Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations
1-1-2003
Telephone interviewer effects: Sorting through what we know
Danielle Lea Walker Iowa State University
Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd
Recommended Citation Walker, Danielle Lea, "Telephone interviewer effects: Sorting through what we know" (2003). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 20078. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/20078
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Telephone interviewer effects: Sorting through what we know
by
Danielle Lea Walker
A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Major: Sociology
Program of Study Committee: William Woodman (Major Professor) Gloria Jones-Johnson Mack Shelley
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa
2003 ii
Graduate College Iowa State University
This is to certify that the master's thesis of
Danielle Lea Walker
Has met the thesis requirements of Iowa State University
Signatures have been redacted for privacy iii
DEDICATION
I have written this dedication page over one- hundred times in my head. During the past two years whenever I felt like I just wanted to quit (graduate school) I would imagine writing the dedication page of my thesis (even before I started my thesis) and how good it would feel to be finished. In every version my thesis was dedicated to myself; a small reward for all the situations I successfully managed to handle while completing my Master's program in two years. However, upon reflection it no longer seems appropriate to dedicate my thesis to myself. I had frequently heard that pursuing a graduate degree was selfish, yet I never understood how that could be true ... until I became a member of a family. I began graduate school as a 23-year old single mother of a preschooler. My life was mainly my daughter, Leigha, (but she was not very demanding) and myself. Somewhere over the course of the past two years everything changed ... I grew up. I became a coffee-drinking, flannel-wearing, journal-reading adult. Leigha entered public school and some of my influence on her socialization was replaced by peer socialization. Also contributing to my growth, I became a member of a full-fledged family. My boyfriend (and best friend since we met), Joe, has two children, Joey and Cassidy. When I was a single mother to Leigha, I really did not have much to balance with school. It has been through the balancing of: individual needs of three children and a partner, multiple family obligations for every special occasion, and committing to pursue a life with mutual goals with someone else, that I have come to realize how selfish it is to pursue a graduate degree. I dedicate my thesis to my family: Joe, Joey, Leigha, and Cassidy. For all that they have endured while I wrote my thesis. Especially to Leigha, who lived with me through the entire process, who ended up forgoing daily trips to the park, and who frequently read bedtime books to me because I was too tired to read to her. iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are so many people to acknowledge, for so many reasons. While pursuing a graduate degree is selfish, it also requires much support. There are those who encouraged me to go to graduate school. Thank you Dr. Linda Evans, Thomas Bern, and Mamal (Jane Walker). Then, there were those fabulous instructors who understood me better than I understood myself. Thank you immensely Dr. Gloria Jones-Johnson and Dr. William Woodman. Along the way there were many that provided much needed childcare for Leigha, which enabled me to be successful. Thank you Mamal, Nancy Bern, Joe Halbrook, Donna Cronk, and Martha Dettman. Thank you Dr. Michelle Frisco, for providing professional guidance. During the writing of my thesis there were many that provided valuable moral and professional support. Thank you Eric Rorke, who I think may have read more early versions of my thesis than I did. Thank you Kerry Agnitsch, for assistance with the relationship diagramming. Thank you Sine Anahita and Martha Dettman for letting me know that it was normal to cry and be an emotional wreck while writing, even though no one ever talks about it. Thank you to the remaining members of East Hall's Fourth Floor, for tolerating me throughout this process. I wish only the best for all of you that helped me through this. v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 My Initial Interest in Telephone Interviewer Effects 1 Survey Usage 2 Interviewer Effects 3 General Research Goals 4 Specific Research Goals 5 Summary 6
CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE 7 The Interview as a Conversation 7 Figure 1: Motivational Model of the Interview as a Social Process 8 Face-to-Face vs. Telephone Interviews 9 Advantages of Telephone Interviews 10 Disadvantages of Telephone Interviews 11
CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW 12 Inclusion of Research Based on Face-to-Face Interviews 12 Interviewer Effects Research History 13 Figure 2: 1940s Interviewer Effects Researchers 14 Figure 3: 1950s Interviewer Effects Researchers 16 Figure 4: Reduced1950s Interviewer Effects Researchers 17 Figure 5: 1960s Interviewer Effects Researchers 18 Figure 6: 1960s Interviewer Effects Statistical Researchers 19 Figure 7: 1960s Race of Interviewer Effects Researchers 20 Figure 8: 1970s Interviewer Effects Researchers 21 Figure 9: Relationships Produced by a Single Article 22 Figure 10: Reduced 1970s Interviewer Effects Researchers 23 Figure 11: 1980s Interviewer Effects Researchers 24 Figure 12: Reduced1980s Interviewer Effects Researchers 25 Figure 13: 1990s Interviewer Effects Researchers 26 Figure 14: Schuman's Relationships in the 1990s 26 Figure 15: 2000s Interviewer Effects Researchers 27 Sources of Interviewer Effects 28 The Interviewer 28 Interviewer Expectations and Attitudes 28 Interviewer Training and Experience 29 Interviewer Social Characteristics 30 The Respondent 31 The Questionnaire 32 The Mode of the Interview 34 vi
CHAPTER 4: MATERIALS AND METHODS 36 Sampling 36 Data Location Techniques 37 Data Location Results 39 Study Eligibility Criteria 39 Usefulness of Appendix D 42 Final Data 44 Table 1: Article Sources of Final Data 44 Recommendations for Meta-Analysis 45 Hypotheses 46 Expectations & Implications of Hypotheses Testing 47
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS 56 Recommendations for Interviewer Effects Research 56 Would a Meta-Analysis of Telephone Interviewer Effects Really Be Cost-Effective? 57 Usefulness of this Thesis 58
APPENDIX A: RELATIONSHIP DIAGRAMS 60
APPENDIX B: RESULTS OF KEYWORD SEARCHES 75
APPENDIX C: DETAILS OF JOURNALS PRODUCED BY KEYWORD SEARCHES 83
APPENDIX D: INELIGIBLE DOCUMENTS 85
APPENDIX E: FINAL DATA 93
BIBLIOGRAPHY 95 1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
My Initial Interest in Telephone Interviewer Effects
My initial scholarly interest in telephone interviewer effects began with Clyde
Tucker's 1983 Public Opinion Quarterly article, "Interviewer Effect in Telephone
Surveys." I presented a summary and critique of Tucker's research during my first semester in graduate school. I selected Tucker's article for my presentation due to my previous employment as a professional telephone interviewer .. I was a trained telephone interviewer that conducted conversational interviews using psychiatric probes.
Tucker's article "assessed the magnitude of interviewer effects for a number of items across eleven national polls conducted by CBS News and The New York
Times in 1980" (1983: p94). The variables that Tucker examined were chosen
"according to two criteria-substantive importance (those questions found to be important in the context of the 1980 campaign) and frequency of use" (1983: p90).
Tucker reported that "effects were related to the political context in which the measurements were obtained" (1983: p94) and some inconsistencies were explained by region (dichotomized as either South or non-South).
I worked on the presentation for over a week and really thought that I had a solid paper, only to have the professor, Dr. Jones-Johnson, respond that "a real graduate student not only reads the assigned article, but also all of the sources cited
in that article in order to accurately critique the researcher." It was her comment that
motivated me to read more scholarly pieces on telephone interviewing and
interviewing in general. After reading other research, I was not sure that Tucker's 2 article stated as much as I originally thought. I began to see weaknesses with the research design and limitations with his findings. I wondered what researchers really did know about interviewer effects, and how confident they were with their knowledge.
Survey Usage
Due to the versatility of the survey it has become a widely used data- gathering technique. Surveys can be used to answer descriptive, explanatory, or exploratory research questions, which increases the likelihood that a researcher will employ the survey method. There are three basic types of surveys: self- administered questionnaires, face-to-face interviews, and telephone interviews. Due to the typically low response rates associated with self-administered questionnaires and the high expense of face-to-face interviews, the telephone interview has become the survey method of choice. In recent years advances in technology
(caller ID, unidentified call blocks, and answering machines) have lowered response rates for telephone interviews. In spite of lower response rates, telephone interviewing may continue to gain in popularity among researchers due to its increased efficiency, decreased costs, increased number of households with a telephone and future techno~ogical advances. Another technological advancement affecting telephone interviewing is the Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing
(CATI) system. The use of CATI systems further increases the efficiency of telephone interviewing by allowing the interviewer to code responses as the interview occurs. It is also believed that the use of CATI systems reduces interviewer errors; since the interviewer no longer has the responsibility of deciding 3 which questions to next present to the respondent, due tot the automation of the interview instrument. I did not specifically address CATI interviewing as separate from telephone interviewing because the use of the CATI system is an instrument- related issue, not an interviewer-related issue. CATI interviews still involve a person-to-person interaction. This thesis is focused on telephone interviewers effects attributed to the person-to-person interaction that occurs during an interview; not effects attributed to the interview instrument.
Interviewer Effects
An important issue concerning interviews is the existence of interviewer effects. Interviewer effects, also known as interviewer variation, were defined by
Hanson and Marks (1958) as the "variation in results obtained by different interviewers" (p635). Interviewer effects can occur whenever an interviewer is utilized; face-to-face interviews, telephone interviews and self-administered surveys where an interviewer is present while the respondent completes the questionnaire.
This means that different interviewers can potentially gather different data from the same respondents and this variation, in gathered data, is due to the difference in interviewers. Interviewer effects cause the respondent to change their response for some reason, thus producing a response error, while the response error in turn produces a measurement error. Interviewer effects are a major concern of researchers because the reliability of the data gathered can be greatly affected.
Much of what we know about interviewer effects is based on face-to-face interviews. There are a couple of logical reasons for this. First, when interest in interviewer effects peaked, 1940s-1960s, most interviews were conducted in the 4 respondent's home, face-to-face. Second, interviewer effects may be more pronounced in face-to-face interviews since the interviewer and the respondent have both visual and audio cues about each other, while in telephone interviews the interviewer and the respondent must rely solely on audio cues.
Singer, Frankel and Glassman (1983) noted that the potential threat posed by interviewer effects is much greater for telephone interviews than for face-to-face interviews.
The potential for bias is much more serious in telephone interviews, where typically fewer interviewers take a much larger number of interviews. Consequently, the effect of each interviewer's performance on response rate and response quality is magnified many times (p68-69).
General Research Goals
Cannell and Kahn (1968) discussed the "problems of invalidity in interview data in terms of characteristics of interviewers and respondents" (p549) and noted that the "avoidance of bias and the attainment of valid measurement" is the goal of the researcher (p551). Tucker (1983) stated that it is important to identify interviewer effects because this variation can "increase the amount of error associated with the measurement of variables in a survey" (p84). These researchers are positivists; their common research goal is scientific explanation in order to "learn how the world works so that people can control or predict events"
(Neuman, 2000: p66). Positivistic interviewer effects researchers believe if they can
identify, predict, and then eliminate interviewer effects, the validity of the findings of future research utilizing the telephone interview method will be stronger as a consequence of the reduction in error. From a theoretical perspective, this assumes 5 that there is a reality and it merely needs to be discovered, or more specifically, that there is a "pure response" from each respondent and we just have to eliminate the response error, due to interviewer effects, in order to obtain it. The first step in eliminating error is identification, which has already been accomplished by Stock and Hochstim (1951); Hanson & Marks (1958); Kish (1962); and Bailey, Moore, and
Bailar (1978), of whom all established that interviewer effects do exist. The next step is prediction; to be able to predict the conditions under which interviewer effects are seen to occur. Once researchers are able to predict these conditions, they can prevent them and thus eliminate interviewer effects and increase reliability.
Specific Research Goals
The purpose of this thesis is to examine the published findings of interviewer effects research, located by keyword searches, and to make recommendations for conducting a meta-analysis of telephone interviewer effects. The goal is descriptive, in that I seek to describe and discuss the conditions under which telephone interviewer effects seem to occur. The research goal is also exploratory, in that I will suggest recommendations for which documents to include in a thorough meta- analysis of telephone interviewer effects and propose hypotheses for such a meta- analysis. Since the meta-analysis would be comparing results from different subgroups of studies, there would be a low level of confidence for the causal inferences, however the findings could help direct future research about telephone interviewe~ effects (Hall, Rosenthal, Tickle-Deghen, & Mosteller, 1994). 6
Summary
Increased efficiency and resulting lower costs have made telephone interviewing the survey method of choice. However, the benefit of efficiency has also come at a cost. Due to the fact that a single telephone interviewer is responsible for gathering a larger proportion of data than a single face-to-face interviewer, the potential threat to reliability due to interviewer effects is increased for telephone interviews. 7
CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE
The Interview as a Conversation
In 1968 Cannell and Kahn described the research interview as,
a two-person conversation, initiated by the interviewer for the specific purpose of obtaining research-relevant information, and focused by him on content specified by research objectives of systematic description, prediction, or explanation (p527).
They expanded to discuss the roles involved in an interview conversation. The interviewer has many roles: initiate the conversation, present each topic by means of specific questions, decide when the conversation on a topic has satisfied the research objectives and another topic should be introduced, and restrict the respondent's discussion to the specific questions posed (Cannell & Kahn, 1968).
The role of the respondent is "to provide information about himself, his experiences, his perceptions, or his attitudes to an interviewer who has no direct power or intention to provide ... major tangible reward" (Cannell & Kahn, 1968: p527). If the
interviewer has no direct power over the respondent, what motivates the respondent to first participate and then second to complete the interview?
Cannell and Kahn (1968) explained the respondent's motivation to participate
in an interview as based on,
his first personal impressions of the interviewer and the introductory information about the demands, duration, difficulty, and threatening or positive outcomes of the interview (p539).
This means a respondent is motivated to participate in an interview based on his/her
initial impressions of the interviewer and the characteristics of the interview. The
information a perspective respondent receives about what will be required of him/her 8 in order to fulfill his/her respondent role obligations and his/her beliefs about the interviewer will motivate the perspective respondent either to participate in the interview or to refuse to participate. A respondent's motivation to continue the interview conversation, until completion, is based on his/her perceptions, attitudes, and expectations about the interviewer and the interview, which continue to form and evolve throughout the interview conversation. Cannell and Kahn (1968) offered the following motivational model (Figure 1) as a visual representation of the interview as a social process.
Respondent Attributes Interviewer Attributes
Demographic Demographic characteristics characteristics Personality Personality Information/ Skills/experience experience
Attitudes Attitudes Expectations Expectations Motives Motives Perceptions Perceptions
Interview product
Figure 1 : Motivational Model of the Interview as a Social Process (Cannell & Kahn, 1968: p538)
Cannell and Kahn explained that "this model is compatible with the role-oriented view of the interview" (1968: p538) because the interview product is the result of both the interviewer's behavior and the respondent's behavior, while the 9 interviewer's and respondent's behavior is produced by their attitudes, expectations, motives and perceptions, which are a reflection of demographic characteristics, personality, and experience. It is through this ongoing social process that the interviewer gives cues to the respondent about the respondent's roles and whether or not he/she is fulfilling those roles successfully. This motivational model clearly shows how different interviewers can alter the interview product. Differences in interviewers' demographic characteristics, personality, interviewing experience, and skills can affect respondents' attitudes, expectations, motives, perceptions, and behavior, which consequently affect the interview product.
Face-to-Face vs. Telephone Interviews
Since an interviewer typically is not required for self-administered surveys, this thesis will now focus only on the two types of surveys that always require an interviewer: face-to-face and telephone interviews.
Face-to-face interviews commonly were referred to as personal interviews, this terminology was used prior to the increased popularity of telephone interviewing.
Since both face-to-face and telephone interviews are a personal social interaction, for clarity this thesis will use only the terms face-to-face interviews and telephone
interviews. Face-to-face interviewing occurs when the interviewer actually is in the
presence of the respondent while administering the survey, historically in the
respondent's home, often in a circumstance where the interviewer contacted the
respondent by knocking on the respondent's door. Telephone interviewing occurs
when the interviewer calls a respondent and administers the survey over the
telephone. 10
Advantages of Telephone Interviews
The two main advantages of the telephone interview are the quickness with which data can be gathered (which lowers costs) and the ability to reach a large and diverse sample. Telephone interviewers can often gather data in "only two to four days and sometimes in a single evening" (Asher, 1998: p81). Telephone interviewers are able to reach a large, diverse, and therefore a representative sample due to the prevalence of telephone ownership. Before the cost of owning a telephone decreased, telephone interviewing produced non-representative data due to social-class bias. The social-class bias was due to only the upper social classes being able to afford to own a telephone. However this is no longer a concern as currently telephone ownership is over ninety-eight percent of housing units in the
United States (United States Census, 2000).
There are many other advantages of telephone interviews. First, there is less difficulty and therefore less cost associated with "call backs" for telephone interviews as compared to face-to-face interviews (Churchill, 1999). Second, the central location of telephone interviewers allows for a high level of interviewer supervision and ease and quickness of implementing changes to an interview instrument
(Churchill, 1999; Babbie, 1998). Third, since respondents do not actually see telephone interviewers, interviewers are free to dress as they wish without affecting respondents' answers and social desirability bias may be lower due to the feeling of anonymity (Babbie, 1998). Forth, telephone interviewing allows for easy computer support, which is advantageous because responses can be coded as the interview 11 takes place, thereby further reducing time and costs (Neuman, 2000; Churchill,
1999).
Disadvantages of Telephone Interviews
Telephone interviews also have disadvantages. First, telephone interviews do not allow for visual aids. However, researchers have gotten around this by mailing visual materials to respondents prior to the interview (Asher, 1998). Second, there is much debate among researchers about how "hang-ups" (Dillman, Gorton &
Frey, 1976) and answering machines (Tuckel & Feinburg, 1991) should be handled, since both have decreased response rates of telephone interviews. Third, the representativeness of data gathered by telephone interviews is dependent upon the sampling frame, or list of telephone numbers, that interviewers use to obtain respondents. However, random digit dialing has addressed this concern (Churchill,
1999; Babbie, 1998). Fourth, it may be difficult for the telephone interviewer to establish rapport with the respondent since they are not face-to-face (Churchill,
1999). Lastly, although it is widely believed that telephone interviewer effects are not as pronounced as face-to-face interviewer effects, the telephone interview is still a social process, where some degree of interviewer effects exists. Researchers are still attempting to understand interviewer effects and over the years have researched various areas and aspects of interviewer effects that have not necessarily built off of each other, which is why this thesis focuses on sorting through the interviewer effects research. This thesis first reviews research in the general area of interviewer effects, then focuses on telephone interviewer effects due to interviewers' social characteristics. 12
CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW
Inclusion of Research Based on Face-to-Face Interviews
While this thesis focuses specifically on telephone interviewer effects, I choose to include research on face-to-face interviewer effects in the literature review, which is a decision that requires justification. The first reason to include face-to-face interviewer effects research is that the potential sources of telephone interviewer effects could be the same sources of face-to-face interviewer effects.
Recall that the interview is a social process where the interview is a product of the interaction of the interviewer's and the respondent's attitudes, expectations, motives, perceptions, and behavior throughout the interview process (Cannell & Kahn, 1968), it does not matter if the interview is face-to-face or telephone. While cues and social characteristics are more pronounced in face-to-face interviews, interviewers and respondents still interact with each other, based on assumptions of social characteristics and corresponding attitudes and beliefs, during telephone interviews, thereby producing interviewer effects. Despite the fact that telephone interviewers and respondents have only verbal cues, some social characteristics are still . identified correctly. In fact, Meislin (1987) noted a May 1985 survey in which "those
interviewed were able to identify correctly whether they were speaking to a member of their own race about three quarters of the time" (p82). The second reason to
include the face-to-face interviewer effects research is due to the fact that much
more interviewer effects research exists based on face-to-face interviews than on telephone interviews. This is face-to-face interviewing has enjoyed a much longer
life than telephone interviewing. Also, much of the interviewer effects research has 13 used United States Census data, which were gathered through face-to-face interviews. United States Census data have been commonly used to study interviewer effects for the following four reasons:
• Census data are available • Census data are the largest possible data set • Census data are randomized • The United States Bureau of the Census was interested in interviewer effects
Interviewer Effects Research History
Interest in interviewer effects has gone through cycles, manifested by periods of great interest followed by periods of neglect, while the periods of interest tended to focus on various potential sources of bias. Initial interest in the study of interviewer effects began with interviewer expectations as a source of bias, with
Rice's 1929 work. The original purpose of Rice's research was to determine causes of destitution, but when analyzing the data he noticed that respondents interviewed by one interviewer consistently reported alcohol consumption as the cause, while respondents interviewed by another interviewer consistently reported social and
industrial conditions as the cause. Upon investigation, Rice found that the first
interviewer was a prohibitionist while the second interviewer was a socialist (Rice,
1929). After Rice's work, interest in interviewer effects remained low.
As shown by Figure 2: 1940s Interviewer Effects Researchers, there was not
great interest in interviewer effects during the 1940s. Figure 2 diagrams the
relationships of researchers interested in interviewer effects from the 1940s. Mullins
(1973) discusses four different relationships that characterize the communication
structure of any group. The four relationships that Mullins discusses are: 14
• Communication (a serious discussion about ongoing research)
• Coauthorship (a more intimate form of association in which two or more
scientists jointly report their research results on some topic)
• Apprenticeship (a student is trained and sponsored by his teacher)
• Colleagueship (two scientists work in the same laboratory) (p18-19)
The relationships depicted in the following diagrams represent only communication and coauthorship relationships. I identified a communication relationship by an author(s) expressing appreciation to someone for providing comments or discussions regarding the research topic. Communication and coauthorship relationships were the only relationships that were identified within the journal articles.
e Alfred Mcclung Lee
Herbert Stember e 1sabel A. Stewart ~r. W. J. de Jonge
.Jan Stapel Dean Manheimer k Stanton e Pearl Friedman Kenneth H. Baker
~W. Edwards Deming eor. Margaret Gurney
Figure 2: 1940s Interviewer Effects Researchers 15
Interest in interviewer effects increased in 1954 due to Hyman, Cobb,
Feldman, Hart and Stember's book, Interviewing in Social Research. The book was the product of a joint committee of the National Research Council (NRC) and the
Social Science Research Council (SSRC), called the Committee on the
Measurement of Opinion, Attitudes, and Consumer Wants. The joint committee was comprised of "mathematicians, social scientists, leading practitioners of public opinion research, and representative of important consumers of applied research in advertising agencies, industrial establishments, and such associations as the
American Standards Association and the American Society for Testing Materials"
(Hyman et al., 1954: pviit). The committee felt that there had been "surprisingly little systematic study of the interviewer and the interviewing process" (Hyman et al.,
1954: pvi1) so they set out to fill that research gap. After the publication of
Interviewing in Social Research, interest soared in interviewer effects. Interviewer effects researchers seemed to fall into one of two categories; either they had some connection to the United States Census Bureau or a connection to Interviewing in
Social Research. Those connected to Interviewing in Social Research were the authors: Herbert H. Hyman, William J. Cobb, Jacob J. Feldman, Clyde W. Hart and
Charles Herbert Stember, and the original members of the Committee on the
Measurement of Opinion, Attitudes, and Consumer Wants, which included Samual
A. Stouffer, S. S. Wilks, P. G. Agnew, Edward Battey, Hadley Cantril, Archibald M.
Crossley, W. Edwards Deming, Robert F. Elder, George Gallup, Philip M. Hauser,
Carl I. Hovland, George F. Hussey, Jr., Paul L. Lazarsfeld, Rensis Likert, Darrell B.
