Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Journal of Official Statistics

The Journal of Statistics Sweden

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.411
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.776

CiteScore 2016: 0.63

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.710
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.975

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2001-7367
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Interviewer Effects on Non-Differentiation and Straightlining in the European Social Survey

Geert Loosveldt / Koen Beullens
Published Online: 2017-06-12 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jos-2017-0020

Abstract

In this article we examine the interviewer effects on different aspects of response styles, namely non-differentiation and straightlining, which in general refers to the tendency to provide the same answers to questions in a block of questions. According to research about response styles, the impact of the interviewer on this kind of response behavior is rare. Five blocks of items in the questionnaire in the sixth round of the European Social Survey (2012) are used in the analysis. These data also allow for an evaluation of the differences between countries in terms of non-differentiation and straightlining. Five different measurements of these aspects of response style are used in the analysis. To disentangle the impact of respondents and interviewers on these aspects of response style, a three-level random intercept model is specified. The results clearly show interviewer effects on the respondent’s tendency to select a response category that is the same as the response category for the previous item. In some countries the proportion of explained variance due to differences between interviewers is larger than the proportion of variance explained by the differences between respondents.

This article offers supplementary material which is provided at the end of the article.

Keywords: Response style; three level random intercept model

7. References

  • Chang, L. and J. Krosnick. 2009. “National Surveys via RDD Telephone Interviewing versus the Internet. Comparing Sample Representativeness and Response Quality.” Public Opinion Quarterly 74: 641–678. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp075.Crossref

  • Greenleaf, E. 1992. “Measuring Extreme Response Styles.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 56(3): 328–351. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/269326.Crossref

  • Groves, R. and L. Lyberg. 2010. “Total Survey Error: Past, Present, and Future.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 74(5): 849–879. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfq065.Crossref

  • Hox, J. 2010. Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Hox, J., E. de Leeuw, and I. Kreft. 1991. “The Effect of Interviewer and Respondent Characteristics on the Quality of Survey Data: a Multilevel Model.” In Measurement Errors in Surveys, edited by P. Biemer, R. Groves, L. Lyberg, N. Mathiowetz, and S. Sudman. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

  • Krosnick, J. 1991. “Response Strategies for Coping with the Cognitive Demands of Attitude Measures in Surveys.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 5(3): 213–236. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350050305.Crossref

  • Krosnick, J. and F. Alwin. 1988. “A Test of the Form-Resistant Correlation Hypothesis: Ratings, Rankings, and the Measurement of Values.” Public Opinion Quarterly 52(4): 526–538.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Loosveldt, G. and K. Beullens. 2013. “The Impact of Respondents and Interviewers on Interview Speed in Face-to-Face Interviews.” Social Science Research 42(6): 1422–1430. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.06.005.Crossref

  • Malnar, B. and K.H. Müller. 2014. Surveys and Self-Reflexivity: A Second-Order Study of the European Social Survey (ESS). Wien: Echoraum.Google Scholar

  • Olson, K. and I. Bilgen. 2011. “The Role of Interviewer Experience on Acquiescence.” Public Opinion Quarterly 75(1): 99–114. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfq067.Crossref

  • Simon, H. 1956. “Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment.” Psychological Review 63(2): 129–138. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0042769.Crossref

  • Van Vaerenberg, Y. and T. Thomas. 2013. “Response Styles in Survey Research: A Literature Review of Antecedents, Consequences, and Remedies.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 25(2): 195–217. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/eds021.Crossref

  • Weijters, B., E. Cabooter, and N. Schillewaert. 2010b. “The Effect of Rating Scale Format on Response Styles. The Number of Response Categories and Response Category Labels.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 27(3): 236–247. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.02.004.Crossref

  • Weijters, B., M. Geuens, and N. Schillewaert. 2010a. “The Stability of Individual Response Styles.” Psychological Methods 15(1): 96–110. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018721.Crossref

  • Zhang, C. and F. Conrad. 2013. “Speeding in Web Surveys: The Tendency to Answer Very Fast and its Association With Straightlining.” Survey Research Methods 8(2): 127–135. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.18148/srm/2014.v8i2.5453.Crossref

About the article

Received: 2016-01-01

Revised: 2017-02-01

Accepted: 2017-03-01

Published Online: 2017-06-12

Published in Print: 2017-06-01


Citation Information: Journal of Official Statistics, Volume 33, Issue 2, Pages 409–426, ISSN (Online) 2001-7367, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jos-2017-0020.

Export Citation

© 2017 Geert Loosveldt et al., published by De Gruyter Open. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Supplementary Article Materials

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in