INTERVIEW MODE EFFECTS IN SURVEYS OF DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE: A FIELD EXPERIMENT

This research explores the impact of interview mode on respondents' willingness to reveal illicit or undesirable behav- ior and mechanisms by which interview mode influences re- sponse tendencies. A field experiment was designed to control mode effects due to sampling and screening so that the impact of response anonymity (through use of self-administered ques- tionnaires (SAQs)) and social distance in the interviewer- respondent relationship (telephone vs. personal communication) could be tested. Respondents aged 18-45 were randomly as- signed to interview mode: telephone, face-to-face, or self- administered. Admission of illicit drug use and alcohol use was most likely in the personal mode with SAQs, slightly less likely in personal mode without SAQs, and least likely in the telephone mode. The magnitude of the mode differentials was larger for blacks than for whites, and larger among respondents who are more mistrustful of others. Results support the notion that re- sponse effects due to mode of interview derive, at least in part, from interview mode differences in ability to assuage respon- dents' confidentiality concerns. Greater social distance between interviewer and respondent in the telephone interview, compared with face-to-face communication, makes it more difficult for the researcher to make convincing confidentiality guarantees. The response anonymity provided by SAQs also appears to increase respondents' willingness to reveal sensitive behavior, especially among racial/ethnic minorities.

[1]  W. Aquilino,et al.  Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing for household drug use surveys. , 1992, The International journal of the addictions.

[2]  Judith T. Lessler,et al.  Effects of mode of administration and wording on reporting of drug use; DHHS Pub. No. (ADM) 92-1929; Technical paper 8 , 1991 .

[3]  Gfroerer Jc,et al.  The feasibility of collecting drug abuse data by telephone. , 1991 .

[4]  F. Strack,et al.  The impact of administration mode on response effects in survey measurement , 1991 .

[5]  J. Gfroerer,et al.  The feasibility of collecting drug abuse data by telephone. , 1991, Public health reports.

[6]  W. Aquilino,et al.  EFFECTS OF INTERVIEW MODE ON SELF-REPORTED DRUG USE , 1990 .

[7]  R. Groves.  Theories and Methods of Telephone Surveys , 1990 .

[8]  Charles B. Hallahan,et al.  LIMDEP (Version 5) , 1989 .

[9]  Willard L. Rodgers,et al.  INTERVIEWING OLDER ADULTS MODE COMPARISON USING DATA FROM A FACE-TO-FACE SURVEY AND A TELEPHONE RESURVEY , 1988 .

[10]  P. Miller.  Alternative Question Forms for Attitude Scale Questions in Telephone Interviews , 1984 .

[11]  Christopher Winship,et al.  REGRESSION MODELS WITH ORDINAL VARIABLES , 1984 .

[12]  A. Herzog,et al.  Interviewing Older Adults: A Comparison of Telephone and Face-to-Face Modalities , 1983 .

[13]  Thomas W. Mangione,et al.  Collecting Sensitive Data , 1982 .

[14]  Robert M. Groves,et al.  Surveys by Telephone: A National Comparison With Personal Interviews. , 1980 .

[15]  J. Siemiatycki.  A comparison of mail, telephone, and home interview strategies for household health surveys. , 1979, American journal of public health.

[16]  Seymour Sudman,et al.  Question Threat and Response Bias , 1978 .

[17]  Charles F. Cannell,et al.  Effects of Interview Mode on Reporting of Moods, Symptoms, and Need for Social Approval , 1978 .

[18]  J. B. Herman,et al.  Mixed-mode data collection: Telephone and personal interviewing. , 1977 .

[19]  Kenneth R. Tremblay,et al.  “Interviews by Telephone and in Person: Quality of Responses and Field Performance” , 1977 .

[20]  Estimates of Threatening Behavior Based on Reports of Friends , 1977 .

[21]  Seymour Sudman,et al.  Response Effects in Surveys: A Review and Synthesis , 1974 .

[22]  Frederick Wiseman,et al.  METHODOLOGICAL BIAS IN PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS , 1972 .