Lucus, Elmo Roper, and Walter A. Shewhart. 16
e Lester Guest
~erber
~mond Franzen ~Hugh G. Wales ~Robert Williams
~dare D. Woosley ·
~Harold Nisselson
Figure 3: 1950s Interviewer Effects Researchers
Upon comparison of the 1940s diagram (Figure 2) to the 1950s diagram
(Figure 3), one will immediately notice the increase of relationship connections. The increase of relationships is due to an increase in the number of researchers interested in interviewer effects. The 1940s diagram (Figure 2) represents seven relationships identified from eleven articles that were produced by thirteen different researchers. While the 1950s diagram (Figure 3) depicts 43 relati~nships identified from ten articles that were produced by 28 researchers. The amount of published articles is roughly the same, however the number of researchers more than doubled which increases the number of relationships.
Figure 3: 1950s Interviewer Effects Researchers shows the significance of the researchers associated with the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) and
Interviewing in Social Research. Authors Herbert H. Hyman, Jacob J. Feldman and 17
Clyde W. Hart and committee member Elmo Roper are all embedded within the relationship network. The significance of the NORG can also be seen in Figure 2, as
Herbert Hyman, Herbert Stember, Paul B. Sheatsley and Dean Manheimer were all associated with the NORG. Figure 4: Reduced 1950s Interviewer Effects
Researchers eliminates the unconnected researchers therefore diagramming only the researchers that are connected, highlighting the importance of the NORG even more.
Patricia Kendall
Robert E. Dryden
Prof. William G. Cochran
David Riesman
Figure 4: Reduced 1950s Interviewer Effects Researchers
Upon examining figure 4 one can see the importance of the relationship of
Jacob J. Feldman and Professor Frederick F. Stephan in connecting J. Stevens
Stock, Joseph R. Hochstim, Professor William G. Cochran and Professor John W.
Tu key to the group. One can also see that Clyde W. Hart is important because he 18 connects Charles E. Fritz, Rue Bucher, E. L. Quarantelli, David Riesman, Mark
Benney and Shirley A. Starr to the group. While Herbert Hyman and Harry L. Smith appear to have many of the same relationships, although Herbert Hyman has additional relationships with Clyde W. Hart, Jacob J. Feldman and Professor
Frederick F. Stephan.
In Figure 5: 1960s Interviewer Effects Researchers, one begins to see clustering of researchers, where researchers only have relationship connections with other researchers in their area. With the clustering of researchers there are fewer relationship connections. Figure 5 represents the relationships from 12 articles with
29 researchers who have 27 relationships.
Avery Leiserson Charles O. ~Jones Verling C. Troldahl
e Ronald Cosper. . S ith Schuneman
Roy E. Carter. Jr. David R. Derge ~on M. Bindman ----. Dr. Bernard Lazerwitz
Barbara Snell Dohrenwend
N. Krishnan Namboodiri
Charles Gordon Dr. Carol W. Slater
Harry J. Crockett
Figure 5: 1960s Interviewer Effects Researchers 19
Two distinct clusters of researchers in Figure 5 are 1) the statistics cluster and 2) the race of interviewer cluster. Figure 6: 1960s Interviewer Effects Statistical
Researchers depicts only the relationship connections of researchers with a statistical interest in interviewer effects. Statistical interest began after the publication of Interviewing in Social Research. Over the years statistical interest in interviewer effects has taken one of the following three approaches:
• Formulas to test for the presence interviewer effects (Bailey, Moore & Bailar, 1978; Stock & Hochstim, 1951; Mahalanobis, 1946)
• Debate about whether or not interviewer effects were significant enough to even affect the data
• Formulas to estimate the magnitude of interviewer effects (Groves & Magilavy, 1986; Tucker, 1983; Groves & Magilavy, 1980)
N. Krishnan Namboodiri
Floyd J. Fowler, Jr.
Charles F. Cannell
Dr. Carol W. Slater
Figure 6: 1960s Interviewer Effects Statistical Researchers 20
Figure 7: 1960s Race of Interviewer Effects Researchers represents the cluster of researchers studying the impact of the race of the interviewer upon the
respondent. Race of the interviewer effects became popular in the 1960s where the focus was on identifying that race impacted interviewer data and then more
importantly on providing a theory for why the influence occurred. Identification and
explanation of race of interviewer effects continued into the early 1980s. Theories
included social distance between interviewer and respondent, ideal amount of
rapport, and matching the interviewers' characteristics to respondents'
characteristics (Cotter, Cohen & Coulter, 1982; Campbell, 1981; Goudy & Potter,
1975-1976; Hatchett & Schuman, 1975-1976; Dohrenwend, Williams & Weiss, 1969;
Dohrenwnd, Colombotos & Dohrenwend, 1968; Williams, 1968; Williams, 1964).
John Colombotos
Barbara Snell Dohrenwend
Allen H. Barton
Ruth Searles Richard L. Simpson Harry J. Crockett
Figure 7: 1960s Race of Interviewer Effects Researchers 21
Interest in interviewer effects was high in the 1970s, as can be seen by Figure
8: 1970s Interviewer Effects Researchers. The relationship diagram represented in
Figure 8 is based on 22 published articles, by 61 researchers who had 68 relationship connections. Figure 8 appears to again contain clusters of interest areas, however a trend begins to appear in the 1970s were many researchers coauthored articles, so there are many coauthor relationships, but researchers did not have many communication relationships.
Elisabeth Noelle-Neuman .Michael J. Shapiro e Ronald Cosper eLarry H. Long
Krishnan Namboodiri
Laurie Bauman ohn Freeman ~eldon T. Johnson i,;111is J. Goudy "eJo~n D. Delamater ichard J. Hill Nathalie Friedman ~W. Andrew Colhns Richard D. Warren "eWilliam J. Paisley arry R. Potter
Figure 8: 1970s Interviewer Effects Researchers
Figure 9: Relationships Produced by a Single Article, shows how deceiving the diagram represented in Figure 8 can be. Once all the relationship connections that are based on a single article are eliminated from Figure 8, it becomes easier to identify significant relationships. 22
Hubert T. Blalock
Figure 9: Relationships Produced by a Single Article
Figure 10: Reduced 1970s Interviewer Effects Researchers represents Figure
8 with all of the relationships based on a single article eliminated. In Figure 1O it becomes clear that Charles F. Cannell, Eleanor Singer and Howard Schuman are provide other researchers with vital relationship connections. Where Charles F.
Cannell connects Eleanor Singer (&her relationship connections) to James M.
Fields, Kent H. Marquis and Howard Schuman (&his relationship connections).
Eleanor Singer's relationship connections include: Arthur H. Stinchcombe, Steven M.
Cohen, Kenneth Prewitt, Martin R. Frankel, Norman M. Bradburn, James R. Murray,
Seymour Sudman, Florence Einhorn, Robert T. Learmonth, Alvin Richman, Herschel
Shosteck and Charles D. Cowan. Howard Schuman's relationship connections 23 include: Richard Kulka, Jean M. Converse, Otis Dudley Duncan and Shirley
Hatchett.
&F~:lf-EHWH James R. Murray Seymour Sudman Figure 10: Reduced 1970s Interviewer Effects Researchers When comparing the 1970s to the 1980s, one will notice that the number of articles is roughly the same (1970s: 22; 1980s: 28) but the number of researchers increases (1970s: 61; 1980s: 99) and the number of relationships dramatically increases (1970s: 68; 1980s: 169). Figure 11: 1980s Interviewer Effects Researchers again demonstrates that a single published article can produce many relationships, the reason for the appearance of clusters. While Figure 12: Reduced 1980s Interviewer Effects Researchers is the result of eliminating all of the relationship connections produced by a single article. 24 • Lors Lyberg ~W.~e;oChorles Sodikoff • Michael 0. Smith . irestone • Shmuel Ellis • Jocob Hornik Warren Mitofsky ~ Joonne Frankel Kathie n Frankovic Laurie M. Shorp _.'-==111•etittipB. Coulter Figure 11: 1980s Interviewer Effects Researchers Upon examining Figure 12 it again becomes clear that a few researchers provide valuable relationship connections to other researchers. Charles F. Cannell, Eleanor Singer, Stanley Presser, Howard Schuman, Judith M. Tanur, Norman Bradburn and Robert Groves appear to provide significant connections to others. When comparing the reduced relationship connections from the 1970s (Figure 10) to the reduced relationship connections from the 1980s (Figure 12) some of the same names appear as providing important connections to others; Charles F. Cannell, Eleanor Singer and Howard Schuman. 25 Robert Jackman Mary Jackman Reynolds Farly Magnus Stenbeck Frank Andrews ~~-Seymour Sudman '9~~~~tef-:,,....:::::::;• Lee Kreiling Edward Blair Robert Abelson Roger T ourangeau Figure 12: Reduced 1980s Interviewer Effects Researchers By the 1990s interviewer effects researchers are not very closely connected anymore, as can be seen in Figure 13: 1990s Interviewer Effects Researchers. Figure 13 represents relationship connections from 32 articles, with 125 researchers, who have 223 relationships. A single article produced all, except for one, of the clusters in Figure 13. The cluster based on more than one article is the cluster that contains Howard Schuman, which has been isolated and depicted in Figure 14: Schuman's Relationships in the 1990s. 26 • eorge • Robert M. Groves • Aida Hurtado • David W. Beer enny J. Rhodes Leonard A. Lo Sciuto:!hris Tori ol Krotki Peter Chang William S. Aquilino Robert Jay Green · do. Thompson Jennifer A Parsons Timothy P. Johnson ng-sup (Stephen) Kim Nora Cate Schaeffer Figure 13: 1990s Interviewer Effects Researchers Alan Booth Marylee C. Taylor Reynolds Farley Figure 14: Schuman's Relationships in the 1990s 27 The trend of only maintaining relationship based on a single article continues into the 2000s, as can be seen in Figure 15: 2000s Interviewer Effects Researchers. Figure 15 represents only five articles, with 23 researchers and 37 relationships. However this trend may not continue throughout the 2000s. Since the most recent article represented in Figure 15 was published in 2003, researchers still have seven years to build relationships connecting them to each other. Mary P. Maher Ann Carton Valarie King Figure 15: 2000s Interviewer Effects Researchers To view larger pictures of Figures 2 through 15, refer to Appendix A: Relationship Diagrams. 28 Sources of Interviewer Effects All research about interviewer effects can be categorized into one of four general areas, those based on: 1) the interviewer, 2) the respondent, 3) the questionnaire, and 4) the mode of the interview, as the source of interviewer effects (Groves, 1987). These four general areas can be divided further into specific issues, as the following will show. The Interviewer Researchers that believe the interviewer to be the source of interviewer effects, cite a number of interviewer characteristics, ranging from interviewers' expectations and attitudes to interviewers' training and experience to social characteristics of the interviewers. Interviewer Expectations and Attitudes Interviewer expectations and attitudes were the first cited source of interviewer effects. As discussed earlier, Rice (1929) found a correlation between face-to-face interviewers' attitudes and the data that they collected. Smith and Hyman (1950) examined interviewer expectations as the source of interviewer effects. They examined whether face-to-face interviewers recorded the answer they expected to hear or what the respondent actually said. Sudman, Bradburn, Blair and Stocking (1977) were also interested in interviewer expectations as the source of interviewer effects. They investigated interviewers' prior expectations about the general difficulty of the interview, the level of reporting (over or under), the difficulty of each section of the interview, the respondent's level of uneasiness, and respondent nonresponse as a source of interviewer effects in face-to-face interviews 29 (Sudman et al., 1977). Singer and Kohnke-Aguirre (1979) followed Sudman et al.'s work, when they examined the effect of the interviewers' "attitudes towards the survey instrument, the informed consent variables, and the expected difficulty of completing their assignment" on the response rate and response quality of face-to- face. interviews (p247-248). Singer, Frankel and Glassman (1983) extended the work of Singer and Kohnke-Aguirre (1979) to investigate the effect of interviewers' demographic characteristics (age, education, prior experience) and attitudes "towards the survey instrument, the informed consent variables, and the expected difficulty of screening households, persuading respondents to be interviewed, and asking the questions" on the response rates to the survey as a whole, item nonresponse, and response quality of telephone interviews (p70). Interviewer training and experience has also been cited as the source of interviewer effects. Interviewer Training and Experience Researchers concerned with interviewer training and experience as the source of interviewer effects have looked at many aspects of training and experience. Manheimer and Hyman (1949) were concerned with the bias resulting from interviewers' sampling error in face-to-face area sampling. While Stember and Hyman (1949-1950) were interested in interviewers' ability to correctly classify or code responses, due to training, as a source of interviewer effects. Stember and Hyman (1949-1950) compared data where interviewers recorded respondents~ answers verbatim with data where interviewers classified respondents' answers into a set of precoded categories. In response to these interviewer errors Guest (1954) offered a new training method for interviewers. Collins (1970) investigated 30 interviewer effects resulting from what he termed "systematic bias", whereby interviewers did not record the respondents' words verbatim but instead used their own "idiosyncratic word preferences" (p417). As a solution to the problems of interviewer training and experience, Blair (1980) suggested using practice interviews to predict how interviewers would behave in a true interview situation and to identify possible areas where interviewers needed more training. Researchers have also examined interviewers' social characteristics as the source of interviewer effects. Interviewer Social Characteristics Many different social characteristics of interviewers have been cited as the source of interviewer effects. Benney, Riesman, and Star (1956) examined the effects of interviewer gender and age on responses in face-to-face interviews. Benney, Riesman, and Star (1956) used two different surveys for their research; a political survey and a mental health survey. Cleary, Mechanic, and Weiss (1981) were interested in interviewers' social characteristics as the source of interviewer effects in mental health studies. The social characteristics that Cleary, Mechanic, and Weiss (1981) examined were the interviewers' mental health symptom reporting, mental health symptom scores, and interviewer experience. Cotter, Cohen, and Colter (1982) examined the possible existence of race of interviewer effects in telephone interviews. In face-to-face interviews, Kaplan, Firestone, Klein, and Sodikoff (1983) investigated interviewer attractiveness and length of visual gaze as the source of interviewer effects. They examined the effects of interviewer attractiveness and length of visual gaze on respondents' verbal and visual distancing responses. Reese, Danielson, Shoemaker, Chang, and Hsu (1986) investigated 31 ethnicity-of-interviewer effects in telephone interviews conducted by English- speaking and Spanish-speaking interviewers with Mexican-American and Anglo respondents. Groves and Magilavy (1986) examined interviewer behavior and interviewer characteristics as the source of interviewer effects. Anderson, Silver, and Abramson (1988a) examined "the effect of race of interviewer on self-reported voting, actual voting, and political attitudes of black respondents" using the SRC/CPS National Election Studies of 1964, 1976, 1978, 1980, and 1984 (p53). Anderson, Silver, and Abramson (1988b) extended their previous work to "focus on the effects of race of the interviewer on race-related attitudes" using their previous data and the additional SRC/CPS National Election Studies of 1982 and 1986 (p289). Finkel, Guterbock, and Borg (1991) examined race of interviewer effects in telephone interviews about the voting intentions of white Virginian respondents. Gender of interviewer effects were investigated by Kane and Macaulay (1993) on "responses to a broad array of gender-related survey questions" (p1 ). One aspect of Catania, Binson, Canchola, Pollack, and Hauck's (1996) research examined the effects of choice of gender of interviewer on responses to sexual behavior questions in telephone interviews. Davis (1997) used the 1984 National Black Election Survey to study race of interviewer effects. Other researchers believe the respondent to be the source of interviewer effects. The Respondent Clancy and Gove (1974) examined the tendency of respondents to yeasay or naysay independent of content of question and social desirability bias, as the source of interviewer effects. Ross and Mirowsky (1983) also cited the respondent as the 32 source of interviewer effects, but they investigated social characteristics of respondents as predictors of respondents to give socially approved responses. Groves and Magilavy (1986) also cited respondent characteristics as the source of interviewer effects. Fendrich and Vaughn (1994) found that some of the most consistent correlates of underreporting of lifelong marijuana and cocaine use in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth were the race/ethnicity and educational status of respondents. The Questionnaire One main characteristic of the questionnaire that has been cited as producing interviewer effects is the question form. Cahalan, Tamulonis, and Verner (1947) analyzed twelve types of questions as sources of interviewer effects in face-to-face interviews. They reported the following four types of questions as having interviewer effects present: • Dichotomous questions with alternatives only partially stated • Non-card questions with three or more alternatives • Card questions: respondeht is hahded card on which the alternatives are listed • Categorical questions that elicit many qualified answers Shapiro (1970) examined open-ended questions as a source of interviewer effects. Clancy and Gove's (1974) research also examined the extent the respondents saw the items as being undesirable (trait desirability) as a source of interviewer effects. Presser and Schuman (1980) investigated the effects of either offering or omitting a middle alternative in forced-choice attitude questions. Groves and Magilavy's (1986) research also examined question form as an explanation for interviewer effects. 33 Bishop (1990) was interested in question form as one explanation of interviewer effects. Tourangeau, Rasinski, Bradburn, and D'Andrade (1989) examined context effects within surveys as a source of interviewer effects. Bishop (1990) also investigated the context of the question as a source of interviewer effects. Skogan (1990) discussed alternative questionnaire strategies for the National Crime Survey. Bishop (1990) also was interested in question wording as a source of interviewer effects. The effect of wording questions to be "supportive of what may be perceived of as nonnormative behavior" on responses to sexual behavior questions in telephone interviews was investigated by Catania, Binson, Canchola, Pollack, and Hauck (1996). Another potential source of interviewer effects due to the questionnaire that has been researched is the topic of the survey. Johnson and Delamater (1976) were concerned with reducing respondent refusals and invalid reporting on sex surveys. Presser (1984) examined whether inaccurate responses to factual questions were respondent-specific or question-topic specific. Other researchers have focused on the amount of information given to respondents about the interview as a source of interviewer effects. Singer (1978) examined the impact of various degrees of informed consent. Other aspects of the questionnaire that have been studied as a source of interviewer effects are standardized versus conversationally flexible interviewing and Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI). Schober and Conrad (1997) researched the effect of standardized interviewing, where the interviewer cannot 34 interpret the question for the respondent, so the stimulus is uniform, and conversationally flexible interviewing which allows for deviations from the instrument to ensure that "respondents interpret questions consistently and correctly" (p577). Groves and Mathiowetz (1984) reported on various CATI issues. Groves and Magilavy (1986) also examined the use of CATI as an explanation for interviewer effects. The Mode of the Interview Researchers also have been interested in how the mode of interview may produce interviewer effects. Rogers (1976) compared the quality of data collected between telephone interviews and face-to-face interviews. Aquilino and Sciuto (1990) investigated the effects of Random Digit Dial (ROD) telephone interviewing and face-to-face interviewing on respondents' self-reports of alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine use. Fowler, Roman, and Di (1998) compared the response effects produced by mail (self-administered) questionnaires and telephone interviews. Krysan (1998) compared "answers to racial attitude questions under three conditions of privacy: a standard survey condition in which interviewers asked all the questions; a modified face-to-face condition in which respondents answered a subset of racial questions in a self-administered form; and a completely noninterviewer condition in which questionnaires were mailed to and returned by respondents" (p506). Fendrich and Vaughn (1994) found one of the most consistent correlates of underreporting of lifelong marijuana and cocaine use, in the National Logitudinal Survey of Youth, to be survey mode. Aquilino (1994) analyzed the data collected by telephone interviewing, face-to-face interviewing, and self-administered questionnaires 35 regarding drug and alcohol use, to determine which mode obtains the most valid data. Bishop and Fisher (1995) compared modes to determine the best survey mode to use for exit polls. This chapter has presented an overview of the literature concerning potential sources of interviewer effects. Next chapter will provide details about data location, study eligibility criteria, and recommendations for conducting a meta-analysis including a final data suggestion and possible hypotheses to test. 36 CHAPTER 4: MATERIALS AND METHODS Sampling The sampling logic of meta-analysis is to include the entire eligible population. However, a collection of twenty or more studies is desirable (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001 ). There are two key issues associated with meta-analysis sampling: 1) locating documents and 2) defining eligibility criteria. The issue of locating (and retrieving) is critical because it addresses the "file drawer problem," whereby unpublished studies are in a file drawer somewhere, presumably due to non-significant findings, and therefore are not includeo in the meta-analysis. The potential effect of the "file drawer problem" is that a meta-analysis that only includes published documents would not valid; it would not represent a true summary of all research in the area, just published research that had significant findings. Determining the eligibility criteria is critical because it addresses the issue of "mixing apples and oranges," which is the biggest criticism of meta-analysis. "Mixing apples and oranges" refers to the problem of aggregating the findings of different phenomena (Hall et al., 1994). While the forms of the operations (self-report, coder's observations, etc.) may be different, for a meta-analysis the researcher "judges these various forms as occurring in the context of a constant goal" (Hall et al., 1994: p20). Application of the eligibility criteria is how I determined that all of the documents recommended for final data are measuring the same phenomenon, since "it is appropriate to aggregate them if they measure the same phenomenon" (Hall et al., 1994: p20). 