet bring erosion of strong ties? Analyses of social media use and changes in core discussion networks. New Media & Society 20: 2432–49.

40.

West

B. T.

Blom

A. G.

. 2017. Explaining interviewer effects: A research synthesis. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology 5:175–211.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.63 MB

Mode and Interviewer Effects in Egocentric Network Research

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material