Strangers in the Field: A Methodological Experiment on Interviewer-Respondent Familiarity.

Abstract

Evaluating a long-term methodological norm - the use of interviewers who have no prior social relationship to respondents - we compare response patterns across levels of interviewer-respondent familiarity. We differentiate three distinct levels of interviewer-respondent familiarity, based on whether the interviewer is directly acquainted with the respondent or their family, acquainted with the research setting, or is a complete outsider. We also identify three mechanisms through which variability in interviewer-respondent familiarity can affect survey responses: the effort a respondent is willing to make; their level of trust in the interviewer; and interview-specific situational factors. Using data from a methodological experiment fielded in the Dominican Republic, we then gauge the effects of each of these on a range of behavioral and attitudinal questions. Empirical results suggest that respondents expend marginally more effort in answering questions posed by insider-interviewers, and that they also lie less to insider-interviewers. Differences in responses to "trust" questions also largely favor insider-interviewers. Overall, therefore, local interviewers, including those whom, in blatant violation of the stranger-interviewer norm, have a prior relationship with the respondent, collect superior data on some items. And on almost no item do they collect data that are measurably worse.