37 Data Location Techniques Due to realistic time constraints the techniques of location I used were primarily footnote chasing and computerized keyword searches in subject and abstract indexes. This approach is very similar to snowball sampling. After reading Tucker's (1983) article I scanned his reference section for related research that sparked my interest, then I located, read, and scanned the reference sections of those articles. Mostly the technique of footnote chasing produced a collection of documents that historically tracked interest in both interviewing in general and interviewer effects; this is how my literature review came to be. At the time that I was chasing Tucker's (1983) footnotes I was not conducting formal research, but rather just satisfying my own curiosity. However, once I started my thesis, I did use a systematic approach to locate potential data for the meta-analysis. Initially I began as if I had no information on interviewer effects and conducted keyword searches in Expanded Academic ASAP, PsyclNFO, Sociological Abstracts, and the sociology journals at JSTOR. These searches were conducted in October 2002. I searched with the keywords "interviewer effects," "interviewer bias," "interviewer variance," and "Herbert Hyman." These keywords were used because interviewer effects historically have been referred to as interviewer bias and/or interviewer variance. Herbert Hyman was used as a keyword due to the significance of his book, Interviewing in Social Research. Appendix B presents the results of these keyword searches, in table format. The file number ("File #" column) has no significance other than enumeration. The first author ("Author #1" column) was presented for reference purposes. Initially all authors were presented in the table but due to 38 available page space I decided that only the first author was required in order to locate the document. The full document title is presented in the "Title" column. The location of the document is reported in the "Location" column. If the document is a journal article or published conference paper, the appropriate journal title, volume number, issue number, and page numbers are reported. If the document is a book, the location is just stated as book, since the title of the book was presented in the "Title" column. If the document is a chapter in a book, the title of the book is presented in the "Location" column. If the document is a dissertation, the location is . just stated as a dissertation, since the title of the dissertation was presented in the "Title" column. If the document is an unpublished conference paper, the location is just stated as conference paper. The remaining columns represent the conducted keyword searches that yielded information. There were two keyword searches conducted in Expanded Academic ASAP: "interviewer effects" and "interviewer bias." There were three keyword searches in PsyclNFO: "interviewer effects," "interviewer variance," and "Herbert Hyman." There were three keyword searches conducted in Sociological Abstracts: "interviewer effects," "interviewer variance," and "interviewer bias." There were three keyword searches conducted in the JSTOR sociology journals: "interviewer effects," "interviewer variance," and "interviewer bias." An "X" in one of these remaining columns indicates which keyword search produced the corresponding document. Examination of the table in Appendix B should provide information about the efficiency of each conducted keyword search. 39 Data Location Results The keyword searches yielded 352 documents, which upon comparison were really 286 unique documents, a result of overlap. As for the type of documents, the keyword searches yielded eight documents located in four books, two dissertations, one unpublished conference paper, eighteen conference papers that were published in journals, and 259 documents located in eighty different journals. Appendix C presents a list of the eighty journals, the number of documents located in each journal, and a range of the journal volumes that documents appeared within. Study Eligibility Criteria Starting with the 286 unique documents, I began to apply eligibility criteria to each of the documents. I would like to be able to report the percent of the total that was disqualified by each eligibility criterion unfortunately once a document was disqualified I did not continue to process it. Therefore a single document could have been disqualified for not meeting multiple eligibility criteria although I report only the first eligibility criterion the document did not meet. The first criterion, imposed by time constraints, was that the document type be a journal article; this disqualified books, book chapters, and dissertations, of which there were eight such documents. The eight documents disqualified first represented three percent of the total of 286 documents. The second criterion was that the document be available in the English language, which disqualified six documents. The six documents represented two percent of the 278 previously eligible documents. The third criterion was that the data the documents used be based on American respondents. A secondary goal of this thesis is to produce 40 knowledge about telephone interviewer effects that is as useful as possible to researchers, which means the generated knowledge must be generalizable to the populations that researchers are interested in researching. In the United States most researchers research Americans. Since it is possible that some cultural variance could exist in telephone interviews, the third criterion was applied. The American respondent criterion disqualified thirty-two documents. The thirty-two disqualified documents represented twelve percent of the 272 previously eligible documents. The fourth criterion was that the data the documents used be based on adults, defined as over eighteen years of age. Again in order to be as useful as possible to researchers, the knowledge generated by this thesis must be representative of the majority of the populations that researchers seek to study. Since adult and minor populations are significantly different and adults outnumber minors, the fourth criterion was applied. There were nineteen documents that reported data based on minors, which represented eight percent of the 240 previously eligible documents. The fifth criterion was that the document be an individual article, not a paper presented at a conference meeting. This criterion is the most controversial criterion, due to "the file drawer problem." However, I justify the application of this criterion by 1) published journal articles are subject to peer reviews while conference presentations are not, and 2) many journal articles at some point in time have been presented at a conference. The fifth criterion eliminated eighteen of the previous 221 documents, or eight percent. The sixth criterion was that the focus of the document had to have been interviewer effects. This disqualified documents that 1) cited interviewer effects only as a possible 41 explanation of their findings but were not conducting research on interviewer effects, and 2) documents where the keywords just appeared somewhere within the document. The focus criterion disqualified eighty-six documents, which represented forty-two percent of the 203 previously eligible documents. The remaining 117 documents is a collection of interview research covering many areas of interest and concern, and one that I am very excited by. Eligibility criteria were applied to the remaining 117 documents to organize them into clusters based on the area of interviewing they researched. The seventh criterion was that the document be interested solely in telephone interviewing as the data collection mode. This disqualified documents concerned with self-administered surveys, panel studies, face-to-face interviews and documents that compared and contrasted multiple modes. Sixty-three documents were disqualified by the mode criterion; five documents were concerned with self-administered surveys, three with panel surveys, forty-eight with face-to-face interviews and seven documents compared multiple modes. The sixty-three disqualified documents represented fifty-four percent of the 117 previously eligible documents. The last criterion was that the document had to identify a research goal, not necessarily the primary research goal but a research goal, of investigating interviewers' social characteristics as the source of telephone interviewer effects. This criterion is applied in order to avoid the issue of "mixing apples and oranges." The documents disqualified by this criterion represent interviewer effects research focusing on the respondent, the questionnaire, or some other interviewer characteristic as the source of bias. The 42 criterion based on the research goal disqualified forty-two, or seventy-eight percent, of the fifty-four previously eligible documents. Appendix D presents the collection of ineligible documents, organized into tiers based on the eligibility criteria, in table format. The first four columns of the table ("File#," "Author #1," "Title," and "Location") are identical to the first four columns in the table presented in Appendix B, Results of Keyword Searches. While the remaining columns represent the eligibility criteria. An "X" in one of these columns indicates the first eligibility criterion to disqualify the corresponding document. It is the organization of the application of the eligibility criteria that increases the usefulness of this table. Usefulness of Appendix D The usefulness of the table presented in Appendix D, Ineligible Documents, is due to its systematic organization. Eligibility criteria were applied in such a way as to organize the table of ineligible documents to be an efficient reference for anyone interested in a collection of published journal articles about interviewing issues and concerns. Researchers interested in interviewing research in general would be interested in the entire collection of documents. While researchers interested in interviewing research in general, but do not have enough time to read entire dissertations, books, or even book chapters, would ignore the eight documents disqualified by the first criterion ("Info. Type" column), and thus focus only on the journal articles. While researchers proficient only in the English language would ignore the six journal articles ("Non-English" column) reported in another language. Researchers interested in interviewing research based on Non-American 43 respondents would focus on the thirty-two journal articles disqualified by the third criterion ("Non US" column). Researchers interested in literature about interviewing minors would focus on the nineteen journal articles disqualified by the fourth criterion ("Minors" column). The eighteen articles disqualified by the fifth criterion ("Proceedings" column) would be of interest to researchers that are willing to include conference presentations in their review of published journal articles about interviewing. The eighty-six journal articles disqualified by the sixth criterion ("Focus" column) would be of interest to researchers concerned with interviewing adult Americans in general, as these journal articles mention interviewing somewhere within the article but do not focus on interviewing and thereby cover a wide variety of topics. The 117 journal articles remaining after the sixth criterion is applied, form a collection of journal articles concerned primarily with interviewer effects in general. There are sixty-three articles that focus on the mode of data collection. Five articles ("Self-Admin." column) focus on self-administered surveys and their unique issues. Three journal articles ("Panel" column) discuss or utilize panel surveys for their research. While forty-eight journal articles present research on face-to-face interviews ("F-2-F" column) and seven journal articles ("Compare" column) present a comparison of multiple modes of data collection. The forty-two journal articles disqualified by the last criterion ("Goal" column) would be of interest to researchers interested in telephone interviewer effects in general, as these articles investigate a variety of potential sources of telephone interviewer effects. 44 Final Data The remaining twelve documents, presented in Appendix E, represent a collection of articles that I recommend to be used as data for a meta-analysis of telephone interviewer effects. These articles were published in six different journals that cover various disciplines. As one can see by the following table, fifty percent of the eligible documents are located in only one journal, Public Opinion Quarterly. Journal Title NuO"lber of Eligible Documents ~ . ;, . ... Aboearirm in Ead71Journal .., " ' American Journal of Political Science 1 Journal of Druq Issues 1 Journal of Social Behavior and 1 Personality Political Behavior 1 Public Opinion Quarterly 6 Sex Roles: A Journal of Research 1 Table 1 : Article Sources of Final Data I initially conducted eleven keyword searches, which yielded 286 unique documents. The keyword searches were low precision, where precision is defined as "the ratio of documents retrieved and judged relevant to all those actually retrieved" (White, 1994: p43), as the twelve eligible documents represent only four percent of the initial 286. The final data documents could have been located with only two keyword searches: one in Expanded Academic ASAP using the keywords "interviewer effects" and PsyclNFO using the keywords "interviewer effects". Of the two keyword searches, the search conducted with Expanded Academic ASAP produced the largest proportion of eligible documents (75%), five documents that PsyclNFO also produced and four unique documents. 45 Recommendations for Meta-Analysis The coding scheme used in a meta-analysis produces a quantitative representation of study characteristics of interest to the researcher. The fact that most of the eligible documents recommended for a meta-analysis of telephone interviewer effects, make use of secondary data has important implications for the creation of a coding scheme, as I will discuss later. It is crucial that the researcher be intimately familiar with the data prior to coding, to know what study characteristics are of interest. Some standard study characteristics of interest include: • Source • Coder (if multiple coders) • Published/Unpublished • Publication year (or year created) • Type of sampling used • Statistics used • Reported statistics • Estimated reliability • Type of reliability As in the course of this thesis I have become familiar with both ,the eligible and ineligible documents, I have some recommendations of additional study characteristics of interest for a meta-analysis of telephone interviewer effects. These include questions about: • How the document was located • Journal of publication • Author(s) and their connections • Authors' position at time of research (professor, graduate student, etc.) • Funding source • Origin of data source • Primary research goal of the data used • Operationalized definition of interviewer effects • Number of interviewers • Type of interviewer effect (gender, race, ethnicity) 46 • Operationalized definition of "experienced interviewer" • Interviewing style (standard vs. conversational) • Average length of interviews • Question types • Specific topics • Sensitive topic (dichotomized) • Support for existence of interviewer effects (dichotomized) • Prior research cited The coding of these additional study characteristics into the matrix of variables would enable the researcher to test more and related hypotheses. My suggestions for research hypotheses to examine for telephone interviewer effects, which represent the potential sources of interviewer effects I am interested in seeing researched, are listed below. Note that many of these hypotheses could apply to research about all interview situations, while I am concerned only with telephone interviewing research. Hypotheses 1 through 13 are related to various mechanical issues of research procedures in general, while hypotheses 14 through 18 are related to various characteristics of the interview as a conversation or social process. H1: Published research findings support that telephone interviewer effects do exist. H2: Published research findings support that telephone interviewer effects are significant enough to bias gathered data. H3: Published research findings support that there are "clusters" of telephone interviewer effects researchers. H4: There is a correlation between prior interviewer effects research cited and author(s). H5: There is a correlation between prior interviewer effects research cited and authors' connections. 47 H5: There is a correlation between the journal the document was published in and telephone interviewer effects research findings. H1: There is a correlation between the journal the document was published in and author(s). Ha: There is a correlation between funding sources and telephone interviewer effects research findings. Hg: There is a correlation between data sources and telephone interviewer effects research findings. H10: There is a correlation between the primary research goal of the data and telephone interviewer effects research findings. H11: There is a correlation between operationalized definitions and author(s). H12: There is a correlation between political topics and the existence of race of interviewer effects. H13: There is a correlation between sexual/reproductive topics and the existence of gender of interviewer effects. H14: There is a correlation between sensitive topics and the existence of telephone interviewer effects. H15: There is a correlation between question type and the existence of telephone interviewer effects. H16: There is a correlation between interviewing style and the existence of telephone interviewer effects. H17: There is a correlation between length of interview and the existence of telephone interviewer effects. H18: There is a correlation between length of interviewer experience and the existence of telephone interviewer effects. Expectations & Implications of Hypotheses Testing I expect H1 and H2 to be supported, that published research findings support the existence of telephone interviewer effects and they are significant enough to 48 affect gathered data. The implications of H1 and H2 being supported are that research of telephone interviewer effects must continue and therefore should be financially supported. I expect H3 to be supported, that there are "clusters" of telephone interviewer effects researchers. As in the 1960s when there were two distinct clusters of interviewer effects researchers, those interested in some statistical aspect of interviewer effects and those interested in race of interviewer effects, see discussion in Chapter 3 of Figures 5, 6 and 7. The implications of H3 being supported are 1) the area is difficult to research, where a new researcher in the area would need the guidance of an established researcher in the area, possibly to secure data and/or financial support; 2) the validity of the research should be questioned, with only a few researchers in the area the research may be limited to their points of view. I further expect the findings of a meta-analysis of telephone interviewer effects to support that most interviewer effects researchers either have a connection to the University of Michigan or the University of Chicago. A connection to the University of Chicago could be due to the history of interviewer effects research. I anticipate that the University of Chicago would be strong in interviewer effects research since Hyman et al.'s (1954) work that sparked initial interest in interviewer effects took place at the University of Chicago and the National Opinion Research Center (NORG) is located there. The strong initial presence of the University of Chicago and NORG can be seen in Figure 2 with the relationship connections of Herbert Hyman, research associate at NORG; Herbert Stember, Study Director at NORG; and Paul B. Sheatsley, Eastern Representative of NORG. The importance of the NORG continues into the 1950s, as seen in Figure 3 with the 49 relationship connections of Herbert Hyman, Research Associate at NORG; Clyde W. Hart, Director at NORG; Rue Bucher, Research Associate for Disaster Project at NORG; Charles E. Fritz, Research Associate for Disaster Project at NORG; E. L. Quarantelli, Research Associate for Disaster Project at NORG; Shirley A. Star, Research Associate at NORG; and Harry L. Smith formerly of NORG. While, I anticipate the University of Michigan to be strong in interviewer effects research due to the location of the Survey Research Center and the Detroit Area Study. The University of Michigan first appears in the 1960s, Figure 5, with the presence of Charles F. Cannell, University of Michigan; Floyd J. Fowler, Jr., University of Michigan; and Leslie Kish, Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan. In the 1970s, Figure 8, the presence relationships from University of Michigan become even more prevalent; Howard Schuman, Director of Detroit Area Study; Otis Dudley, Principle Investigator for Detroit Area Study; Jean M. Converse, Research Assistant of Detroit Area Study; James M. Fields, Graduate student at University of Michigan; Kent H. Marquis, Graduate student at University of Michigan; Shirley Hatchett, Graduate student at University of Michigan; and Charles F. Cannell, Director of Survey Research Center. It is also interesting to note the relationship connection in the 1970s between Eleanor Singer, who at the time was associated with NORG at the University of Chicago, and Charles F. Cannell, who was at the University of Michigan. Eleanor Singer continues to be an important relationship connection through the 1980s and 1990s, with more and more connections to the University of Michigan (Howard Schuman, Jean M. Converse and Charles F. Cannell) by the 50 2000s Eleanor Singer has moved to the Institute for Survey Research at the University of Michigan. I expect H4 and Hs to be supported, that a correlation between prior research cited and authors and authors' connections exists. The