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

PSC In The News

RSS Feed icon

Miller et al. find benefits of Medicaid for pregnant mothers in 1980s carry over two generations

Starr's findings account for some of the 19% black-white gap in federal sentencing

Frey says suburbs are aging, cities draw millennials

More News

Highlights

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

U-M honors James Jackson's groundbreaking work on how race impacts the health of black Americans

U-M is the only public and non-coastal university on Forbes' top-10 list for billionaire production

More Highlights

Next Brown Bag

Mon, Jan 22, 2018, noon: Narayan Sastry

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