Home > Publications . Search All . Browse All . Country . Browse PSC Pubs . PSC Report Series

PSC In The News

RSS Feed icon

Shaefer and Edin's book ($2 a Day) cited in piece on political debate over plight of impoverished Americans

Eisenberg tracks factors affecting both mental health and athletic/academic performance among college athletes

Shapiro says Americans' low spending reflects "cruel lesson" about the dangers of debt

Highlights

Susan Murphy elected to the National Academy of Sciences

Maggie Levenstein named director of ISR's Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research

Arline Geronimus receives 2016 Harold R. Johnson Diversity Service Award

PSC spring 2016 newsletter: Kristin Seefeldt, Brady West, newly funded projects, ISR Runs for Bob, and more

Next Brown Bag

PSC Brown Bags
will resume fall 2016

More positive or more extreme? A meta-analysis of mode differences in response choice

Archived Abstract of Former PSC Researcher

Ye, C., J. Fulton, and Roger Tourangeau. 2011. "More positive or more extreme? A meta-analysis of mode differences in response choice." Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(2): 349-365.

Some researchers have argued that respondents give more extreme answers to questions involving response scales over the telephone than in other modes of data collection, but others have argued that telephone respondents give more positive answers. We conducted a meta-analysis based on 18 experimental comparisons between telephone interviews and another mode of data collection. Our analysis showed that telephone respondents are significantly more likely than respondents in other modes to give extremely positive answers (for example, the highest satisfaction ratings in a customer satisfaction survey) but are not more likely to give extremely negative responses. This tendency to give highly positive ratings appears to be related to the presence of an interviewer, and it may reflect respondents' reluctance to express bad news, a tendency some social psychologists have dubbed the MUM effect.

DOI:10.1093/poq/nfr009 (Full Text)

Country of focus: United States of America.

Browse | Search : All Pubs | Next