implications of H4 and H5 being supported are 1) the area is difficult to research and a few "clusters" of researchers exists in the area 2) the recent research in this area is firmly grounded in similar prior research. I expect H6 to be supported, that a publication bias exists. It would seem that there should be many journals in a variety of subject areas that publish research on telephone interviewer effects, as my keyword searches resulted in eighty different journals with articles about interviewer effects (refer to Appendix C for detailed list), however it is somewhat troubling that the twelve documents recommended for final data were published in only six different journals, with seven out of the twelve published in one journal. The implications of H6 being supported are 1) the validity of the research should be questioned, with only a few journals publishing telephone interviewer effects research, the research could be bias by the journals' standards 2) telephone interviewer effects is a highly specialized area and is not as widespread of a research area as I assumed. I expect H1 to be supported, that a correlation exists between journals of publication and authors. If H1 is supported it could be further support for 1) the validity of the research to be questioned, based on a possible bias 2) the area is difficult to research, where only established researchers in the area are published. I expect H8 to be supported, that a correlation between funding sources and telephone interviewer effects research findings does exist. I further expect that a 51 majority of telephone interviewer effects research will be financially supported by the National Science Foundation, the National Center for Health Statistics, the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). The implications of Ha being supported are 1) validity and reliability of the findings should be questioned, as funding sources are not likely to continue funding if the magnitude of telephone interviewer effects is not significant 2) it should be questioned as to why only a few sources are interested enough in telephone interviewer effects to financially support the research. I expect H9 to be supported, that a correlation between data sources and telephone interviewer effects research findings exists. As previously discussed, while historically Census data was frequently used for investigating interviewer effects, more recent trends seem to be to use data from either the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) or the National Black Election Study (NBES) for the source of data. The implication of a correlation of data sources and research findings is that the research findings are limited in their generalizability or are only representative of phenomenon that occur only in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) or the National Black Election Study (NBES), possibly due to their research design. I expect H10 to be supported, that a correlation between the primary research goal of the data used and the research findings exists. The implication of H10 being supported is that validity should be questioned. As previously mentioned the use of secondary data to research telephone interviewer effects is significant, due to the lack of control the telephone interviewer effects researcher has. The original primary goal of the research impacted the research design and the operationalized definitions within the 52 research, therefore the telephone interviewer effects researcher is forced to use the less than ideal definitions and data. Limitations due to the original research design may impact the telephone interviewer effects findings. I expect H11 to be supported, that a correlation between operationalized definitions and authors exists. The operationalized definitions are significant because they potentially effect the findings, some researchers use refusal rates to operationalize telephone interviewer effects, while others use completion rates, while still others use data quality. The implication of H11 being supported would be that if different authors operationalize interviewer effects differently that could explain their findings or lack of findings. Recall that the issue of research topic is a source of telephone interviewer effects due directly to the questionnaire and not the interviewer. However also recall that the interview is a conversation, and thereby a social process where the product (or interview) is dependent upon the interaction of the respondent and interviewer and their attitudes, expectations, motives, perceptions and behaviors and these attitudes, expectations, motives, perceptions and behaviors are continually form and evolve throughout the interview process (Cannell & Kahn, 1968). Therefore it is possible that the interviewers' social characteristics may impact respondents differently depending on the topic of discussion, as Bindman (1965) explains, ... it can be expected, even under the best procedures, that the responses of the same interviewee to the same question, but to two different interviewers, may be substantially different and even contradictory. However, this does not necessarily mean that the procedure was wrong or that one of the answers is false. It may well be that the responses were triggered by different social and situational factors brought into play by interviewer effect unintentionally and even unavoidably. Both answers may represent the "true" attitude, opinion, or value judgment of the respondent within different social contexts (p283). 53 The same way a different interviewer may present different social factors to a respondent so may the same interviewer in different situations (or topics). Therefore it is possible that research topic could be a moderator of the production of telephone interviewer effects due to the interviewers' social characteristics, and that is why the following hypotheses are concerned with research topics when the focus of the recommended meta-analysis is telephone interviewer effects due to interviewers' social characteristics. I expect H12 to be supported, that a correlation between political topics and the existence of race of interviewer effects exists. As previously mentioned a recent trend is to use data from either the National Black Election Study (NBES), specifically to study race of interviewer effects. The implication of H12 being supported is that the generalizability and the validity of the research findings should be questioned. If research of race of interviewer effects is only based on political surveys than the generalizabiliy of the findings is limited to political topics and not to all topics; researchers would only be able to generalize findings of race of interviewer effects to political topics thereby making any assumptions of race of interviewer effects occurring within any and all topics invalid. I expect H1 3 to be supported, that a correlation between sexual/reproductive topics and the existence of gender of interviewer effects exists. The implications of H13 being supported are similar to those of H12 being supported, that is generalizability and validity of the research findings should be questioned. If the existence of gender of interviewer effects is solely based on the sexual or reproductive research topics then the ability to generalize gender of interviewer effects is limited to sexual or reproductive 54 research topics and generalizations that extended into other topic areas would be invalid. I expect H14 to be supported, that a correlation between sensitive topics and the existence of telephone interviewer effects exists. The implications of H14 being supported are also similar to those of H12 and H13 being supported, generalizability and validity should be questioned. Question type, interviewing style and length of interview are also sources of interviewer effects due to the questionnaire, but again they may produce different situational factors for the respondent. Therefore it is possible that question type, interviewing style and length of interview could also be moderators in the study of telephone interviewer effects and that is why related hypotheses were recommended. I expect H1s to be supported, that a correlation between question type and the existence of telephone interviewer effects exists. The implication of H1s being supported is that interviewer effects could be avoided or the magnitude decreased by the avoidance of particular question types. I anticipate that open- ended questions would be highly correlated with the existence of telephone interviewer effects, since the respondent is not forced into a choice. I expect H15 to be supported, that a correlation between interviewing style and the existence of telephone interviewer effects exists. The implication of H16 being supported is that interviewer effects, again, could be avoided or the magnitude decreased by the use of different interviewing styles. I expect that the conversationally flexible interviewing style would produce more telephone interviewer effects, since there is an increased likelihood of variation between interviews. I expect H17 to be supported, that a correlation between length of interview and the existence of telephone interviewer 55 effects exists. I expect this relationship to be curvilinear. Short interviews are expected to produce less interviewer effects because the respondent does not have much time to develop their attitudes, expectations, motives, perceptions and behaviors. While long interviews are expected to produce less interviewer effects because the interviewer has time to develop a good rapport with the respondent and the interviewer has time to clearly establish what the respondent's roles are and whether or not he/she has successfully fulfilled those roles. The implication of H17 being supported would be an issue of questionnaire design, like that of H15 . One of the most fascinating hypotheses to me, is H18, a correlation between the operationalized definition of interviewer experience and the existence of telephone interviewer effects exists. I recommend the use of the operationalized definitions instead of dichotomy of experience/inexperience because experience is defined differently within the telephone interviewer effects literature. The definition of experienced interviewer ranges from a two-hour briefing prior to conducting interviews to multiple days of training that include explanation of the interview instrument, discussions of interviewer concerns, practice interviews and critiques of interviewer performance by supervisors. The wide variation in the operationalized definitions of experienced interviewers represents a wide variation in the skills of interviewers. I expect H18 to be supported, where the increased experience of interviewers will have an inverse relationship with the existence of interviewer effects. This makes sense, the more experienced the interviewer the less they affect the gathered data. 56 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for Interviewer Effects Research The most significant problem facing interviewer effects researchers is that of funding. As discussed previously, most interviewer effects research has been based on secondary data; gathered without consideration given to the issues surrounding interviewer effects. The result is that the use of secondary data to investigate interviewer effects while not ideal is a necessity. In regard to the use of secondary data, Tucker (1983) stated "few are willing to jeopardize the quality of a survey by altering procedures in order to measure what may be relatively small effects" (p85). This is why a meta-analysis of telephone interviewer effects is necessary. A meta-analysis can provide evidence, through the support of the recommended hypotheses, that the study of telephone interviewer effects is important and deserves to be a primary research goal. Support for H1 and H2 address the issues of existence and significance of telephone interviewer effects. While support for H3 , H4 , H5 , H6 and H7 implies that telephone interviewer effects research is a difficult area to successfully research, as few prominent researchers exist in the area and publication may be limited to only a few journals. Support for and the implications of H8, H9 , H10 and H11 address the problems facing telephone interviewer effects researchers that are forced to use secondary data. While support for H12, H13 and H14 is evidence that knowledge about telephone interviewer effects is not as generalizable as researchers would like (again due to lack of funding that forces the use of secondary data). Support for H1 5 , H16 and H17 show the need for further, systematic research on telephone interviewer effects. Researchers can only 57 be confident in their knowledge of telephone interviewer effects once all potential sources of telephone interviewer effects are studied. Support for H18 demonstrates the need of interviewer effects to be operationally defined similarly. The difference in the definitions of interviewer effects is a significant methodological problem of investigating interviewer effects and conducting a meta-analysis of telephone interviewer effects. This disagreement in what constitutes interviewer effects makes comparison difficult. However I believe this definition problem can be overcome through meta-analysis design decisions. Would a Meta-Analysis of Telephone Interviewer Effects Really Be Cost-Effective? With the decreased response rates of telephone interviews, due to answering machines, caller ID and unidentified call blocks and the increased use of web-based surveys will telephone interviewing continue to be the survey method of choice among researchers? If telephone interviewing will not continue to be a popular methodology then the investigation of telephone interviewer effects, through a meta- analysis, would not be cost-effective. However, I believe that telephone interviewing will continue to be a highly utilized methodology for some time. While web-based surveys are gaining in popularity, ownership of a personal computer is nowhere near telephone ownership, therefore a social-class bias exists in web-based surveys. expect completion rates for web-based surveys to be lower than for telephone interviews, it is much easier for potential respondents to not complete a web-based survey than to refuse a telephone interviewer. The respondent is already on the telephone with the telephone interviewer, while for a web-based survey a 58 respondent would have to exert effort in obtaining the survey to administer and complete the survey. Further, I believe that self-selection bias would greater for web-based surveys than for telephone interviews, due to the expected low response for web-based surveys, researchers would have to wonder if the respondents were somehow significantly different from those that choose not to participate and then generalizability of data gathered through a web-based survey would also be questionable. With regard to the impact of answering machines, caller ID and unidentified call blocks on the use of telephone interviews, yes response rates are lower, but efficiency of telephone interviews could be increased. Potential respondents that use answering machines, caller ID and unidentified call blocks to screen their personal phone calls are likely to participate in telephone interviews anyway, so telephone interviewers do not have to waste their time trying to motivate these potential respondents to participate. However, as with the web-based surveys, self- selection bias is possible in telephone interviews, although I believe to a lesser extent. Usefulness of this Thesis My original goal was to produce a meta-analysis of telephone interviewer effects, this goal slowly changed into the previously identified primary goals of 1) to examine the published findings of interviewer effects research 2) to make recommendations for conducting a meta-analysis of telephone interviewer effects. A secondary, and thus far largely ignored, research goal of my thesis, that emerged, was to provide a systematic summary and useful reference of published interviewing 59 research. The reason behind the secondary goal is its potential functionality for researchers that utilize survey methodology, specifically interviewing methods. The secondary goal widens the potential marketability of my thesis, by making it appealing not only to academics but also to market researchers. The systematic approach taken and the presentation of published interviewing research are useful due to the time it can potentially save researchers. 60 APPENDIX A: RELATIONSHIP DIAGRAMS 9Alfred Mcclung Lee Herbert Stember 9 Isabel A. Stewart ~r. W. J. de Jonge .Jan Stapel Herbert Hyman O> Dean Manheimer ~ ~rank Stanton 9 Pearl Friedman .Kenneth H. Baker ~W. Edwards Deming 9 Dr. Margaret Gurney Figure 2: 1940s Interviewer Effects Researchers 9 Lester Guest 9Shirley P. Starr=:--. David Riesman Robert E. Dryden ~Patricia Kendall (J) I\) Eugene Hartley Robert Seashore ~mond Franzen Hugh G. Wales ~Robert Williams ~dore D. Woosley ~Harold Niss els on Figure 3: 1950s Interviewer Effects Researchers Robert Seashore Patricia Kendall Robert E. Dryden Prof. John W. Tukey Prof. William G. Cochran ( evens Stock Joseph R. Hochstim Q) w a:{ afi c ;;-J. J. Feldman Dori Cal1al 7 Shirley A. Starr Figure 4: Reduced 1950s Interviewer Effects Researchers Avery Leiserson Charles 0. Jones Verling C. Troldahl 9Ronald Cosper James A. Robinson John Colombotos David R. Derge ~on M. Bindman -----e Dr. Bernard Lazerwitz Barbara Snell Dohrenwend O> ~ Ruth Searles Richard L. Simpson N. Krishnan Namboodiri s F. Cannell l Charles Gordon Dr. Carol W. Slater Harry J. Crockett Figure 5: 1960s Interviewer Effects Researchers N. Krishnan Namboodiri Floyd J. Fowler, Jr. 0) (}l Charles F. Cannell Dr. Carol W. Slater Figure 6: 1960s Interviewer Effects Statistical Researchers John Colombotos Barbara Snell Dohrenwend Allen H. Barton (j) (j) Ruth Searles Richard L. Simpson .... Charles Gordon S. Dale Mclemore Figure 7: 1960s Race of Interviewer Effects Researchers Elisabeth Noelle-Neuman rton Gallegos 9Michael J. Shapiro Carl B. Freitag James H. Frey 9Ronald Cosper Roxanne Snover on A. Dillman 9 Larry H. Long Derek L. Phillips~ Gwenn Worth ~James M. Fields Dr. Josephine W. Meltzer metrios A. Athanasopoulos udley Duncan '9 Walter Gove ichard Kulka Ms. Karen S. Renne Jean M. Converse 'Joseph R. Hochstim Edgar W. Butler 0) ""..J Krishnan Namboodiri Charles E. Bowerman ~ James R. Murray Steven M. Cohen Hubert T. Blalock Laurie Bauman Norman M. Bradburn W""ohn Freeman Theresa F. Rogers Arthur H. Stinchcombe ~eldon T. Johnson _ Allen Barton Charles D. Cowan "-e John D. Delamater ichard J. Hill w Nathalie Friedman Martin R. Frankel '-W. An~r~w Collins - _Richard D. Warren °"eW1lham J. Paisley arry R. Potter Figure 8: 1970s Interviewer Effects Researchers June Lewis (j) CX> ~HubertT. Blalock Charles E. Bowerman Figure 9: Relationships Produced by a Single Article -.._K1cnara "u1t ~·", '·\•~•cu~'-"·~~ Shirley Hatchett 0) Charles D. Cowan <.O Alvin Richman James R. Murray Seymour Sudman Figure 10: Reduced 1970s Interviewer Effects Researchers e Le.rs Lyberg Michael D. Smith e Stephen D. Reese Chang Huei-Ling Hsu - · ,c · - Barbe.re. Given John Zaller e.ul R. Abramson Reynolds Farly - Shmuel Ellis William Me.son 9Je.cob Hornik ~Robert Jackman ~~yllive.n ~j~ S. Casert:_:a~8~~~~~~~t;~ A. Lund • ...... i ~ 0 ------.....- Mohammed Yusuf Warren Mitofsky ~Joanne Frankel Kathleen Frankovic Laurie M. Sharp . __.. _._eottip'B. Coulter IO Cleary - Norma: e Cetherir:ie9~8~~ P nic Figure 11: 1980s Interviewer Effects Researchers Robert Jackman Mary Jackman Reynolds Farly Magnus Stenbeck Frank Andrews _ Seymour Sudman -n$jey~ Lee Kreiling Edward Blair 11 °"'...... Mohammed Yusnt--.._~~ athleen~ Frankovic- ··h M. Tanur Stephen E. Fienbe Robert Abelson David L. Sills I - h Prewitt Roberta 8. Miller /Herbert - Hyman ----Roger Tourangeau Figure 12: Reduced 1980s Interviewer Effects Researchers George r . l::llShop e ~Clifford I. Nass e Robert M. Groves Aide. Hurtado e Lawrence Bobo e David W. Beer ~ 1v101 , 0 '''Y"~ Reynolds Farley enny J. Rhodes Leonard A. Lo Sciut~ohris Tori I'\)'""" ol Krotki Peter Chang William S. Aquilino Robert Jay Green Stanley Presser ·nda Thomp~onJennifer A. Parsons Timothy P. Johnson ~'~' Curliilii.. Richard Ce.rson Laure. Sanchez (St h ) K. I. A. Ryanen ng-sup ep en 1m Jiing-Lih Farh Nora Cate Schaeffer Figure 13: 1990s Interviewer Effects Researchers Alan Booth Lawrence Bobo Marylee C. Taylor Reynolds Farley -....J U) ------Heather L. Hewitt Figure 14: Schuman's Relationships in the 1990s ohn Van Hoewyk Mary P. Maher Ann Carton Michael Johnson Eleanor Singer aylor Valarie King Nancy Moss -....J ~ ~Nancy L. Brown •JJmomv F'. Jo111qson :.Chitra Shaligram Figure 15: 2000s Interviewer Effects Researchers 75 APPENDIX B: RESULTS OF KEYWORD SEARCHES Results of KellJ!Yord Searches I.E. z Interviewer Effects; 1.8. =Interviewer Bias; 1.V. =Interviewer Variance; H.H. =Herbert Hyman i::.....wt~l!;M/JP.. PSllCIN FJ Sociolooical Abstracts JST"" ~io ...... i ...... nals .Ei!il Author#1 Title Location I.E. 1.8. !Ji. l.V. H.H. l.E l.V. 1.8. l.E l.V. 1.8. 1 Sincer ExPtrlmenta wHh Incentives In Telephone Surveys Plblic Opinion Quarterty v64(2) p17i-188 x 2 Plckery An Evaluation of• Typology of Respondent• wfth • Multllevel·Muftlnomlal Logtt Model Bulletin de Methodologie..SOCiologique \163 p47- 61 x 3 Kim PaorWomenS Poor Women: Feminist Pers Ives In Su Res.. rch Feminist Economlcsv3(2 099-117 x 4 Oeloado Communltv Asset Aaenments by Utlno Youths Social Work in Education v1B 310169-178 x 5 Herdt Ethnnnrephlc Issues In the Study of AIDS Joumal of Sex Researchv28(2) p171-187 x x 6 Klfrias New Melhodologlcel Per.pect:lws for Victimization Surveys: The Potential of International Review of Victlmology V1 (2) p153- x Comnuler-Asslsted Telephone Su"""--• and Some Related Innovations 167 7 Smfth, T,W. Observing .,.he ObHrwrs Observed•: A Comment Social Problems v36(3) p310-312 x 8 Bos tnfluence Re... rch end Smvey Interview Effects: Information Blas Due to the Sociologisch Gids v33(6) p383-399 x tntervlewlnn of K---non• 9 Baird The Use of the Video Tape Recorder In Small Grnc.1 AnalVsl• Conference Paner x 10 Cosper Interviewer Blas In • Study of Drinking PracHces Quarterly Journal of StlXlies on Alcohol v30(1) x 11 co- Interviewer En.ct In• Sun.v of Drfnldna Practlcu Socioloaical Ouarterrv v13 2 n228·236 x 12 Shaoiro Dlscoverlna Interviewer Bl•• In :-n-Ended SurvRV Responses Pl.bric Opinion Quartertv v34 3) p412415 x x 13 Birdman lntervlewlna In the Search tor •Truth• Sociological Ouartertv v6(3} p281-288 x 14 Carter Interviewer Blas In Selectlna HoU99holds Journal of Markelina v27(2l 027--34 x 15 Groves Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing: Effects on Interviewers end Respondents Ptblic Opinion Quarterly v48(1) p356-369 x x x x 16 Sudman Surwy Anearch •nd Technological Change Sociological Methods ard Research v12(2) p217- 230 x 17 Dijkstra How Interviewer Verlance Can Blas the Reaufts of Re ...rch on Interviewer Effects OuaiMy and Ouantityv17(3) p179-187 x 18 Diikslra The Causes of Interviewer Variance In Su...... Research Mens en Naatschaoofi v54(3) 0270-291 x 19 Freeman Some Sources of Interviewer Variance In Survavs Plblic Oninion Quarter1V v40 11 o7S-91 x x x x x 20 O'Muircheartaigh Re9POnse Errors In an AttHudlnal S.mDle s- Oualhv and auan1ilvv10(2) p97·115 x 21 K'ISh Studies of lntervlew.r Var.. nce tor Attftudlnal Variables Journal of the American Statistical Association x 22 HiH Race of the Interviewer and Perception of Skin Cotor: Evidence from the MuH ... CHy American Sociological Review v67(1) p99-108 S1udV of Urban ...... ,.,, x 23 Pickery The Impact of Respondent •nd Interviewer Characterl.tlcs on the Number of •No O"'iity and Ouanttty v32(1) p31 "'5 x Cainion• Answers ...... 