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

PSC In The News

RSS Feed icon

Alexander and Massey compare outcomes for children whose parents did and did not take part in Great Migration

Geronimus on pushing past early dismissal of her weathering hypothesis

Thompson: Censoring reading materials in prisons could lead to more, not less rebellion

More News

Highlights

Remembering Jim Morgan, founding member of ISR and creator of the PSID

1/17/18: ISR screening and discussion of documentary "Class Divide" at Michigan Theater

Bailey et al. find higher income among children whose parents had access to federal family planning programs in the 1960s and 70s

U-M's campus climate survey results discussed in CHE story

More Highlights

Next Brown Bag

Mon, Jan 22, 2018, noon: Narayan Sastry

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