发展中国家的调查模式效应

Noam Lupu, Adam D. Wolsky
{"title":"发展中国家的调查模式效应","authors":"Noam Lupu, Adam D. Wolsky","doi":"10.14201/rlop.30159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":" \n\n\n\n\nResponses to phone surveys tend to exhibit higher rates of social desirability bias and extreme responses when compared to face-to-face surveys. Yet, studies of mode effects typically compare either representative studies that implausibly assume comparability or experimental studies that rely on convenience samples. Our study compares two national probability samples but uses matching to address comparability. We study Costa Rica, a middle-income democracy, to see whether the conventional wisdom drawn from Western Europe and North America extends to the Global South. We analyze two nationally representative surveys, one fielded by phone and one face-to-face, allowing us to compare identically worded items we placed on both surveys. We find that phone respondents exhibited more socially desirable responding and were more likely to choose negative endpoints on scalar items. This suggests that survey researchers and practitioners should carefully assess the tradeoffs in shifting modes or employing mixed modes.\n\n\n\n","PeriodicalId":52748,"journal":{"name":"Revista Latinoamericana de Opinion Publica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Survey Mode Effects in a Developing Country\",\"authors\":\"Noam Lupu, Adam D. Wolsky\",\"doi\":\"10.14201/rlop.30159\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\" \\n\\n\\n\\n\\nResponses to phone surveys tend to exhibit higher rates of social desirability bias and extreme responses when compared to face-to-face surveys. Yet, studies of mode effects typically compare either representative studies that implausibly assume comparability or experimental studies that rely on convenience samples. Our study compares two national probability samples but uses matching to address comparability. We study Costa Rica, a middle-income democracy, to see whether the conventional wisdom drawn from Western Europe and North America extends to the Global South. We analyze two nationally representative surveys, one fielded by phone and one face-to-face, allowing us to compare identically worded items we placed on both surveys. We find that phone respondents exhibited more socially desirable responding and were more likely to choose negative endpoints on scalar items. This suggests that survey researchers and practitioners should carefully assess the tradeoffs in shifting modes or employing mixed modes.\\n\\n\\n\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":52748,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Latinoamericana de Opinion Publica\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista Latinoamericana de Opinion Publica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14201/rlop.30159\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Latinoamericana de Opinion Publica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14201/rlop.30159","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

与面对面调查相比,对电话调查的回应往往表现出更高的社会期望偏差率和极端回应率。然而,模式效应的研究通常比较不可信地假设可比性的代表性研究或依赖便利样本的实验研究。我们的研究比较了两个国家的概率样本,但使用匹配来解决可比性问题。我们研究了哥斯达黎加这个中等收入的民主国家,看看西欧和北美的传统智慧是否延伸到了全球南方。我们分析了两项具有全国代表性的调查,一项是通过电话进行的,另一项是面对面进行的,这使我们能够比较两项调查中措辞相同的项目。我们发现,电话受访者表现出更受社会欢迎的反应,更有可能在标量项目上选择负面终点。这表明,调查研究人员和从业者应该仔细评估转换模式或采用混合模式的权衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Survey Mode Effects in a Developing Country
  Responses to phone surveys tend to exhibit higher rates of social desirability bias and extreme responses when compared to face-to-face surveys. Yet, studies of mode effects typically compare either representative studies that implausibly assume comparability or experimental studies that rely on convenience samples. Our study compares two national probability samples but uses matching to address comparability. We study Costa Rica, a middle-income democracy, to see whether the conventional wisdom drawn from Western Europe and North America extends to the Global South. We analyze two nationally representative surveys, one fielded by phone and one face-to-face, allowing us to compare identically worded items we placed on both surveys. We find that phone respondents exhibited more socially desirable responding and were more likely to choose negative endpoints on scalar items. This suggests that survey researchers and practitioners should carefully assess the tradeoffs in shifting modes or employing mixed modes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Peru: Deep Political Dissatisfaction Weakens Support for Democracy Andy Baker, Barry Ames, and Lúcio Rennó. Persuasive Peers: Social Communication and Voting in Latin America. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2020. 369 pages. ISBN 9780691205786. Clientelist Mobilization and Political Participation Outside of the Electoral Arena The Power of Political Discussion: Uncovering the Influence of Networks on Vote Choice and its Mechanisms Does China’s Rise influence anti-Americanism? Evidence from Colombia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1