24 Nuvls The •-HeatIon of Lnnnftlw lntervtewlna Technlaues In the Deve1onment end Testlna Trdschrift voor Socio1ooiev18 4 0477..SOO x O> 25 VanTilblM'Q Interviewer Effects In the MeasunHMnl of Personal Network Size: A Nonexperlmental Sociological Methods and Research v26(3) p300· S1udV 328 x 26 H•~ The Effect of Interviewer Gender on the Su-· Rnnonsa Polhical Behavior v19f3l o197-220 x x 27 Bernick Race and Dl... tlsfllctlon with Oovemm•nl Services: A Cautlonery Note Journal of Urban Affairs v16(41 ~.-393 x 28 Flrl 99 Back Interviewer Effect on Sc.it. Rearoduclbllitv American Socloloaical Review v20 ~e x 100 Hyman Problems In the Collection of Opinion-Research Data American Journal of Sociology v55(4) p362-370 x x x 101 McCuliouah Web-Baaed Market R•••rch: The Dllwnlna of a New •- Direct Marketing v61 (SJ ~ x 102 Goodman Mother Knowt1 Best: Effects of Ralatlonshlp Status and Interviewer e1 .. on Children'• Journal of E>eperimenl:al Child Psychology v60 Memorv 10195-229 x 103 Booth Aa••slng C.ndldllte p,.ference Polllng and Other Survey Research In Nicaragua, American Journal of Political Science v38(2) 1989-1990: Comments on Anderson and Blscho-1-- and Schuman. IDS00-514 x 104 Fabrega Do C.UCMl8n and Black Adolescent• Dtn.r .t: Psychl.t:rlc Intake? Jo1..m1.I of the American Academy of Child and Adoleacent P"""""'trv v32(21 Mll7-414 x 105 Heeb Interviewers' and Respondents' En.ct• on Self.Reported Alcohol Consumptlo('I In a Journal of Studies on Alcohol v62(4) p434-442 Swln HeaHh Su--· x 106 Ford Effects of Interviewer Age on Reporting of Sexual and Reproductlw Behavior of Hispanic Joumal of Behavioral Sciences v19(3) HISDanic and African American Youth 0369-377 x 107 Davis Nonrandom Measurement Error and RHa of lntarvlewer Effects Among African Ptblic Opinion Ouarterlyv61(1) Special Issue on Americans Race p183-207 x x 108 Davis The Direction of Race of Interviewer Effects Among Atrlca~Amerk:ana: Donning the American Journal of Political Sciancev41(1) Bleck Mask ~""9-322 x 109 Catania Effects of Interviewer Gander, Interviewer Choice, and llem Wording on Responses to Plblic Opinion Quarterly v60(3) p345-375 Questions Concernlna Sexual Behavior x x x 110 Prawett-Uvirgston Effects of Race on Interview R.t:lngs In a SHuatlonal Panel Interview JoLrTllll of Apprl&d Psychology "81 (2) p178-1 ff7 x 111 Rhodes Race-of..lntervtewer Effects: A Brief Comment Socio v2Hl2 0547-559 x -....I 112 Kleinke Effects of Interviewer Status, Touch, and Gander on C.rdlovt1.cular R..ctlvlty Journal of Social Psychologyv134(2) p247-250 x CX> 113 Chang Effects of Interviewer Quaatlons and RHpona Type on Compllance: An Analogue Joi.ma! of CoUIS&ling Psychoiogyv41(1) p74-83 St• ..... x 114 Johnaon, T. P. Gender lnlel'9Cl:lona Between Interviewer and Survey Respondent Issues of Sex Roles: A Journal of Research v28(5'"6) p243· Pornoaranhv and Communltv Standards 262 x 115 Walker Err.eta of lrMrvlawar'• Sex on Responsn lo the Attftudea Toward Women Scale The Journal of Social Psychology v132(5) p675-- 878 x 116 Kacmar Dfffwenti.I Effect:lwnea of Applicant lmpNnlon Ma,.gemenl Tect:lcll on Journal of Appiad Social Psychology v22(16) Emn""'-enl lnlervlew Decisions 101250-1273 x 117 Lin A Flelcl Study of R8ca and Age Slmllarlly Effecla on Interview Ratings In Conwntkmal Journal of App!ad Psycl-oiogy v77(3) p383-372 x •nd SHuationlil Interviews 118 Mauser •sony, Wrong Number•: Why Medi• PoH• on Gun Control An Often Unrell9ble Pom1ca1 Communication \19(2) p89-92 x 119 Aldnn The Influence of Interviewer Sex on Respon... to SensHtve QUfftlone In Nepal Sooial Sclanca Rasaan:h v20(3) p303-319 x 120 Bower Proceedings of the American Anoclalton for Publlc Opinion Re.. rch: Al lhe Sixth Ptbl"lc Opinion Cuarterfy v15(4) p768..S19 Annual Conf9rence on Ptmllc Opinion Re... rch, Princeton, New Jersey, June 22·25, x x 1951 121 Bill"lel lmprowment of the Quality of Responses lo Factual Survey Qunltona by lntervla\ffr Plbric Opinion Quarterly "52(2) p100-211 Tralnlna x x 122 a.- Proceedtnga of lhe American Asaoclallon for Pubhc Opinion R.... rch: At Iha Forth Plblc Opinion Quarterly v13(4) p737-808 Annual Conference on Public Opinion R.... rch, fthaca, New York, June 19-22, 1949 x x x 123 Groves R... rch on Surwy Dela QualHy Plbric Opinion Quarterly v51 (part 2) SOlh Amiversarv Issue oS156-S172 x x 124 Schober Doea Conwrutlonal Interviewing Reduce SurvBV Measurement Error? Plbrc :JDinion Ouartertv v61{4) D576-602 x x 125 Groves Tlworlea •nd Methods of TeleDhone SurVllVS Annual Review of Socioloav v16 p221-240 x 128 Proceedings of lhe American Aa.oclallon for Public Opinion Re ...rch: At lhe Eighth Plblic Opinion Quarterly v17(4) p521-564 Annual Conference on Public Oolnfon Re... rch Pocono Manor Penn. x x 127 MUler A Review: They Said I Couldn't Be Done: The N.t:lonal HeaHh and Soclal Life Survey Plbric Opinion Quarterly v59(3) p404-419 x 128 Proceedings of Iha Forty-First: Annual Conference of lhe Amertcan Asaoclatlon for Plblic Opinion OLBrterly vS0(3) p429-453 Publlc ODlnlon Re... rch x 129 Tal\U' Methods for Lar--.!ll:cale Survevs and Emerlmenta Socbtoaical Methodoloav v14 D1 -71 x 130 Blair Usina Prect:lce Interviews to Predict Interviewer Behaviors Pl.bl"lc Opinion Ouar1erlyv44{2) P257·260 x x x 131 Gol 193 Riesman The Meanlnti of Opinion Plblic Opinion Quarterly v12r4\ p633-648 x 194 Stapel The Convlvlal Resnondent Public Opinion Quarterly v11 (4) p524-529 x 195 Lee Sociologlcal Theory In Public OplnJon and Attitude Studies American Sociological Review v12(3) p312-323 x 196 Kornhauser Are Public OpinJon Polls Fair to OrQllnlzed Labor? Pl..blic Opinion Quarter--.;;-v10(4) p484-500 x 197 Deming On Errors In Survevs American Sociological Review v9(4) 0359-369 x (X) 198 Blankensnin These Oolnion Polls Aaalnl Sociometrvv5(1) o8S.101 x 0 199 Dohrenwend Interviewer Blaslno Effects: Toward• ReconclllaUon of Flndlnns Pt.tiric Opinion Ouartertv v33f1 \ p121-129 x 200 Aauifino Effects of Interview Mode on Self-R~rted Orun Use Pl.bile Opinion Ouarte;:i\I v54r3f p362·395 x 201 Cahalan Correlates of Resoondent Accuracv In the Denver Valldltv SurYeV Public Opinion Ouarterlv v32(4) p607-621 x 202 Visser Mall Surveys for ElectJon Forecasting? An Evaluation of the Columbus Dispatch Poll Ptblic Opinion Quarterly v60(2) p181 -227 x 203 Ehrfich Allll!!! •nd Authority In the Interview Public Opinion Quart~v25(1l"°n39·56 x 204 Proceedings of the Fifty-Second Annual Conference of the American Association for Pubfic Opinion Quarterly v61(3) p519-551 x Publlc Oolnlon Rese•rch 205 Traugott A Revtew: Exn Polls In the 1989 Virginia Gubernatorlal Race: Where Did They Go Pl.bric Opinion Quarterly v56(2) p245-253 x Wrona? 206 Skogan A Review: The National Crime Survev Redeslan Ptbr1e fin inion Quart~v54(21 p256-272 x 207 House Authorlt•rlanlsm •-•nd Black MllHancv Sociometrvv34t2l 0174-197 x 208 Cohins lntervtewers' Verb•l ldlosvncrasles •• • Source of Blas PLblic Ooinion Quartertv v34(3) 0416-422 x 209 Fendrich Diminished Lifetime Subet•nce Use Over Time: An Inquiry Into Differential Pl..blic Opinion Quarterly v58(1) p96· 123 x Under...... tlna 210 Proceedings of the Forty·FJfth Annual Cont.rence of the American Association for Ptbfle Opinion Quarterly v54(3) p448-478 Public Opinion Research and the World Association for Publlc Opinion Research x 211 Ross Soclally·Deslrable Response •nd Acquiescence In • Cros..Cuttur•I Survey of Mental Journal of Health ard Social Behavior v25(2) x HeaHh 0189-197 212 K.,..n Privacy and the Expression of White Rectal AttHudes: A Comparison Across Three Ptblic Opinion Quarterly v62(4) p506-544 x Contexts 213 Steeh Trends: Affirmative Action •nd the Public, 197~1995 Ptblic Ooinion Quarterlv v60(1l p128-158 x 214 Sniderman Innovations In EnW!lrfmental Oeslnn In AttHude Survevs Annual Review of Socioloav v22 p377 -399 x 215 Bi.shop "Secret B•llots" •nd Self-R.-vorts In• ExH·Poll EXDerlment Pl.bric Oninion QuarterN v59(4\ n568-588 x 216 AquiHno Interview Mode Effects In Surveys of Drug and Alcohol Use: A Fleld Experiment Pt..blic Opinion Quarterly v58(2) p210-240 x 217 Proceedings of the Forty-Eighth Annual Conference of the American Association for Pl.blic Opinion Quarterly v57(3) p437·464 x Public ()glnlon Research 218 Veroff Conseauences of P•rtlcloatlna In a Lonaftudlnal Studv of Marrlaae Pubric r'lriinion Ouartertv v56(3) p315-327 x 219 Toura lQeaU Carrvover Effects In Attnude Survevs Pl..btic Ooinion Quarterlv v53(4) nA95-524 x 220 Silver The Pre-nee of Others •nd Overreportlng of Voling In American National ElectJons Pl.blic Opinion Quarterly v50(2) p228·239 x 221 Presser Is fnaccuracv on Factual Survev Rems ftem-SDeClflc or Resnondent-SNW'clflc? Pl.blic Opinion Ouart9rlV v48f1 \ n344-355 x 222 Fischer The Public •nd Private Worlds of City Life American Sociological Review v46(3) p306·316 x 223 Johnson, W. T. Resnnnse Effects In Sex Surveva Public Ooinion QuartAilV v40f2l n165-181 x Results of Ke~ord Searches I.E. =Interviewer Effects; t.B. = Interviewer Bias; l.V. =Interviewer Variance: H_H. =Herbert Hyman E~ Academic Ml£. PsvclNFO Socioloaical Abstracts JSTOR Socioloa Journals File# Author#1 Title Location I.E. l.B. I.E. l.V. H.H. I.E. l.V. l.B. I.E. l.V. l.B. 224 Kinder Ethnic Differences In Beliefs About Control Sociometrv v38(2) p261-272 x 225 Benney Age and Sex In the Interview American Journal of Sociology v62(2) p143-152 x 226 Javeline Response Effects In Poltte Cuttures: A Test of Acquiescence In Kazakhstan Ptblic Opinion Quarterly v63(1) p1 -28 x 227 Bollen Who Are the Spaniards? Nationalism •nd Identification In Soaln Social Forces v77(2) p5B7-621 x 228 Johnson, A. A. Adjusting Survey Estimates for Response Blas: An Appllcatlon to Trends In Alcohol PLblic Opinion Quarterly v62(3) p354-377 and Marlluana Use x 229 Bogenschneider •0ther Teens Drink, but Not My Kkr: Does Parental Awareness of Adolescent Alcohol Journal of Marriage and the Famityv60(2) p356- Use Protect AdoJescents from Rlskv Conseauences? 373 x 230 Fowler Mode Effects In • Survev of Medk:are Prosta1e Survev Pa1tents Public Ooinion Quarlerly v62l1 l p29-46 x 231 Bobo Race, Publlc Opinion, and the Socia! Sphere Pubric Opinion Quarterly v61 (1) Special Issue on Race P1-15 x 232 Lynch Review: Clerlfvlno Dlveraent Estimates of Rene From Two Netlonal Surwvs Public Opinion Quarlerty v60(3l o410-430 x 233 Fu Incorporating Heatth Into Models of Marriage Chok:e: Demographic and Sociological Journal of Marriage and the Family v58(3) p740- Perspectives 758 x 234 Mo"'8n Focus GrouDs Annual Review of Socioloov v22 0129-152 x 235 WiHimack Effects of a Prepaid Nonmonetery Incentive on Response Rates and Response Qualtty Pubftc Opinion Quarterly v59(1) p78-92 In a Fece-to-Fece Survev x 236 Shlapentokh A Review: The 1993 Russlan Election Polls Public Ooinion Quarlerly v58{4) p579-602 x 237 Proceedings of the Forty-Ninth Annual Conference of the Amerlcen Association for Ptblic Opinion Quarlerly v58(3) p441-4n Public Opinion Research x 238 NoMOOd A Review Musurlna Unemnlovment In the Nineties Public Opinion Quarterlv v58(2l 0277-294 x 239 Smith, M. D Enhancing the Oualtty of Survey Deta on Violence Against Women: A Feminist Gender and Society v8{1) p109-127 1Ancroech x 240 Rucinski A Review: Rush to Judgment? Fast Reaction Polls In the Antta Hlll--Clarence Thomes Public Opinion Quarterly v57(4) p575-592 Controversv x 241 Gilliland The Perceived Fairness of Selection Systems: An Orgenlzatlonal Justlce Perspective The Academy of Management Review v18(4) x p694-734 242 Williams The Importance of Researcher's Gender In the In-Depth Interview: Evidence From Two Gender and Society v7(2) p280-291 Case Studies of MeJe Nurses x 243 Sanchez Probing •oon't Know" Answers: Effects on Survey Estimates end Verleble Ptblic Opinion Ouarlerly v56(4) p454-474 CX> Relationships x ...... 244 CappeH Visible Colleges: The Social and Conceptual Structure of Sociology Speclattles American Sociological Review v57(2) p266-273 x 245 Schaeffer The Discovery of Grounded Uncertainty: Developing Standardized Questions ebout Sociological Methodology v22 p37-82 Strenath of Fertllltv Motivation x 246 Sherkat The Polttlcs of Black Rellgtous Change: Dlnffllletlon from Black Melnllne Social Forces v70{2) p431-454 Denominations x 247 B"*1op Issue Involvement and Resoonse Effects In Public 0Dlnlon Survevs Pubftc Opinion Quarterlv v54(2) p209-218 x 248 Aneshensel Participation of Mexican American Femele Adolescents In • Longttudlnel Panel Ptblic Opinion Quarterly v53(4) p548-562 Survev x 249 Duncan No Opinion or Not Sure? Public Opinion Quarterly v52(4) p513-525 x 250 Hornik Strateaies to Secure Comnllence for a Mell lnterceDt lnte...new Public Q:inion Quarterly v52{4) p539-551 x 251 Schuman Survey-Based Experiments on WhHe Reclal AttHudes Towerd Resklentlal Integration American Journal of Sociology v94(2) p273-299 x 252 Proceedings of the Forty-Second Annuel Conference of the American Association for Ptblic Opinion Ouarterty vS 1(3) p433-457 Public Opinion Research: Public Opinion Research In the Information Age x 253 Johnson, A. A Ewluatlng Census Deta Qualtty Using Intensive Relnter Views: A Comparison of U.S. Sociological Methodology v17 p1 85-204 x Census Bureau Methods and Resch Methods 254 Johnson, A. J. Stress, SeH~Esteem •nd CoDlna Durlna Bereavement Amona the Eldertv Social Psvcholoav Ouarterlv v49(3) p273-279 x 255 Proceedings of the Fortieth Annuel Conference of the American Assoclatlon for Publlc Public Opinion Research v49(3) p411-433 x Opinion ResHrch 256 Butter The Effect of the Food Stamp Program on the Nutrtent Intake of the Ellglble Elderly The Journal of Human Resources v20(3) p405- 420 x 257 Tuckett A New Approach to the Measurement of Pa11ents' Understanding of What They Are Journal of Health and Social Behavior v26(1) p27- Toki In Medlcel Consuhatlons 38 x 258 Fine CouDle Tle-Slans and lnternersonal Threat: A Field Emerlment Social Psvcholoav Quarterly v47(3l p282-286 x 259 Andrews Construct Validity and Error Components of Survey Measures: A Structural Modeling Plblic Opinion Ouarlerty v48(2) p409-442 J&~roech x 260 Ross The Worst Place and Best Face Social Forces v62(2) p529-536 x 261 Kaplan Dlstenclna In Dvads: A Com1>arlson of Four Models Social Psvcholoov Quartertv v46{2l 0108-115 x 262 Shan> Resoondent Burden: A Test of Some Common Assumptions Plblic Opinion Quarlerfv v47(1 l 036-53 x 263 Lew The Methodology •nd Performance of Election Day Polls Plblic Opinion Quarlerfy v47(1 J p54-67 x 264 Singer Informed Consent Procedures In Telephone Interviews American Sociological Reviewv47(3) p416-426 x 265 American Association for Public Opinion Research Thirty-Sixth Annual Conference Public Opinion Ouarlerly v45(3) p420-435 x Results of KeJC!!!ord Searches I.E.= Interviewer Effects; 1.8. - Interviewer Bias; 1.V. =Interviewer Variance; HH - Herbert Hyman EXD8nded ~II!ic A§~P PsvclNFO Socioloaical Abstracts JSTOR Sociolocr Journals File# Author#1 Title Location I.E. 1.8. I.E. 1.V. H.H. I.E. l.V. 1.8. I.E. IV. 1.8. 266 Jackman Images of Social Groups: Categorical or Qualified? PLblic Ooinion Quarterfvv44(3} 0341-361 x 267 Presser The MeHurement of a Middle Posttlon In Attitude Surveys Ptblic Opinion Quarterly v440) p70-85 x 268 Amerle11n Association for Public OplnJon Research Thirty-Fourth Annual Conference Pl.blic Opinion Quarterly v43(3) p419-434 x 269 Singer Informed Consent: Consequences for Response Rate end Response Oualtty In Socia! American Sociological Review v43(2) p144-162 x s~. 270 Clayton Shllcktng Up: CohabHatlon In the 1970s Journal of Marriage and the Family v39(2) p273- 283 x 271 Schuman Attitudes end Behavior Annual Review of Sociologyv2 p161-207 x 272 Schreiber Dirty Data In BrHeln end the USA: The Relleblltty of "lnVllrlant• Characteristics Ptblic Opinion Quarterly v39(4) p493·506 x Reoorted In Surveys 273 Darkenwald Some Effects of the 'Obvious Variable': Teacher's Race and Holding Power with Black Sociology of Education v48(4) p420-431 x Adutt Students 274 Namboodiri Proloaue Social Forces v54(1) p2-6 x 275 1~~·r Maantfvlna Relationships Between Attitudinal Variables Usina Panel Analvsls Public Ooinion Quarterly v38(1) p90·97 x 276 Waters Understanding African Agriculture and tts Potential for Change The Journal of Modem African Studies v12(1) p45·56 x 277 Haves lntemersonel Judoments Based on Talkatlveness: I Fact or Artifact Sociometry v35f4) 0538·561 x 278 Finifter The Generation of Confidence: Evaluating Research Findings by Random Subsample Sociological Methodologyv4 p112·175 Repllcatlon x 279 Clancv Po.Ulonal Effects In Shared-Cost Survevs Ptblic Opinion Quarterly v35(2) p258-265 x 280 Fein lnner..cttv lntervfewlno: Some Per tlves PL.bric Opinion Quarterly v34f4) p625·629 x 281 Weiss Validttv of Welfare Mothers' lntervtew Resoonses PL.blic Ooinion Quartertv v32(4\ p622·633 x 282 Ud APPENDIX C: DETAILS OF JOURNALS PRODUCED BY KEYWORD SEARCHES 84 Details of Journals Produced by KeyWord Searches Journal Title Number of n.-..nearances Ranae of Volumes Addictive Behaviors 1 19(1) American Journal of Political Science 2 38(2)-41(1) American Journal of Socioloav 5 5514)-96(6) American Latina 1 14(3-4) American Sociolooical Review 14 9(4)-67(1) Annual Review of Sociology 5 22-Sep Annlied Psvcholoaical Measurement 1 1013) Archives of General Psvchiatrv 1 22(1) British Journal of Addiction 1 87(3) Bulletin de Methodoloaie-Socioloaiaue 1 63 Bulletin de Psvcholoaie 1 33(1-3) Communication Research 1 16(6) Comoarative Studies in Society and Historv 1 3013\ Develoomental Psvcholoav 2 9(1)-29(5) Direct Marketing 1 61(8) Evaluation and Proaram Plannina 1 1112) Feminist Economics 1 3(2) Forensic Examiner 1 8(7-8) Gender and Societv 2 7(2)-8(1) Hisoanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 2 19(3)-24(1) International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research 1 3 International Review of Victimology 1 1(2) Journal of Aoolied Psvcholoav 2 77(3)-81(2) Journal of AOolied Social Psvcholoav 1 22(16) Journal of Black Studies 2 5141-1714) Journal of Consultina Psvcholoav 2 19-41 Journal of Drua Issues 2 29(1)-30(1) Journal of Educational Measurement 1 27(1) Journal of Exoerimental Child Psvchologv 1 60 Journal of Gerontoloav 1 40(5) Journal of Health and Social Behavior 4 11(3\-26(1) Journal of lnteroersonal Violence 1 4(3) Journal of Marketing Research 1 1413) Journal of Marketing 1 27(2) Journal of Marriaae and the Familv 6 29(3)-61 (2) Journal of Sex Research 1 2812) Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 1 6(3) Journal of Social Issues 1 33(4) Journal of Social Psycholoay 2 8411 l-13412) Journal of Sociolinguistics 1 5(2) Journal of Studies on Alcohol 1 62(4) Journal of the American Academv of Child and Adolescent Psvchiatrv 1 3212) Journal of the American Statistical Association 2 54-57 Journal of the Market Research Societv 1 2511\ Journal of Urban Affairs 1 1614) Koelner Zeitschrift fuer Soziologie und Sozialpsycholoaie 1 Mens en Naatschaooii 1 54(3) Milbank Quarterly 1 47 Neu roosvchobioloav 1 2(2·3) Nursino Research 1 3712) Occupational Theraov Journal of Research 1 17(2) Polish Sociolooical Bulletin 1 2150) Political Behavior 1 19(3) Political Communication 1 912\ Psvcholooical Reoorts 1 34 Public Opinion Quarterly 125 8(1)-64(2) Qualitv and Quantitv 3 1012\-3211\ Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol 1 30(1) Sex Roles: A Journal of Research 1 2815·6) Social Forces 6 54(1\-77(2) Social Indicators Research 2 19(2)-45(1-3) Social Problems 1 3613\ Social Psvcholoav Ouarterlv 4 42(1)-49(3\ Social Science Research 1 20(3) Social Work in Education 1 1813\ Socioloaical Methodoloav 6 22-Aor Socioloaical Methods and Research 4 1212)-3011) Socioloaical Quarterlv 2 6(3\-13(2) Socioloaisch Gids 1 33(6) Sociology of Education 1 4814\ Socioloav 1 28(2) Sociometrv 12 5(1)-40(2) The Academy of Management Journal 3 15(3)-28(1) The Academv of Manaaement Review 1 18(4) The Journal of Human Resources 1 20(3) The Journal of Modern African Studies 1 1211) The Journal of Social Psvcholoay 1 132(5) Tiidschrift voor Sociologie 1 18(4) White Cloud Journal 1 314\ Zeitschrift fur Sozioloaie 1 12(3) 85 APPENDIX D: INELIGIBLE DOCUMENTS INELIGIBLE DOCUMENTS Data Mode File# Author #1 Tttle Location Doc. Type Non-English Non US Minors Conference Focus Self-Admin. Panel Compare F-2-F Goal 40 Ceci The Suggestibility of Children's Testimony Chapter in False-Memory Creation in Children and Adults: Theory, Research, and x Implications 42 Hvman Taking Society's Measure: A Personal History of Survey Research Book x 66 Davies Life Stress and the Use of Illicit Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco: Empirical Chapter in Addiction Controversies Findinas, Methodological Problems and Attributions x 68 Schuman The Interviewer Chapter in Survey Research Methods: A Reader x 69 Wiseman Mode of Administration Chapter in Survey Research Methods: A Reader x 70 Sino er Survey Research Methods: A Reader Book x BS Wardrip A Comparison of the Susceptibility of Black Versus White Respondents to Dissertation Race-of-Interviewer Effects on Racial and Nonracial Questions in Both x Personal and Seit-Administered Questionnaire Interviewing Situations B7 Riess man Interviewer Effects in Psychiatric Epidemiology: A Study of Medical and Lay Dissertation Interviewers and Their Impact on Reported Svmotoms x B Bos Influence Research and Survey Interview Effects: Information Bias Due to the Sociologisch Gids v33(6) p3B3-399 lnterviewina of Kevoersons x 1B Dijkstra The Causes of Interviewer Variance in Survev Research Mens en Naatschapoij v54C3l 0270-291 x 24 Nuyts The Application of Cognitive Interviewing Techniques in the Development and Tijdschrift voor Sociologie v18(4) p477-500 Testing of Measurement Instruments for Survey Research x 33 Hermann The Importance of Attitudes and Distortions during Interviews: A Zeitschrift fur Soziologie v12(3) p242-252 Methodological Investigation Using Data from the General Population Survey x 19BO 56 Schnell Investigations of Cause Regarding Different Results of Nearly Identical Koelner Zeitschrift fuer Soziologie und Victimization Surveys Sozialpsychologie v52(1) p96-117 x B6 Simonot Nondirective Interview and Nonprestructured Interview: Considerations of Bulletin de Psychologie v33(1-3) p155-164 Methodological Validation and Practice x 2 Pickery An Evaluation of a Typology of Respondents with a Multilevel-Multinomial Bulletin de Methodologie-Sociologique v63 p47 (X) LoaitModel 61 x CJ) 6 Killias New Methodological Perspectives for Victimization Surveys: The Potential of International Review of Vfctimologyv1(2) p153 Comouter-Assisted Teleohone Survevs and Some Related Innovations 167 x 7 Smith,T,W. Observing •Tue Observers Observed•: A Comment Social Problems v36(3) p310-312 x 17 Dijkstra How Interviewer Variance Can Bias the Results of Research on Interviewer Quality and Quantity v17(3) p179-1 B7 Effects x 20 O'Muircheartaigh Response Errors in an Attitudinal Samole Survey Quality and Quantity v10(2) p97· 115 x 23 Pickery The Impact of Respondent and Interviewer Characteristics on the Number of Quality and Quantity v32(1) p31-45 ·No Opinion• Answers x 25 Van Tilburg Interviewer Effects in the Measurement of Personal Network Size: A Sociological Methods and Research v26(3) Nonexperimental Study p300-32B x 30 Curtis Self Reported Morbidity In London and Manchester: Intra-Urban and Inter- Social Indicators Research v19(2) p255-272 Urban Variations x 32 Lutvnska Some Problems of Methodoloaicat Research into the Interviewer Influence Polish Sociological Bulletin v2(50) p45-55 x 3B Holden Interviewer and Situational Bias in Field Surveys in Costa Rica American Latina v14{3-4) p61-69 x 55 Van Der Zouwen Reactivity in Panel Studies and Its Consequences for Testing Causal Sociological Methods and Research v30(1) Hvnotheses p35-56 x 59 Mourn Mode of Administration and Interviewer Effects in Self-Reported Symptoms of Social Indicators Research v45(1-3) p279-31B x Anxietv and Deoression B1 Collins Interviewer and Clustering Effects in an Attitude Survey Journal of the Market Research Society v25(1) lo39-5B x BB McKenzie An Investigation into Interviewer Effects in Market Research Journal of Marketing Research v14{3) p330- x 336 96 Tessler Interviewer Biasing Effects in a Tunisian Survey Journal of Social Psychologyv84(1) p153-154 x 99 Back Interviewer Effect on Scale Reproducibility American Sociological Review v20 p443-446 x 103 Booth Assessing Candidate Preference Polling and Other Survey Research in American Journal of Political Science v38(2) Nicaragua, 1989-1990: Comments on Anderson, and Bischoping and p500-514 x Schuman. 