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

PSC In The News

RSS Feed icon

Frey's Scenario F simulation mentioned in account of the Democratic Party's tribulations

U-M Poverty Solutions funds nine projects

Dynarski says NY's Excelsior Scholarship Program could crowd out low-income and minority students

More News

Highlights

Workshops on EndNote, NIH reporting, and publication altmetrics, Jan 26 through Feb 7, ISR

2017 PAA Annual Meeting, April 27-29, Chicago

NIH funding opportunity: Etiology of Health Disparities and Health Advantages among Immigrant Populations (R01 and R21), open Jan 2017

Russell Sage 2017 Summer Institute in Computational Social Science, June 18-July 1. Application deadline Feb 17.

More Highlights

Next Brown Bag

Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at noon:
Decline of cash assistance and child well-being, Luke Shaefer

Interviewer speech and the success of survey invitations

Archived Abstract of Former PSC Researcher

Conrad, Frederick G., J. Broome, J. Benki, F. Kreuter, Robert M. Groves, D. Vannette, and C. McClain. 2013. "Interviewer speech and the success of survey invitations." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 176: 191-210.

When potential survey respondents decide whether or not to participate in a telephone interview, they may consider what it would be like to converse with the interviewer who is currently inviting them to respond, e. g. how he or she sounds, speaks and interacts. In the study that is reported here, we examine the effect of three interactional speech behaviours on the outcome of survey invitations: interviewer fillers (e. g. 'um' and 'uh'), householders' backchannels (e. g. 'uh huh' and 'I see') and simultaneous speech or 'overspeech' between interviewer and householder. We examine how these behaviours are related to householders' decisions to participate (agree), to decline the invitation (refusal) or to defer the decision (scheduled call-back) in a corpus of 1380 audiorecorded survey invitations (contacts). Agreement was highest when interviewers were moderately disfluent-neither robotic nor so disfluent as to appear incompetent. Further, household members produced more backchannels, a behaviour which is often assumed to reflect a listener's engagement, when they ultimately agreed to participate than when they refused. Finally, there was more simultaneous speech in contacts where householders ultimately refused to participate; however, interviewers interrupted household members more when they ultimately scheduled a call-back, seeming to pre-empt householders' attempts to refuse. We discuss implications for hiring and training interviewers, as well as the development of automated speech interviewing systems.

DOI:10.1111/j.1467-985X.2012.01064.x (Full Text)

Browse | Search : All Pubs | Next