105 Heeb Interviewers' and Respondents' Effects on Self-Reported Alcohol Journal of Studies on Alcohol v62( 4) p434-442 x Consumption in a Swiss Health Survey 119 Axinn The Influence of Interviewer Sex on Responses to Sensitive Questions in Social Science Research v20(3) p303-319 x Neoal INELIGIBLE DOCUMENTS Data M!l!!i File# Author #1 Tltle Location ~INon-Englishl~l~IConferencelE!!!Ml~IPanell~IF-2-FIQQfil 121 Billiet Improvement of the Quality of Responses to Factual Survey Questions by Public Opinion Quarterly v52(2) p190-211 x Interviewer Training 139 Ralis Applicability of Survey Techniques in Northern India Public Opinion Quarterly v22(3) Special Issue on Attitude Research In Modernizing Areas x 10245-250 156 Shlaoentokh iThe Study of Values as a Social Phenomenon: The Soviet Case Social Forces v61 (2) Q403-417 K 157 Kaplowitz Possible Falsification of Survey Data: An Analysis of a Mail Survey in the Public Opinion Quarterly v46(1) p1-23 Soviet Union x 174 Pfeffer lnterorganizational Influence and Managerial Attitudes !The Academy of Management Journal v15(3) - p317-330 x 185 Back The Change-Prone Person in Puerto Rico I Public Opinion Ouarteriyv22(3) Special Issue on Attitude Research in Modernizing Areas x p330-340 ~ ff"oss Socially-Desirable Response and Acquiescence in a Cross-Cultural Survey of !Journal of Health and Social Behavior v25(2) x Mental Health 0189-197 226 Javeline Response Effects In Polite Cultures: A Test ol Acquiescence in Kazakhstan I Public Opinion Quarterly v63(1) p1-28 x 227 Bollen Who Are the Spaniards? Nationalism and Identification In Spain !Social Forces v77(2) p587-621 x 236 ShlaDentokh A Review: The 1993 Russian Election Polls I Public Opinion Quarterly v58(4) 0579-602 x 272 Schreiber Dirty Data in Britain and the USA: The Reliability of "Invariant" Characteristics I Public Opinion Quarterly v39(4) p493-506 x Reported in Surveys - 275 Iyengar Magnifying RelatioiiSiilps BetweenAttitUdinal Variables Using Panel Analysis I Public Opinion Quarterly v38(1) p90-97 x 276 Waters Understanding African Agriculture and its Potential for Change The Journal of Modern African Studies v12(1) - ln4.'\-56 x _L_ 4 Deloado Communitv Asset Assessments bv Latino Youths Social Work Ill Edueation v18!3l 0169-178 - x 36 Camobell Race-of-Interviewer Effects arnono Southern Adolescents Public Opinion Quarterly v45(2) 0231-244 K 41 Wyatt Assessment of Child Sexual Abuse: Research and Proposal for a Bias-Free F9'ensic Examiner v8(7-8) p24-27 Interview 52 Cukor-Avlla The Effects of the Race of the Interviewer on Sociolinguistic Fieldwork Journal of Sociolinguistics v5(2) p254-270 CX> 58 Fandrich IThe Impact of lnteriii8werChilracteristk:S on Drug Use Reporting by Male Journal of Drug Issues v29(1) p37-58 x ...... Juvenile Arrestees - 67 Noots Effect of Eliciting Verbal RepOrls of Thinking on Critical Thinking Test Journal of Educational Measurement v27(1) x Performance lo41-58 - 73 Braverman Respondent Cooperation iii felaphone Surveys: The Effects of Using Evaluation and Program Planning v11(2) p 135- x Volunteer Interviewers 140 - 75 Mensch Underreporting of Substance Use in a National Longitudinal Youth Cohort: Public Opinion Ouarterlyv52(1) p100-124 x Individual and Interviewer Effects 82 Weeks Ethnicitv-of-intervlewer Effects on Ethnic Resoondents Public Cainion Ouarterlv v45(2) 0245-249 x 93 Steohens A Locus of Control Measure for Preschool Children Develoomental PsYCholoov v9(1) 055-65 K 102 Goodman Mother Knows Best: Effects of Relationship Status and interviewer Blas on Journal of Experimental Child Psychology v60 x Children's Memorv 10195-229 - 104 Fabrega Do Caucasian and Black AdOlesi:ents Diller at Psychiatric Intake? Journal of the American Academy of Child and x Adolescent Ps11Chiatrvv32(2) o407-414 - 106 Ford Effects of Interviewer Age on ReportinQ ol Sexual arid Reproductive Behavior !Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences x of Hispanic and African American Youth v19(3) 0369-377 203 Etvtich IAoe and Authority in ihe lntervi.W- I Public Opinion Quarterly v25(1) p39-56 R 209 Fandrich Diminished Lifetime SutiStance Use Over lime: An Inquiry Into Differential I Public Opinion Quarterly v58(1) p96-123 x Underreoorting - 228 Johnson, R. A. Adjusting Survey Estimates for Response Bias: An APl>ficatfon to Trends in !Public Opinion Ouarterlyv62(3) p354-377 x Alcohol and Marijuana Use - 229 Bogenschneider 'Other Teens Drink;llt.it Not My Kid": DOes Parental Awareness of Adolescent IJoumal of Marriage and the Family v60(2) x Alcohol Use Protect Adolescents from Riskv ConseQU8flCSS? 0356-373 - 248 Aneshensel Participation of Mexican American Female Adolescents in a Longitudinal I Public Opinion Quarterly v53(4) p548-562 x Panel Survey 280 Fein Inner-City Interviewing: Some Pefspectlves Public Opinion Ouarterlyv34(4) p625-629 x 9 Baird The Use of the Vid8o Tap8Aecorder irl Small Group Analysis Conference Paoer x 98 Matarazzo Interviewer Effects on Interviewee Speech and Silence Durations Proceedings of the Amual Convention of the American Psychological Association 1966 Q45- x 46 120 Bower Proceedings of the Arnerk:an Association for Public Opinion Research: At lhe I Public Opinion Quarterly v15(4) p768-819 - Sixth Annual Conference on Public Opinion Research, Princeton, New Jersey, x IJune 22-25, 1951 INELIGIBLE DOCUMENTS Data Mode File# Author #1 Title Location Doc. Type I Non-English I Non US I Minors I Conference I Focus I Self-Admin. I Panel I Compare I F-2-FI Goal 122 Bower Proceedings of the American Association for Public Opinion Research: At the !Public Opinion Quarterlyv13(4) p737-808 Forth Annual Conference on Public Opinion Research, Ithaca, New York, June x 19-22, 1949 126 Proceedings of the American Association for Public Opinion Research: At the [Public Opinion Ouarterlyv17(4) p521-564 - Eighth Annual Conference on Public Opinion Research, Pocono Manor, Penn. x - 128 Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Conference of the American Public Opinion Quarterly v50(3) p429-453 x Association for Public Opinion Research - 141 Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference on Public Opinion Public Opinion Quarterlyv31(3) p427-481 x Research - 168 Nicholls American Association for Public Opinion Research Proceedings of the Public Opinion Quarterly v39(3) p373-434 x Thirtieth Annual Conference 189 Lazarsfetd Proceedings of the American Association for Public Opinion Research at the /Public Opinion Quarterly v14(4) p820-868 - Fifth Annuat Conference on Public Opinion Research, Lake Forest, Illinois, x June 15-20, 1950 204 - Proceedings of the Fifty-Second Annual Conference of the American IPublic Opinion Quarterly v61 (3) p519-551 x Association for Public Opinion Research 210 Proceedings of the Forty-Fifth Annual Conference of the American Associationj Public Opinion Quarterly v54(3) p448-478 for Public Opinion Research and the World Association for Public Opinion x Research - 217 Proceedings of the Forty-Eighth Annual Conference of the American Public Opinion Quarterly v57(3) p437-464 x Association for Public Opinion Research - 237 Proceedings of the Forty-Ninth Annual Conference of the American Public Opinion Quarterly v58(3) p441-477 x Association for Public Ooinion Research 252 Proceedings of the Forty-Second Annual Conference of the American Public Opinion Quarterly v51 (3) p433-457 Association for Public Opinion Research: Public Opinion Research in the x Information Age - 255 Proceedings of the Fortieth Annual Conference of the American Association Public Opinion Research v49(3) p411-433 x for Public Opinion Research co 265 American Association for Public Opinion Research Thirty-Sixth Annual Public Opinion Quarterly v45(3) p420-435 x I I I I I I co Conference 268 American Association for Public Opinion Research Thirty-Fourth Annual Public Opinion Quarterly v43(3) p419-434 Conference x 283 Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Conference On Public Opinion Public Opinion Quarterly v30(3) p433-479 x Research ---a-- Kim Poor Women Survey Poor Women: Feminist Perspectives in Survey Feminist Economics v3(2) p99-117 -+----x Research 5 Herdt Ethnographic Issues in the Study of AIDS Journal of Sex Research v28(2) p171-187 x 50 Sas low The Stability of Interaction Chronograph Patterns in Psychiatric Interviews Journal of Consulting Psvchologyv19 p417- x 62 Bakermar- Developmental Psychology v29(5) p870-879 x 64 Samuels·--r.~·-~:~' ~- l~::S'Ur~:e~~i~' ~~~~~!kth:e~~~:~~~~:O~~~~~~~Z~~~~ ~~~b~~~r~nd British Journal of Addiction v87(3) p417-428 x 71 Finnegan Message Discrimination: A Study of its Use in a Campaign Research Project Communication Research v 16(6) p 770-792 x - n Ludlow Graphical Analysis of Item Response Theory Residuals Applied Psychological Measurement v10(3) x p217-229 79 Snauldinn Perceotions of Mental Disorder of Yaqui Indians in Arizona: An Initial White Cloud Journal v3f4l o19-26 x 90 Soskis Multiple Drug Interviews as a Diagnostic Technique: A Clinical Case Study Neuropsychobiology v2(2-3) p 127-133 x 97 Smilh,8. M. Controtled Interviews Usina Drugs Archives of General Psychiatryv22(1) p2-10 x 101 McCullough Web-Based Market ReSearCh: The Dawning of a New Age Direct Marketing v61 (8) p36-39 x 116 Kacmar Differential Effectiveness of Applfcant Impression Management Tactics on Journal of Applied Social Psychology v22( 16) x Employment Interview Decisions lp1250-1273 - 118 Mauser "Sorry, Wrong Number": Why Media Polls on Gun Control Are Often Political Communication v9(2) p69-92 x Unreliable 127 Miller A Review; They Said It Couldn't Be Done: The National Health and Social LifejPublic Opinion Ouarterlyv59(3} p404-419 - Survey x 134 Steiner "The Strangling_yity-:_An Experiment in Two-Way Television !Public Opinion Quarterlyv28(3) p507-512 x 142 Woodward Public Ooinion Research 1951-1970: A Not-Too-Reverent History lPublic Opinion Quarterly v15(3) p405-420 x 147 Shapiro Longitudinal Effects of Divorce on the Quality of the Father-Child Relationship [Journal of Marriage and the Family v61 (2) x and on Fathers' Psychological Well-Being p397-408 - 149 Bartels The American Public's Defen.5e Spending Preferences in the Post-Cold War ]Public Opinion Quarterlyv58(4) p479-508 x Era - 151 Liska Functions of Crime: A Paradoxical Process American Journal of Sociologyv96(6) p1441- x 1463 INELIGIBLE DOCUMENTS Data Mode File # IAu1hor #1 Title Location Doc. Type I Non-English INon US I Minors IConference I Focus I Self-Admin. I Panell Compare I F-2-F I Goal 152 !Thomas Women and Capitalism: Oppression or Emancipation? A Review Article !Comparative Studies in Society and History v30(3) p534-549 x 153 !Daniel Makin' a Way Outa No Way: The Proverb Tradition in the Black Experience jJournal of Black Studies v17(4) p482-508 x 154 !Kram Mentoring Alternatives: The Role of Peer Relationships in Career The Academy of Management Journal v28( 1} x 155 !Hirschman America's Meltina Pot Reconsidered Annual Review of Socioloov v9 p397-423 x 159 /Curtis Preiudice and Urban Social Participation Reconsidered Social Forces v57(31 p952-959 x 160 !Griffitt Reversina Authoritarian Punitiveness: The Impact of Verbal Conditionino Social Psvcholoav Quarterly v42(1) p55-61 x 162 !Cromwell Perceived Dominance in Decision-Making and Conflict Resolution Among Journal of Marriage and the Family v40(4) Anglo, Black and Chicano Couoles IP749-759 x 163 ISathe Institutional versus Questionnaire Measures of Organizational Structure The Academy of Management Journal v21 (2) 10227-238 x 164 !Stryker Developments in ·Two Social Psychologies·: Toward an Appreciation of Sociometryv40(2) p145-160 Mutual Relevance x 165 !Fields Public Beliefs About the Beliefs of the Public !Public Ooinion Ouarterlvv40(4) 0427-448 x 167 IJaccard A Comparison of Two Models Ot Social Behavior: ReSults of a Survey Sample jSociometry v38(4) p497-517 x 169 Schexnider The Development of RaC"iaTSOITcfi.t.ritv in the Armed Forces Journal of Black Studies v5(4) p415-435 x 171 Williams Voluntary Associations and Minority Status: A Comparative Analysis of Anglo, American Sociological Review v38(5) p637- x Black, and Mexican Americans 646 172 Bartell 1The Chelsea Project: Candidate Preference, Issue Preference, and Turnout Public Opinion Quarterly v37(2) p268-275 Effects of Student Canvassina x 175 Howard Needle Sharing in the HaiQht: Some Social and Psychological Functions Journal of Health and Social Behavior v11(3) lp220-230 x 178 Bes hers Social Distance: A Network Approach American Sociological Review v32(2) p225- 236 x 179 Hvman Studving Expert lnforrrlantS-bv Survey Methods; A Cross-National lnauirv Public Opinion Ouarterlyv31(1) p9-26 x 180 Carlson The Issue of Privacv in Public Opinion Research Public Opinion Quarterlyv31(1} p1-8 x 182 Rilev Reflections on Data Sources in Opinion Research Public Ooinion Quarterlv v26(3) 0313-322 x (X) 183 Hanson Predicting a Community Decision: A Test of the Miller-Form Theory American Sociological Review v24(5) p662- APPENDIX E: FINAL DATA FINAL DATA !;;~A~ic6SAP PsvclNFO Sociolonical Abstracts JSTOA Socioloov Journals File# Author#1 Title Location I.E. l.B I.E. 1.V. H.H. I.E. l.V. l.B. I.E. l.V. l.B 26 Huddv The Effect of Interviewer Gender on the Survey Response Political Behavior v19{3\ 0197-220 x x 28 Finkel Race-of-Interviewer Effects in a Preelection Poll: Virginia 1989 Public Opinion Quarterly v55{3) p313-330 x x x x 31 Groves Measuring and Explaining Interviewer Effecis in Centralized Public Opinion Quarterly v50{2) p251-266 T eleohone Surveys x x x x x x 35 Cotter Race-of.Interviewer Effects in T eleohone Interviews Public Opinion Quarterly v46(2) 0278-284 x x x 57 Johnson, T. P. An Evaluation of the Effects of Interviewer Characteristics in an Journal of Drug Issues v30(1) pn-102 ROD T eleohone Survev of Orua Use x x 63 Kane Interviewer Gender and Gender Attitudes Public Opinion Quarterly v57{1) p1-28 x x x 65 Hutchinson The Effects of Interviewer Gender Upon Response in Telephone Journal of Social Behavior and Persona!Jty Survey Research V6(3) 0573-584 x 76 Reese Ethnicity-of-Interviewer Effects Among Mexican-Americans and Public Opinion Quarterly v50(4) p563-572 An(Jlos x x x 107 Davis Nonrandom Measurement Error and Race of Interviewer Effects Public Opinion Quarterly v61(1) Special Among African Americans Issue on Race p183-207 x x 108 Davis The Direction of Race of Interviewer Effects Among African- American Journal of Political Science v41(1) Americans: Oonnina the Black Mask 10309-322 x 109 Catania Effects of Interviewer Gender, Interviewer Choice, and Item Public Opinion Quarterly v60(3) p345·375 Wording on Responses to Questions Concerning Sexual x x x Behavior 114 Johnson, T. P. Gender Interactions Between Interviewer and Survey Sex Roles: A Journal of Research v28(5-6) Respondent Issues of Pornography and Community Standards p243-262 x c.o ~ 95 BIBLIOGRAPHY12 *Alpert, Harry, Carl Hawver, Frank V. Cantwell, Philip M. Devany & Martin Kriesbert. Summer, 1954. "Congressional Use of Polls: A Symposium." Public Opinion Quarterly, v18(2), p121-142. *"American Association for Public Opinion Research Thirty-Fourth Annual Conference." Autumn, 1979. Public Opinion Quarterly, v43(3), p419-434. *"American Association for Public Opinion Research Thirty-Sixth Annual Conference." Autumn, 1981. Public Opinion Quarterly, v45(3), p420-435. *Anderson, Barbara A., Brian D. Silver & Paul R. Abramson. Spring, 1988. "The Effects of Race of the Interviewer on Measures of Electoral Participation by Blacks in SRC National Election Studies." Public Opinion Quarterly, v52(1 ), p53-83. *Anderson, Barbara A., Brian D. Silver & Paul R. Abramson. Autumn, 1988. "The Effects of Race of the Interviewer on Race-Related Attitudes of Black Respondents in SRC/CPS National Election Studies." Public Opinion Quarterly, v52(3), p289-324. *Andrews, Frank M. Summer, 1984. "Construct Validity and Error Components of Survey Measures: A Structural Modeling Approach." Public Opinion Quarterly, v48(2), p409-442. *Aneshensel, Carol S., Rosina M. Becerra, Eve P. Fielder & Robertleigh H. Schuler. Winter, 1989. "Participation of Mexican American Female Adolescents in a Longitudinal Panel Study." Public Opinion Quarterly, v53(4), p548-562. *Aquilino, William S. Summer, 1994. "Interview Mode Effects in Surveys of Drug and Alcohol Use: A Field Experiment." Public Opinion Quarterly, v58(2), p210-240. *Aquilino, William S. & Leonard A. Lo Sciuto. Autumn, 1990. "Effects of Interview Mode on Self-Reported Drug Use." Public Opinion Quarterly, v54(3), p362- 395. Asher, Herbert. 1998. Polling and the Public: What Every Citizen Should Know (4 1h Edition). Washington, D. C.: Congressional Quarterly Inc. 1 The * before the citation refers to documents that were a result of keyword searches. 2 The ** before the citation refers to documents that were final data. 96 *Axinn, William G. Sept., 1991. "The Influence of Interviewer Sex on Responses to Sensitive Questions in Nepal." Social Science Research, v20(3), p303-319. Babbie, Earl. 1998. The Practice of Social Research (8th Edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. *Back, Kurt W. Autumn, 1958. "The Change-Prone Person in Puerto Rico." Public Opinion Quarterly, v22(3: Special Issue on Attitude Research in Modernizing Areas), p330-340. *Back, Kurt W., Reuben Hill & J. Mayone Stycos. Aug., 1955. "Interviewer Effect on Scale Reproducibility." American Sociological Review, v20, p443-446. Bailar, Barbara, Leroy Bailey & Joyce Stevens. Aug., 1977. "Measures of Interviewer Bias and Variance." Journal of Marketing Research, v14, p337- 343. Bailey, Leroy, Thomas F. Moore & Barbara A. Bailar. Mar., 1978. "An Interviewer Variance Study for the Eight Impact Cities of the National Crime Survey Cities Sample." Journal of the American Statistical Association, v73(361 ), p16-23. *Baird, Robert A. 1977. The Use of the Video Tape Recorder in Small Group Analysis. Paper presented at Alliance, OH: Southwestern Sociological Association. *Bakermans-Kranenburg & Marian J. Van ljzendoorn. Sept., 1993. "A Psychometric Study of the Adult Attachment Interview: Reliability and Discriminate Validity." Developmental Psychology, v29(5), p870-879. *Bartell, Ted & Sandra Bouxsein. Summer, 1973. "The Chelsea Project: Candidate Preference, Issue Preference; and Turnout Effects of Student Canvassing." Public Opinion Quarterly, v37(2), p268-275. *Bartels, Larry M. Winter, 1994. "The American Public's Defense Spending Preferences in the Post-Cold War Era." Public Opinion Quarterly, v58(4), p479-508. *Beer, David W. Spring, 1997. ""There's a Certain Slant of Light": The Experience of Discovery in Qualitative Interviewing." Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, v17(2), p110-129. *Benney, Mark, David Riesman & Shirley A. Star. Sept., 1956. "Age and Sex in the Interview." American Journal of Sociology, v62(2), p143-152. 97 *Bernick, E. Lee, David J. Pratto & Robert Davis. 1994. "Race and Dissatisfaction with Government Services: A Cautionary Note." Journal of Urban Affairs, v16(4), p385-393. *Beshers, James M. & Edward 0. Laumann. Apr., 1967. "Social Distance: A Network Approach." American Sociological Review, v32(2), p225-236. *Billet, Jacques & Geert Loosveldt. Summer, 1988. "Improvement of the Quality of Responses to Factual Survey Questions by Interviewer Training." Public Opinion Quarterly, v52(2), p190-211. *Bindman, Aaron M. Summer, 1965. "Interviewing in the Search for "Truth"." Sociological Quarterly, v6(3), p281-288. *Bishop, George F. Summer, 1990. "Issue Involvement and Response Effects in Public Opinion Surveys." Public Opinion Quarterly, v54(2), p209-218. *Bishop, George F. & Bonnie S. Fisher. Winter, 1995. ""Secret Ballots" and Self- Reports in an Exit-Poll Experiment." Public Opinion Quarterly, v59(4), p568- 588. *Blair, Edward. Summer, 1980. "Using Practice Interviews to Predict Interviewer Behaviors." Public Opinion Quarterly, v44(2), p257-260. *Blankenship, Albert B. Feb., 1942. "These Opinion Polls Again!" Sociometry, v5(1 ), p89-101. *Blankertz, Donald F. Winter, 1949-1950. "Motivation and Rationalization in Retail Buying." Public Opinion Quarterly, v13(4), p659-668. *Bobo, Lawrence. Spring 1997. "Race, Public Opinion, and the Social Sphere." Public Opinion Quarterly, v61 (1: Special Issue on Race), p1-15. *Bogenschneider, Karen, Ming-Yeh Wu, Marcela Raffaelli & Jenner C. Tsay. May 1998. ""Other Teens Drink, but Not My Kid": Does Parental Awareness of Adolescent Alcohol Use Protect Adolescents from Risky Consequences?" Journal of Marriage and the Family, v60(2), p356-373. *Bollen, Kenneth & Juan Diez Medrano. Dec., 1998. "Who are the Spaniards? Nationalism and Identification in Spain." Social Forces, v77(2), p587-621. *Booth, John A. May, 1994. "Assessing Candidate Preference Polling and Other Survey Research in Nicaragua, 1989-1990: Comments on Anderson, and Bischoping and Schuman." American Journal of Political Science, v38(2), p500-514. 98 *Bos, J. M. Nov.-Dec., 1986. "Influence Research and Survey Interview Effects: Information Bias Due to the Interviewing of Keypersons." Sociologische Gids, v33(6), p383-399. *Bower, Robert T. Winter, 1949-1950. "Proceedings of the American Association for Public Opinion Research: At the Forth Annual Conference on Public Opinion Research, Ithaca, New York, June 19-22, 1949." Public Opinion Quarterly, v13(4), p737-808. *Bower, Robert T. Winter, 1951-1952. "Proceedings of the American Association for Public Opinion Research: At the Sixth Annual Conference on Public Opinion Research, Princeton, New Jersey, June 22-25, 1951." Public Opinion Quarterly, v15(4), p768-819. *Braverman, Marc T. 1988. "Respondent Cooperation in Telephone Surveys: The Effects of Using Volunteer Interviewers." Evaluation and Program Planning, v11 (2), p135-140. *Browning, Rufus P. & Herbert Jacob. Spring, 1964. "Power Motivation and the Political Personality." Public Opinion Quarterly, v28(1 ), p75-90. *Bucher, Rue, Charles E. Fritz & E. L. Quarantelli. June, 1956. "Tape Recorded Interviews in Social Research." American Sociological Review, v21 (3), p359- 364. *Butler, J. S., James C. Ohls & Barbara Posner. Summer, 1995. "The Effect of the Food Stamp Program on the Nutrient Intake of the Eligible Elderly." The Journal of Human Resources, v20(3), p405-420. *Cahalan, Don. Winter, 1968-1969. "Correlates of Respondent Accuracy in the Denver Validity Survey." Public Opinion Quarterly, v32(4), p607-621. Cahalan, Don, Valerie Tamulonis & Helen W. Verner. Mar., 1947. "Interviewer Bias Involved in Certain Types of Opinion Survey Questions." International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research, v1 (1 ), p63-77. *Campbell, Bruce A. Summer, 1981. "Race-of-Interviewer Effects Among Southern Adolescents." Public Opinion Quarterly, v45(2), p231-244. *Cannell, Charles F. & Floyd J. Fowler, Jr. Apr., 1964. "A Note on Interviewer Effects in Self-Enumerative Procedures." American Sociological Review, v29(2), p270. Cannell, Charles F. & Robert L. Kahn. 1968. "Interviewing." In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (2'd Ed., Vol.2), p526-595. 99 *Cannell, Charles F., Peter V. Miller & Lois Oksenberg. 1981. "Research on Interviewing Techniques." Sociological Methodology, v12, p389-437. *Cappell, Charles L. & Thomas M. Guterbock. Apr., 1992. "Visible Colleges: The Social and Conceptual Structure of Sociology Specialties." American Sociological Review, v57(2), p266-273. *Carlson, Robert 0. Spring, 1967. "The Issue of Privacy in Public Opinion Research." Public Opinion Quarterly, v31 (1 ), p1-8. *Carter, Roy E., Verling Charles Troldahl & R. Smith Schuneman. Apr., 1963. "Interviewer Bias in Selecting Households." Journal of Marketing, v27(2), p27-34. *Caserta, Micheal S., Dale A. Lund & Margaret F. Diamond. Sept., 1985. "Assessing Interviewer Effects in a Longitudinal Study of Bereaved Elderly Adults." Journal of Gerontology, v40(5), p637-640. **Catania, Joseph A., Diane Binson, Jesse Canchola, Lance M. Pollack, Walter Hauck & Thomas J. Coates. Autumn, 1996. "Effects of Interviewer Gender, Interviewer Choice, and Item Wording on Responses to Questions Concerning Sexual Behavior." Public Opinion Quarterly, v60(3), p345-375. *Ceci, Stephen J., Maggie Bruck & David B. Battin. 2000. "The Suggestibility of Children's Testimony." In David F. Bjorklund (Ed.), False-Memory Creation in Children and Adults: Theory, Research, and Implications, p169-201. *Chang, Peter. Jan., 1994. "Effects of Interviewer Questions and Response Type on Compliance: An Analogue Study." Journal of Counseling Psychology, v41(1), p74-83. Churchill, Jr., Gilbert A. 1999. Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations (7th Edition). Orlando, FL: The Dryden Press Harcourt Brace College Publishers. *Clancy, Kevin & Walter Gove. July, 1974. "Sex Differences in Mental Illness: An Analysis of Response Bias in Self-Reports." American Journal of Sociology, v80(1 ), p205-216. *Clancy, Kevin J. & Robert A. Wachsler. Summer, 1971. "Positional Effects in Shared-Cost Surveys." Public Opinion Quarterly, v35(2), p258-265. *Clayton, Richard R. & Harwin L. Voss. May, 1977. "Shacking Up: Cohabitation in the 1970s." Journal of Marriage and the Family, v39(2), p273-283. 100 *Cleary, Paul D., David Mechanic & Norma Weiss. June, 1981. The Effect of Interviewer Characteristics on Responses to a Mental Health Interview. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, v22(2), p183-193. *Collins, Clare, Barbara Given, C. W. Given & Sharon King. Mar.-Apr., 1988. "Interviewer Training and Supervision." Nursing Research, v37(2), p122-124. *Collins, Martin & Bob Butcher. Jan., 1983. "Interviewer and Clustering Effects in an Attitude Survey." Journal of the Market Research Society, v25(1 ), p39-58. *Collins, W. Andrew. Autumn, 1970. "Interviewers' Verbal Idiosyncrasies as a Source of Bias." Public Opinion Quarterly, v34(3) p416-422. *Committee on Analysis of Pre-Election Polls, Forecasts of Social Science Research Council, The. Winter, 1948-1949. "Report on the Analysis of Pre-Election Polls and Forecasts." Public Opinion Quarterly, v12(4), p599-622. *Cosper, Ronald. Spring, 1972. "Interviewer Effect in a Survey of Drinking Practices." Sociological Quarterly, v13(2), p228-236. *Cosper, Ronald. Mar., 1969. "Interviewer Bias in a Study of Drinking Practices." Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, v30(1 ), p152-157. **Cotter, Patrick R., Jeffrey Cohen & Philip B. Coulter. Summer, 1982. "Race-of- Interviewer Effects on Telephone Interviews." Public Opinion Quarterly, v46(2) p278-284. *Cromwell, Vicky L. & Ronald E. Cromwell. Nov., 1978. "Perceived Dominance in Decision-Making and Conflict Resolution among Anglo, Black and Chicano Couples." Journal of Marriage and the Family, v40(4), p749-759. *Cukor-Avila, Patricia & Guy Bailey. May, 2001. "The Effects of the Race of the Interviewer on Sociolinguistic Fieldwork." Journal of Sociolinguistics, v5(2), p254-270. *Curtis, Richard F. & Dianne Timbers Fairbank. Mar., 1979. "Prejudice and Urban Social Participation Reconsidered." Social Forces, v57(3), p952-959. *Curtis, S. E. May, 1987. "Self Reported Morbidity in London and Manchester: Intra-Urban and Inter-Urban Variations." Social Indicators Research, v19(2), p255-272. 101 *Daniel, Jack L., Geneva Smitherman-Donalson & Milford A. Jeremiah. June, 1987. "Makin' a Way Outa No Way: The Proverb Tradition in the Black Experience." Journal of Black Studies, v17(4), p482-508. *Darkenwald, Gordon G. Autumn, 1975. "Some Effects of the 'Obvious Variable': Teacher's Race and Holding Power with Black Adult Students." Sociology of Education, v48(4), p420-431. *Davies, John B. 1990. "Life Stress and the Use of Illicit Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco: Empirical Findings, Methodological Problems and Attributions". In David M. Warburton (Ed.), Addiction Controversies, p283-295. **Davis, Darren W. Jan., 1997. "The Direction of Race of Interviewer Effects Among African-Americans: Donning the Black Mask." American Journal of Political Science, v41 (1 ), p309-322. **Davis, Darren W. Spring, 1997. "Nonrandom Measurement Error and Race of Interviewer Effects Among African Americans." Public Opinion Quarterly, v61 (1: Special Issue on Race), p183-207. *Delgado, Melvin. July, 1996. "Community Asset Assessments by Latino, Youths." Social Work in Education, v18(3), p169-178. *Deming, W. Edwards. Aug., 1944. "On Errors in Surveys." American Sociological Review, v9(4), p359-369. *Dijkstra, Wil. June, 1983. "How Interviewer Variance Can Bias the Results of Research on Interviewer Effects." Quality and Quantity, v17(3), p179-187. *Dijkstra, W., J. Ormel & G. Van Der Willige. Aug., 1979. "The Causes of Interviewer Variance in Survey Research." Mens en Maatschappij, v54(3), p270-291. *Dillman, Don A., Jean Gorton Gallegos & James H. Frey. Spring, 1976. Reducing "Refusal Rates for Telephone Interviews." Public Opinion Quarterly, v40(1 ), p427-448. *Dohrenwend, Barbara S., John Colombotos & Bruce P. Dohrenwend. Jan., 1969. "Social Distance and Interviewer Effects." Milbank Quarterly, v47(1 ), p213- 226. *Dohrenwend, Barbara Snell, John Colombotos & Bruce P. Dohrenwend. Autumn, 1968. "Social Distance and Interviewer Effects." Public Opinion Quarterly, v32(3), p410-422. 102 *Dohrenwend, Barbara Snell, J. Allen Williams, Jr. & Carol H. Weiss. Spring, 1969. "Interviewer Biasing Effects: Toward a Reconciliation of Findings." Public Opinion Quarterly, v33(1 ), p121-129. , *Duncan, Otis Dudley & Magnus Stenbeck. Winter, 1988. "No Opinion or Not Sure?" Public Opinion Quarterly, v52(4), p513-525. *Ehrlich, June Sachar & David Riesman. Spring, 1961. "Age and Authority in the Interview." Public Opinion Quarterly, v25(1 ), p39-56. *Fabrega, Horacio, Jr., Richard Ulrich & Juan E. Mezzich. Mar., 1993. "Do Caucasian and Black Adolescents Differ at Psychiatric Intake?" Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, v32(2), p407- 414. *Fein, Edith. Winter, 1970-1971. " Inner-City Interviewing: Some Perspectives." Public Opinion Quarterly, v34(4), p625-629. *Feldman, J.J., Herbert Hyman & C. W. Hart. Winter, 1951-1952. "A Field Study of Interviewer Effects on the Quality of Survey Data." Public Opinion Quarterly, v15(4), p734-761. Fellegi, I. P. Dec., 1964. "Response Variance and Its Estimation." Journal of the American Statistical Association, v59(308), p1016-1041. Fellegi, Ivan P. June, 1974. "An Improved Method of Estimating the Correlated Response Variance." Journal of the American Statistical Association, v69(346), p496-501. *Fendrich, Michael, Timothy Johnson, Chitra Shaligram & Joseph S. Wislar. Winter, 1999. "The Impact of Interviewer Characteristics on Drug Use Reporting by Male Juvenile Arrestees." Journal of Drug Issues, v29(1), p37-58. *Fendrich, Michael & Connie M. Vaughn. Spring, 1994. "Diminished Lifetime Substance Use Over Time: An Inquiry Into Differential Underreporting." Public Opinion Quarterly, v58(1), p96-123. *Ferber, Robert & Hugh G. Wales. Spring, 1952. "Detection and Correction of Interviewer Bias." Public Opinion Quarterly, v16(1 ), p107-127. *Fields, James M. Winter, 1970-1971. "The Sample Cluster: A Neglected Data Source." Public Opinion Quarterly, v34(4), p593-603. *Fields, James M. & Howard Schuman. Winter, 1976-1977. "Public Beliefs About the Beliefs of the Public." Public Opinion Quarterly, v40(4), p427-448. 103 *Fine, Gary Alan, Jeffrey L. Stitt & Michael Finch. Sept., 1984. "Couple Tie-Signs and Interpersonal Threat: A Field Experiment." Social Psychology Quarterly, v47(3), p282-286. *Finifter, Bernard M. 1972. "The Generation of Confidence: Evaluating Reserch Findings by Random Subsample Replication." Sociological Methodology, v4, p112-175. **Finkel, Steven E., Thomas M. Guterbock & Marian J. Borg. Autumn, 1991. "Race- of-Interviewer Effects in a Preelection Poll: Virginia 1989." Public Opinion Quarterly, v55(3), p313-330. *Finnegan, John R., K. Viswanath, Perter J. Hannan, Rita Weisbrod & David R. Jacobs, Jr .. Dec., 1989. "Message Discrimination: A Study of its Use in a Campaign Research Project." Communication Research, v16(6), p770-792. *Fischer, Claude S. June, 1981. "The Public and Private Worlds of City Life." American Sociological Review, v46(3), p306-316. *Ford, Kathleen & Anne E. Norris. Aug., 1997. "Effects of Interviewer Age on Reporting of Sexual and Reproductive Behavior of Hispanic and African American Youth." Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, v19(3), p369- 377. *Fowler, Floyd Jackson Jr., Anthony M. Roman & Zhu Xiao Di. Spring, 1998. "Mode Effects in a Survey of Medicare Prostate Surgery Patients." Public Opinion Quarterly, v62(1 ), p29-46. *Franzen, Raymond & Robert Williams. Autumn, 1956. "A Method for Measuring Error Due to Variance Among Interviewers." Public Opinion Quarterly, v20(3), p587-592. *Freeman, John & Edgar W. Butler. Spring, 1976. "Some Sources of Interviewer Variance in Surveys." Public Opinion Quarterly, v40(1 ), p79-91. *Freitag, Carl B. & John R. Barry. June, 1974. "Interaction and Interviewer Bias in a Survey of the Aged." Psychological Reports, v34(3), p771-774. *Friedman, Pearl A. Nov., 1942. "A Second Experiment of Interviewer Bias." Sociometry, v5(4), p378-381. *Fu, Haishan & Noreen Goldman. Aug., 1996. "Incorporating Health into Models of Marriage Choice: Demographic and Sociological Perspectives." Journal of Marriage and the Family, v58(3), p740-758. 104 *Gilliland, Stephen W. Oct., 1993. "The Perceived Fairness of Selection Systems: An Organizational Justice Perspective." The Academy of Management Review, v18(4), p694-734. *Goodman, Gail S. Aug., 1995. "Mother Knows Best: Effects of Relationship Status and Interviewer Bias on Children's Memory." Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, v60(1 ), p195-229. *Goudy, Willis J. & Harry R. Potter. Winter, 1975-1976. "Interview Rapport: Demise of a Concept." Public Opinion Quarterly, v39(4), p529-543. Gray, Percy G. June, 1956. "Examples of Interviewer Variability Taken from Two Sample Surveys." Applied Statistics, v5(2), p73-85. *Griffitt, William & Luis Garcia. Mar., 1979. "Reversing Authoritarian Punitiveness: The Impact of Verbal Conditioning." Social Psychology Quarterly, v42(1 ), · p55-61. *Groves, Robert M. 1990. "Theories and Methods of Telephone Surveys." Annual Review of Sociology, v16, p221-240. *Groves, Robert M. 1987. "Research on Survey Data Quality." Public Opinion Quarterly, v51 (2: Supplement: 5oth Anniversary Issue), pS156-S172. **Groves, Robert M. & Lou J. Magilavy. Summer, 1986. "Measuring and Explaining Interviewer Effects in Centralized Telephone Surveys." Public Opinion Quarterly, v50(2), p251-266. Groves, Robert M. & Lou J. Magilavy. 1980. "Estimates of Interviewer Variance in Telephone Surveys." Proceedings of Survey Research Methods Section, American Statistical Association, p622-627. *Groves, Robert M. & Nancy A. Mathiowetz. Spring, 1984. "Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing: Effects on Interviewers and Respondents." Public Opinion Quarterly, v48(1 ), p356-369. *Guest, Lester. Autumn, 1954. "A New Training Method for Opinion Interviewers." Public Opinion Quarterly, v18(3), p287-299. Guest, Lester. Sept., 1947. "A Study of Interviewer Competence." International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research, v1 (3), p17-30. 105 Guest, Lester,& Robert Nuckols. Fall, 1950. "A Laboratory Experiment in Recording in Public Opinion Interviewing." International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research, v4(3), p336-352. Hall, Judith A., Linda Tickel-Degnen, Robert Rosenthal & Frederick Mosteller. 1994. "Hypotheses and Problems in Research Synthesis." In Harris Cooper & Larry V. Hedges (Eds.), The Handbook of Research Synthesis, p17-28. Hansen, Morris H., William N. Hurwitz & Max A. Bershad. 1961. "Measurement Errors in Censuses and Surveys." Bulletin of the International Statistical Institute, v38(2), p359-374. Hansen, Morris H., William N. Hurwitz, Eli S. Marks & W. Parker Mauldin. June, 1951. "Response Errors in Surveys." Journal of American Statistical Association, v46(254), p147-190. *Hanson, Robert C. Oct., 1959. "Predicting a Community Decision: A Test of the Miller-Form Theory." American Sociological Review, v24(5), p662-671. Hanson, Robert H. & Eli S. Marks. Sept., 1958. "Influence of the Interviewer on the Accuracy of Survey Results." Journal of the American Statistical Association, v53(283), p635-655. *Hatchett, Shirley & Howard Schuman. Winter, 1975-1976. "White Respondents and Race-of-Interviewer Effects." Public Opinion Quarterly, v39(4), p523-528. *Hayes, Donald P. & Leo Meltzer. Dec., 1972. "Interpersonal Judgments Based on Talkativeness: I Fact or Artifact?" Sociometry, v35(4), p538-561. *Heeb, Jean-Luc & Gergard Gmel. July, 2001. "Interviewers' and Respondents' Effects on Self-Reported Alcohol Consumption in a Swiss Survey." Journal of Studies on Alcohol, v62(4), p434-442. *Herdt, Gilbert & Andrew M. Boxer. May, 1991. "Ethnographic Issues in the Study of AIDS." Journal of Sex Research, v28(2), p171-187. *Hermann, Dieter. July, 1983. "The Importance of Attitudes and Distortions during Interviews: A Methodological Investigation Using Data from the General Population Survey 1980." Zeitschrift fur Soziologie, v12(3), p242-252. *Hill, Mark E. Feb., 2002. "Race of the Interviewer and Perception of Skin Color: Evidence from the Multi-City Study of Urban Inequality." American Sociological Review, v67(1), p99-108. 106 *Hirschman, Charles. 1983. "America's Melting Pot Reconsidered." Annual Review of Sociology, v9, p397-423. *Hochstim, Joseph R. & Demtrios A. Athanasopoulos. Spring, 1970. "Personal Follow-Up in a Mail Survey: Its Contribution and Its Cost." Public Opinion Quarterly, v34(1 ), p69-81. *Holden, David E.W. July-Dec., 1971. "Interviewer and Situational Bias in Field Surveys in Costa Rica." American Latina, v14(3-4), p61-69. *Hornik, Jacob & Shmuel Ellis. Winter, 1988. "Strategies to Secure Compliance for a Mail Intercept Interview." Public Opinion Quarterly, v52(4), p539-551. *House, James S. & Robert D. Fischer. June, 1971. "Authoritarianism, Age and Black Militancy." Sociometry, v34(2), p174-197. *Howard, Jan & Phillip Borges. Sept., 1970. "Needle Sharing in the Haight: Some Social and Psychological Functions." Journal of Health and Social Behavior, v11 (3), p220-230. **Huddy, Leonie, Joshua Billig, John Bracciodieta, Lois Hoeffler, Patrick J. Moynihan & Patricia Pugliani. Sept., 1997. "The Effect of Interviewer Gender on the Survey Response." Political Behavior, v19(3), p197-220. *Hurtado, Aida. Spring, 1994. "Does Similarity Breed Respect? Interviewer Evaluations of Mexican-Descent Respondents in a Bilingual Survey." Public Opinion Quarterly, v58(1 ), p77-95. **Hutchinson, Kevin L. & David G. Wegge. Sept., 1991. "The Effects of Interviewer Gender Upon Response in Telephone Survey Research." Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, v6(3), p573-584. *Hyman, Herbert. Jan., 1950. "Problems in the Collection of Opinion-Research Data." American Journal of Sociology, v55(4), p362-370. Hyman, Herbert, William J. Cobb, Jacob J. Feldman, Clyde W. Hart & Charles Herbert Stember. 1954. Interviewing in Social Research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. *Hyman, Herbert, Gene N. Levine & Charles R. Wright. Spring, 1967. "Studying Expert Informants by Survey Methods: A Cross-National Inquiry." Public Opinion Quarterly, v31 (1 ), p9-26. 107 *Hyman, Herbert H. & Hubert J. O'Gorman (Eds.) 1991. Taking Society's Measure: A Personal History of Survey Research. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. *Iyengar, Shanto. Spring, 1974. "Magnifying Relationships Between Attitudinal Variables Using Panel Analysis." Public Opinion Quarterly, v38(1 ), p90-97. *Jaccard, James & Andrew R. Davidson. Dec., 1975. "A Comparison of Two Models of Social Behavior: Results of a Survey Sample." Sociometry, v38(4), p497-517. *Jackman, Mary R. & Mary Scheuer Senter. Autumn, 1980. "Imagines of Social Groups: Categorical or Qualified?" Public Opinion Quarterly, v44(3), p341- 361. *Javeline, Debra. Spring, 1999. "Response Effects in Polite Cultures: A Test of Acquiescence in Kazakhstan." Public Opinion Quarterly, v63(1 ), p1-28. *Johnson, Robert A., Dean R. Gerstein & Kenneth A. Rasinski. Autumn, 1998. "Adjusting Survey Estimates for Response Bias: An Application to Trends in Alcohol and Marijuana Use." Public Opinion Quarterly, v62(3), p354-377. *Johnson, Robert A. & Henry F. Woltman. 1987. "Evaluating Census Data Quality Using Intensive Reinter Views: A Comparison of U.S. Census Bureau Methods and Rasch Methods." Sociological Methodology, v17, p185-204. *Johnson, Robert J., Dale A. Lund & Margaret F. Diamond. Sept., 1986. "Stress, Self-Esteem and Coping During Bereavement Among the Elderly." Social Psychology Quarterly, v49(3), p273-279. **Johnson, Timothy P., Michael Fendrich, Chitra Shaligram, Anthony Garcy & Samuel Gillespie. Winter, 2000. "An Evaluation of the Effects of Interviewer Characteristics in an ROD Telephone Survey of Drug Use." Journal of Drug Issues, v30(1 ), p77-102. *Johnson, Timothy P. & Jennifer A. Parsons. Jan.-Feb., 1994. "Interviewer Effects on Self-Reported Substance Use Among Homeless Persons." Addictive Behaviors, v19(1 ), p83-93. 108 **Johnson, Timothy P. & Robert W. Moore. Mar., 1993. "Gender Interactions Between Interviewer and Survey Respondents: Issues of Pornography and Community Standards." Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, v28(5-6), p243- 262. *Johnson, Weldon T. & John D. Delamater. Summer, 1976. "Response Effects in Sex Surveys." Public Opinion Quarterly, v40(2), p165-181. *Kacmar, K. Michelle, John Delery & Gerald R. Ferris. Aug., 1992. "Differential Effectiveness of Applicant Impression Management Tactics on Employment Interview Decisions." Journal of Applied Social Psychology, v22, p1250- 1273. **Kane, Emily W. & Laura J. Macaulay. Spring, 1993. "Interviewer Gender and Gender Attitudes." Public Opinion Quarterly, v57(1 ), p1-28. *Kaplan, Kalman J., Ira J. Firestone, Katherine W. Klein & Charles Sodikoff. June, 1983. "Distancing in Dyads: A Comparison of Four Models." Social Psychology Quarterly, v46(2), p108-115. *Kaplowitz, Stan A., Vladimir Shlapentokh, James P. McGregor & Leon Rabinovich. Spring, 1982. "Possible Falsification of Survey Data: An Analysis of a Mail Survey in the Soviet Union." Public Opinion Quarterly, v46(1 ), p1-23. Katz, Daniel. Summer, 1942. "Do Interviewers Bias Poll Results?" Public Opinion Quarterly, v6(2), p248-268. *Killias, Martin. 1990. "New Methodological Perspectives for Victimization Surveys: The Potential of Computer-Assisted Telephone Surveys and Some Related Innovations." International Review of Victimology, v1 (2), p153-167. *Kim, Marlene. Summer, 1997. "Poor Women Survey Poor Women: Feminist Perspectives in Survey Research." Feminist Economics, v3(2), p99-117. *Kinder, Donald R. & Leo G. Reeder. June, 1975. "Ethnic Differences in Beliefs About Control." Sociometry, v38(2), p261-272. *Kish, Leslie. Mar., 1962. "Studies of Interviewer Variance for Attitudinal Variables." Journal of the American Statistical Association, v57(297), p92-115. *Kleinke, Chris L. & Glen Williams. Apr., 1994. "Effects of Interviewer Status, Touch, and Gender on Cardiovascular Reactivity." Journal of Social Psychology, v134(2), p247-250. 109 *Kornhauser, Arthur. Winter, 1946-1947. "Are Public Opinion Polls Fair to Organized Labor?" Public Opinion Quarterly, v10(4), p484-500. *Kram, Kathy E. & Lynn A. Isabella. Mar., 1985. "Mentoring Alternatives: The Role of Peer Relationships in Career Development." The Academy of Management Journal, v28(1), p110-132. *Krysan, Maria. Winter, 1998. "Privacy and the Expression of White Racial Attitudes: A Comparison Across Three Contexts." Public Opinion Quarterly, v62(4), p506-544. *Lazarsfelf, Paul F. Winter, 1950-1951. "Proceedings of the American Association for Public Opinion Research at the Fifth Annual Conference on Public Opinion Research, Lake Forest, Illinois, June 15-20, 1950." Public Opinion Quarterly, v14(4), p820-868. *Lee, Alfred McClung. June, 1947. "Sociological Theory in Public Opinion and Attitude Studies." American Sociological Review, v12(3), p312-323. Lenski, Gerhard E. & John C. Leggett. March, 1960. "Caste, Class, and Deference in the Research Interview." American Journal of Sociology, v65(5), p463-467. *Levy, Mark R. Spring, 1983. "The Methodology and Performance of Election Day Polls." Public Opinion Quarterly, v47(1), p54-67. *Lin, Thung-Rung, Gregory H. Dobbins & Jing-Uh. Farh. June, 1992. "A Field Study on Race and Age Similarity Effects on Interview Ratings in Conventional and Situational Interviews." Journal of Applied Psychology, v77(3), p363-372. ·*Liska, Allen E. & Barbara D. Warner. May, 1991. "Functions of Crime: A Paradoxical Process." American Journal of Sociology, v96(6), p1441-1463. Litwak, Eugene. Sept., 1956. "A Classification of Biased Questions." American Journal of Sociology, v62(2). p 182-186. *Long, Larry H. Feb., 1979. "Reply to Norton." American Sociological Review, v44(1), p178-181. Lowenstein, Regina & Andre A. 0. Varma. Autumn, 1970. "Effects of Interaction of Interviewers and Respondents in Health Surveys." Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Conference on Public Opinion Research, Public Opinion Quarterly, v34(3), p472-473. *Ludlow, Larry H. Sept., 1986. "Graphical Analysis of Item Response Theory Residuals." Applied Psychological Measurement, v10(3), p217-229. 110 *Lutynska, Krystyna. 1980. "Some Problems of Methodological Research into the Interviewer Influence." Polish Sociological Bulletin, v2(50), p45-55. *Lynch, James P. Autumn, 1996. "Review: Clarifying Divergent Estimates of Rape from Two National Surveys." Public Opinion Quarterly, v60(3), p410-430. Mahalanobis, P. C. 1946. "Recent Experiments in Statistical Sampling in the Indian Statistical Institute." Proceedings of a Meeting of the Royal Statistical Society held on July 16, 1946. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, v109, p326- 378. *Manheimer, Dean & Herbert Hyman. Spring, 1949." Interviewer Performance in Area Sampling." Public Opinion Quarterly, v13(1 ), p83-92. *Marquis, Kent H. June, 1970. "Effects of Social Reinforcement on Health Reporting in the Household Interview." Sociometry, v33(2), p203-215. *Matarazzo, Joseph D. & Arthur N. Wiens. 1966. "Interviewer Effects on Interviewee Speech and Silence Durations." Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association 1966, p45-46. *Mauser, Gary A. & David B. Kopel. Apr.-June, 1992. ""Sorry, Wrong Number": Why Media Polls on Gun Control Are Often Unreliable." Political Communication, v9(2), p69-92. *McCullough, Dick. Dec., 1998. "Web-Based Market Research: The Dawning of a New Age" Direct Marketing, v61 (8), p36-39. *McKenzie, J. R. Aug., 1977. "An Investigation into Interviewer Effects in Market Research." Journal of Marketing Research, v14, p330-336. Meislin, Richard J. Jan. 8, 1987. "Racial Divisions Seen in Poll on Howard Beach Attack." The New York Times, pB2. *Mensch, Barbara S. & Denise B. Kandel. Spring, 1988. "Underreporting of Substance Use in a National Longitudinal Youth Cohort: Individual and Interviewer Effects." Public Opinion Quarterly, v52(1 ), p100-124. *Miller, Peter V. Autumn, 1995. "A Review: They Said It Couldn't Be Done: The National Health and Social Life Survey." Public Opinion Quarterly, v59(3), p404-419. 111 *Moon, Youngme. Winter, 1998. "Impression Management in Computer-Based Interviews: The Effects of Input Modality, Output Modality, and Distance." Public Opinion Quarterly, v62(4), p610-622. *Morgan, David L. 1996. "Focus Groups." Annual Review of Sociology, v22, p129- 152. *Mourn, Torbjorn. Nov., 1998. "Mode of Administration and Interviewer Effects in Self-Reported Symptoms of Anxiety and Depression." Social Indicators Research, v45(1-3), p279-318. Mullins, Nicholas C. 1973. Theories and Theory Groups in Contemporary American Sociology. New York, NY: Harper & Row, Publishers. *Namboodiri, N. Krishnan. Sept., 1975. "Prologue." Social Forces, v54(1 ), p2-6. Neuman, W. Lawrence. 2000. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (4th Edition). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. *Nicholls, William L. II, Naomi D. Rothwell & Matt Hauck. Autumn, 1975. "American Assocication for Public Opinion Research Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Conference." Public Opinion Quarterly, v39(3), p373-434. *Nisselson, H. & T. D. Woolsey. Mar., 1959. "Some Problems of the Household Interview Design for the National Health Survey." Journal of the American Statistical Association, v54, p69-87. *Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth. Summer, 1970. "Wanted: Rules for Wording Structured Questionnaires." Public Opinion Quarterly, v34(2), p191-201. *Norris, Stephen P. Spring, 1990. "Effect of Eliciting Verbal Reports of Thinking on Critical Thinking Test Performance." Journal of Educational Measurement, v27(1 ), p41-58. *Norwood, Janet L. & Judith M. Tanur. Summer, 1994. "A Review Measuring Unemployment in the Nineties." Public Opinion Quarterly, v58(2), p277-294. *Nuyts, Kristin, Hans Wageg, Geert Loosveldt & Jaak Billiet. 1997. "The Application of Cognitive Interviewing Techniques in the Development and Testing of Measurement Instruments for Survey Research." Tijdschrift voor Sociologie, v18(4), p477-500. *O'Muircheartaigh, C. A. June, 1976. "Response Errors in an Attitudinal Sample Survey." Quality and Quantity, v10(2), p97-115. 112 *Pfeffer, Jeffrey. Sept., 1972. "lnterorganizational Influence and Managerial Attitudes." The Academy of Management Journal, v15(3), p317-330. *Phillips, Derek L. & Kevin J. Clancy. Summer, 1972. ""Modeling Effects" in Survey Research." Public Opinion Quarterly, v36(2), p246-253. *Pickery, Jan & Geert Loosveldt. July, 1999. "An Evaluation.of a Typology of Respondents with a Multilevel-Multinomial Logit Model." Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique, v63, p47-61. *Pickery, Jan & Geert Loosveldt. Feb., 1998. "The Impact of Respndent and Interviewer Characteristics on the Number of "No Opinion" Answers." Quality and Quantity, v32(1 ), p31-45. *Pickery, Jan, Geert Loosveldt & Ann Carton. May, 2001. "The Effects of Interviewer and Respondent Characteristics on Response Behavior in Panel Surveys: A Mutlilevel Approach." Sociological Methods and Research, v29(4), p509-523. *Presser, Stanley. Spring, 1984. "Is Inaccuracy on Factual Survey Items Item- Specific or Respondent-Specific?" Public Opinion Quarterly, v48(1 ), p344- 355. *Presser, Stanley & Howard Schuman. Spring, 1980. "The Measurement of a Middle Position in Attitude Surveys." Public Opinion Quarterly, v44(1 ), p70- 85. *Prewett-Livingston, Amelia, John G. Veres Ill, Hubert S. Field & Philip M. Lewis. Apr., 1996. "Effects of Race on Interview Ratings in a Situational Panel Interview." Journal of Applied Psychology, v81 (2), p178-187. *"Proceedings of the American Association for Public Opinion Research: At the Eighth Annual Conference on Public Opinion Research, Pocono Manor, Penn .. Winter, 1953-1954." Public Opinion Quarterly, v17(4), p521-564. *"Proceedings of the Fifty-Second Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research." Autumn, 1997. Public Opinion Quarterly, v61(3), p519-551. *"Proceedings of the Fortieth Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research." Autumn, 1985. Public Opinion Quarterly, v49(3), p411-433. 113 *"Proceedings of the Forty-Eighth Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research." Autumn, 1993. Public Opinion Quarterly, v57(3), p437-464. *"Proceedings of the Forty-Fifth Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research and the World Association for Public Opinion Research." Autumn, 1990. Public Opinion Quarterly, v54(3), p448-478. *"Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research." Autumn, 1994. Public Opinion Quarterly, v50(3), p429-453. *"Proceedings of the Forty-Ninth Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research." Autumn, 1994. Public Opinion Quarterly, v58(3), p441-477. *"Proceedings of the Forty-Second Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research: Public Opinion Research in the Information Age." Autumn, 1987. Public Opinion Quarterly, v51 (3), p433-457. *"Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Conference on Public Opinion Research." Autumn, 1966. Public Opinion Quarterly, v30(3), p433-479. *"Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research." Autumn, 1967. Public Opinion Quarterly, v31 (3), p427-481. *Ralis, Max, Edward A. Suchman & Rose K. Goldsen. Autumn, 1958. "Applicability of Survey Techniques in Northern India." Public Opinion Quarterly, v22(3: Special Issue on Attitude Research in Modernizing Areas), p245-250. **Reese, Stephen D., Wayne A. Danielson, Pamela J. Shoemaker, Tsan-Kuo Chang & Huei-Ling Hsu. Winter, 1986. "Ethnicity-of-Interviewer Effects Among Mexican-Americans and Anglos." Public Opinion Quarterly, v50(4), p563- 572. *Rettig, Salomon, Frank N. Jacobson, Leo Despres & Benjamin Pasamanick. Dec., 1958. "Rating Response Set as a Function of Objective Status Criteria." Sociometry, v21 (4), p281-291 . *Rhodes, P.J. May, 1994. "Race-of-Interviewer Effects: A Brief Comment." Sociology, v28(2), p547-559. Rice, Stuart A. 1929. "Contagious Bias in the Interview: A Methodological Note." American Journal of Sociology, v35, p420-423. 114 *Riesman, David & Nathan Glazer. Winter, 1948-1949. "The Meaning of Opinion." Public Opinion Quarterly, v12(4), p633-648. *Riessman, Catherine K. July, 1977. Interviewer Effects in Psychiatric Epidemiology: A Study of Medical and Lay Interviewers and Their Impact on Reported Symptoms. Dissertation. *Riley, John W., Jr. Autumn, 1962. "Reflections on Data Sources in Opinion Research." Public Opinion Quarterly, v26(3), p313-322. *Robinson, James A. Spring, 1960. "Survey Interviewing Among Members of Congress." Public Opinion Quarterly, v24(1), p127-138. *Rogers, Theresa F. Spring, 1976. "Interviews by Telephone and in Person: Quality of Responses and Field Performance." Public Opinion Quarterly, v40(1 ), p51- 65. *Ross, Catherine E. & John Mirowsky. June, 1984. "Socially-Desirable Response and Acquiescence in a Cross-Cultural Survey of Mental Health." Journal of Health and Social Behavior, v25(2), p189-197. *Ross, Catherine E. & John Mirowsky. Dec., 1983. "The Worst Place and the Best Face." Social Forces, v62(2), p529-536. *Rucinski, Dianne. Winter, 1993. "A Review: Rush to Judgment? Fast Reaction Polls in the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas Controversy." Public Opinion Quarterly, v57(4), p575-592. *Samuels, Jack F., David Vlahov, James C. Anthony & Richard E. Chaisson. Mar., 1992. "Measurement of HIV Risk Behaviors Among Intravenous Drug Users." British Journal of Addiction, v87(3), p417-428. *Sanchez, Maria Elena & Giovanna Morchio. Winter, 1992. "Probing "Don't Know" Answers: Effects on Survey Estimates and Variable Relationships." Public Opinion Quarterly, v56(4), p454-474. *Saslow, George, Joseph D. Matarazzo & Samuel B. Guze. 1995. "The Stability of Interaction Chronograph Patterns in Psychiatric Interviews." Journal of Consulting Psychology, v19, p417-430. *Sathe, Vijay. June, 1978. "Institutional versus Questionnaire Measures of Organizational Structure." The Academy of Management Journal, v21 (2), p227-238. 115 Schaeffer, Nora Cate 1980. "Evaluating Race-of-Interviewer Effects in a National Survey." Sociological Methods and Research, v8, p400-419. *Schaeffer, Nora Cate & Elizabeth Thomson. 1992. "The Discovery of Grounded Uncertainty: Developing Standardized Questions about Strength of Fertility Motivation." Sociological Methodology, v22, p37-82. *Schexnider, Alvin J. June, 1975. "The Development of Racial Solidarity in the Armed Forces." Journal of Black Studies, v5(4), p415-435. *Schnell, Rainer & Frauke Kreuter. Mar., 2000. "Investigations of Cause Regarding Different Results of Nearly Identical Victimization Surveys." Koelner Zeitschrift fuer Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, v52(1 ), p96-117. *Schober, Michael F. & Frederick G. Conrad. Winter, 1997. "Does Conversational Interviewing Reduce Survey Measurement Error?" Public Opinion Quarterly, v61 (4), p576-602. *Schreiber, E. M. Winter, 1975-1976. "Dirty Data in Britain and the USA: The Reliability of "Invariant" Characteristics Reported in Surveys." Public Opinion Quarterly, v39(4), p493-506. *Schuman, Howard & Lawrence Bobo. Sept., 1988. "Survey-Based Experiments on White Racial Attitudes Towards Residential Integration." American Journal of Sociology, v94(2), p273-299. *Schuman, Howard & J. Converse. Spring, 1971. "The Effects of Black and White Interviewers on Black Respondents in 1968". Public Opinion Quarterly, v35(1 ), p44-68. *Schuman, Howard, Jean M. Converse, Eleanor Singer, Martin R. Frankel, Marc B. Glassman, Robert M. Groves, Lou J. Magilavy, Peter V. Miller & Charles F. Cannell. 1989. "The Interviewer." In Eleanor Singer & Stanley Presser (eds.), Survey Research Methods: A Reader, p247-323. *Schuman, Howard & Otis Dudley Duncan. 1973-1974. "Questions about Attitude Survey Questions." Sociological Methodology, vs, p232-251. *Schuman, Howard & Michael P. Johnson. 1976. "Attitudes and Behavior." Annual Review of Sociology, v2, p161-207. *Shapiro, Adam & James David Lambert. May, 1999. "Longitudinal Effects of Divorce on the Quality of the Father-Child Relationship and on Fathers' Psychological Well-Being." Journal of Marriage and the Family, v61 (2), p397- 408. 116 *Shapiro, Michael. Autumn, 1970. "Discovering Interviewer Bias in Open-Ended Survey Responses." Public Opinion Quarterly, v34(3), p412-415. Shapiro, Sam and John C. Eberhart. 1947. "Interviewer Differences in an Intensive Interview Survey." International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research, v1(2), p1-17. *Sharp, Laure M. & Joanne Frankel. Spring, 1983. "Respondent Burden: A Test of Some Common Assumptions." Public Opinion Quarterly, v47(1 ), p36-53. *Sheatsley, Paul B. Summer, 1949. "The Influence of Sub-Questions on Interviewer Performance." Public Opinion Quarterly, v13(2), p310-313. *Sherkat, Darren E. & Christopher G. Ellison. Dec., 1991. "The Politics of Black Religious Change: Disaffiliation from Black Mainline Denominations." Social Forces, v70(2), p431-454. *Shlapentokh, Vladimir. Dec., 1982. "The Study of Values as a Social Phenomenon: The Soviet Case." Social Forces, v61 (2), p403-417. *Shlapentokh, Vladimir. Winter, 1994. "A Review: The 1993 Russian Election Polls." Public Opinion Quarterly, v58(4), p579-602. *Shosteck, Herschel. Fall, 1977. "Respondent Militancy as a Control Variable for Interviewer Effect." Journal of Social Issues, v33(4), p36-45. *Silver, Brian D., Paul R. Abramson & Barbara A. Anderson. Summer, 1986. "The Presence of Others and Overreporting of Voting in American National Elections." Public Opinion Quarterly, v50(2), p228-239. *Simonet, Michel. Nov.-Dec., 1979-1980. "Nondirective Interview and Nonprestructured Interview: Considerations of Methodological Validation and Practice." Bulletin de Psychologie, v33(1-3), p155-164. *Singer, Eleanor. Apr., 1978. "Informed Consent: Consequences for Responses Rate and Response Quality in Social Surveys." American Sociological Review, v43(2), p144-162. *Singer, Eleanor & Martin R. Frankel. June, 1982. "Informed Consent Procedures in Telephone Interviews." American Sociological Review, v47(3), p416-426. *Singer, Eleanor, Martin R. Frankel & Marc B. Glassman. Spring, 1983. "The Effect of Interviewer Characteristics and Expectations on Response." Public Opinion Quarterly, v47(1 ), p68-83. 117 *Singer, Eleanor & Luane Kohnke-Aguirre. Summer, 1979. "Interviewer Expectation Effects: A Replication and Extension." Public Opinion Quarterly, v43(2), p245-260. *Singer, Eleanor & Stanley Presser (Eds.). 1989. Survey Research Methods: A Reader. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. *Singer, Eleanor, John Van Hoewyk & Mary P. Maher. Summer, 2000. "Experiments with Incentives in Telephone Surveys." Public Opinion Quarterly, v64(2), p171-188. *Skogan, Wesley G. Summer, 1990. "A Review: The National Crime Survey Redesign." Public Opinion Quarterly, v54(2), p256-272. *Smith, Burke M., Jack D. Hain & Ian Stevenson. 1970. "Controlled Interviews Using Drugs." Archives of General Psychiatry, v22(1), p2-10. *Smith, Harry L. & Herbert Hyman. Autumn, 1950. "The Biasing Effect of Interviewer Expectations on Survey Result." Public Opinion Quarterly, v14(3), p491-506. *Smith, Michael D. Mar., 1994. "Enhancing the Quality of Survey Data on Violence against Women: A Feminist Approach." Gender and Society, v8(1 ), p109- 127. *Smith, Michael D. Sept., 1989. 'Woman Abuse: The Case for Surveys by Telephone." Journal of Interpersonal Violence, v4(3), p308-324. *Smith, Tom W. & Woody Carter. June, 1989. "Observing "The Observers Observed": A Comment." Social Problems, v36(3), p310-312. *Sniderman, Paul M. & Douglas B. Grob. 1996. "Innovations in Experimental Design in Attitude Surveys." Annual Review of Sociology, v22, p377-399. *Soskis, David A. 1976. "Multiple Drug Interviews as a Diagnostic Technique: A Clinical Case Study." Neuropsychobiology, v2(2-3), p127-133. *Spaulding, John M. & Philip Balch. 1985. "Perceptions of Mental Disorder of Yaqui Indians in Arizona: An Initial Investigation." White Cloud Journal, v3(4), p19- 26. *Stanton, Frank & Kenneth H. Baker. May, 1942. "Interviewer-Bias and the Recall of Incompletely Learned Materials." Sociometry, v5(2), p123-134. 118 *Stapel, Jan. Winter, 1947-1948. "The Convivial Respondent." Public Opinion Quarterly, v11 (4), p524-529. *Steeh, Charlotte & Maria Krysan. Spring, 1996. "Trends: Affirmative Action and the Public, 1970-1995." Public Opinion Quarterly, v60(1 ), p128-158. *Steiner, Gary A. Autumn, 1964. ""The Strangling City": An Experiment in Two-Way Television." Public Opinion Quarterly, v28(3), p507-512. *Stember, Herbert & Herbert Hyman. 1949. " How Interviewer Effects Operate Through Question Form." International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research, v3, p493-512. *Stember, Herbert & Herbert Hyman. Winter, 1949-1950. "Interviewer Effects in the Classification of Responses." Public Opinion Quarterly, v13(4), p669-682. *Stephens, Mark W. & Pamela Delys. July, 1973. "A Locus of Control Measure for Preschool Children." Developmental Psychology, v9(1 ), p55-65. *Stewart, Isabel A. Nov. 1948. "An Interviewer's Report on Adult Sociometric Study." Sociometry, v11 (4), p308-319. *Stock, J. Stevens & Joseph R. Hochstim. Summer, 1951. "A Method of Measuring Interviewer Variability." Public Opinion Quarterly, v15(2), p322-334. *Stryker, Sheldon. June, 1977. "Developments in "Two Social Psychologies": Toward an Appreciation of Mutual Relevance." Sociometry, v40(2), p145- 160. *Sudman, Seymour. Nov., 1983. "Survey Research and Technological Change." Sociological Methods and Research, v12(2), p217-230. Sudman, Seymour, Norman M. Bradburn, Ed Blair & Carol Stocking. Nov., 1977. "Modest Expectations: The Effects of Interviewers' Prior Expectations on Response." Sociological Methods and Research, v6(2), p171-182. Sudman, Seymour, Norman M. Bradburn & Norbert Schwarz. 1996. Thinking About Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. *Tanur, Judith M. 1983-1984. "Methods for Large-Scale Surveys and Experiments." Sociological Methodology, v14, p 1-71 . *Tessler, Mark A. June, 1971. "Interviewer Biasing Effects in a Tunisian Survey." Journal of Social Psychology, v84(1), p153-154. 119 *Thomas, Janet. July, 1988. "Women and Capitalism: Oppression or Emancipation? A Review Article." Comparative Studies in Society and History, v30(3), p534-549. *Tourangeau, Roger, Kenneth A. Rasinski, Norman Bradburn & Roy D'Andrade. Winter, 1989. "Carryover Effects in Attitude Surveys." Public Opinion Quarterly, v53(4), p495-524. *Traugott, Michael W. & Vincent Price. Summer, 1992. "A Review: Exit Polls in the 1989 Virginia Gubernatorial Race: Where Did They Go Wrong?" Public Opinion Quarterly, v56(2), p245-253. Tuckel, Peter S. & Barry M. Feinburg. Autumn, 1991. "The Answering Machine Poses Many Problems for Telephone Survey Researchers." Public Opinion Quarterly, v55(2), p200-217, *Tucker, Clyde. Spring, 1983. "Interviewer Effects in Telephone Surveys." Public Opinion Quarterly, v47(1 ), p84-95. *Tuckett, David A., Mary Boulton & Coral Olson. Mar., 1985. "A New Approach to the Measurement of Patients' Understanding of What They Are Told in Medical Consultations." Journal of Health and Social Behavior, v26(1), p27- 38. *Udry, J. Richard & Naomi M. Morris. Aug., 1967. "A Method for Validation of Reported Sexual Data." Journal of Marriage and the Family, v29(3), p442- 446. United States Census, 2000. *Van Der Zouwen, Johannes & Theo Van Tilburg. Aug., 2001. "Reactivity in Panel Studies and its Consequences for Testing Causal Hypotheses." Sociological Methods and Research, v30(1 ), p35-56. *Van Tilburg, Theo. Feb., 1998. Interviewer Effects in the Measurement of Personal Network Size: A Nonexperimental Study. Sociological Methods and Research, v26(3), p300-328. *Verotf, Joseph, Shirley Hatchett & Elizabeth Douvan. Autumn, 1992. "Consequences of Participating in a Longitudinal Study of Marriage." Public Opinion Quarterly, v56(3), p315-327. 120 *Visser, Penny S., Jon A. Krosnick, Jesse Marquette & Michael Curtin. Summer, 1996. "Mail Surveys for Election Forecasting? An Evaluation of the Columbus Dispatch Poll." Public Opinion Quarterly, v60(2), p181-227. *Walker, lain. Oct., 1992. "Effects of Interviewer's Sex on Responses to the Attitudes Toward Women Scale." The Journal of Social Psychology, v132(5), p675-678. *Wardrip, Jon P. May, 1980. A Comparison of the Susceptibility of Black versus White Respondents to Race-of-Interviewer Effects on Racial and Non-Racial Questions in Both Personal and Self-Administered Questionnaire Interviewing Situations. Dissertation. *Waters, Alan Rufus. Mar., 1974. "Understanding African Agriculture and Its Potential for Change." The Journal of Modern African Studies, v12(1 ), p45- 56. *Weeks, Michael F.& R. Paul Moore. Summer, 1981. "Ethnicity-of-Interviewer Effects on Ethnic Respondents." Public Opinion Quarterly, v45(2), p245-249. *Weiss, Carol. H. Winter, 1968-1969. "Validity of Welfare Mothers' Interview Responses." Public Opinion Quarterly, v32(4), p622-633. White, Howard. "Scientific Communication and Literature Retrieval." In Harris Cooper & Larry V. Hedges (Eds.), The Handbook of Research Synthesis, p41-55. *Williams, Christine L. & E. Joel Heikes. June, 1993. "The Importance of Researcher's Gender in the In-Depth Interview: Evidence From Two Case Studies of Male Nurses." Gender and Society, v7(2), p280-291. *Williams, J. Allen, Jr. Summer, 1968. "Interviewer Role Performance: A Further Note on Bias in the Information Interview." Public Opinion Quarterly, v32(2), p287-294. *Williams, J. Allen, Jr. Sept., 1964. "Interviewer-Respondent Interaction: A Study of Bias in the Information Interview." Sociometry, v27(3), p338-352. *Williams, J. Allen, Jr., Nicholas Babchuk & David R. Johnson. Oct., 1973. "Voluntary Associations and Minority Status: A Comparative Analysis of Anglo, Black, and Mexican Americans." American Sociological Review, v38(5), p637-646. *Willimack, Diane K., Howard Schuman, Beth-Ellen Pennell & James M. Lepkowski. Spring, 1995. "Effects of a Prepaid Nonmonetary Incentive on Response 121 Rates aned Response Quality in a Face-to-Face Survey." Public Opinion Quarterly, v59(1 ), p78-92. *Wilson, Sandra R., Nancy L. Brown, Carolina Mejia & Philip Lavori. Feb., 2002. "Effects of Interviewer Characteristics on Reported Sexual Behavior of California Latino Couples." Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, v24(1 ), p38-62. *Wiseman, Frederick, Theresa F. Rogers, Robert M. Groves & Tom W. Smith. 1989. "Mode of Administration." In Eleanor Singer & Stanley Presser (Eds.), Survey Research Methods: A Reader, p187-244. *Wood, Albert J. & Albert B. Blankenship. Spring, 1944. "Getting Women Workers." Public Opinion Quarterly, v8(1), p100-103. *Woodward, Julian L. Autumn, 1951. "Public Opinion Research 1951-1970: A Not Too Reverent History." Public Opinion Quarterly, v15(3), p405-420. *Wyatt, W. Joseph. July-Aug., 1999. "Assessment of Child Sexual Abuse: Research and Proposal for a Bias-Free Interview, part II." Forensic Examiner, v8(7-8), p24-27.