Role playing in the interview: towards a theory of artifacts in the survey-interview

  • Wil Dijkstra
  • Johannes van der Zouwen

Abstract

The method of data collection generally used in the social sciences is the interview (e.g. Brown and Gilmartin, 1969): a procedure by means of which a respondent is induced, through a series of questions presented by an interviewer, to give verbal information about himself which is of interest for a researcher (Scheuch, 1967).

Keywords

Covariance Lawson Berman Marquis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Back, K. W. and K. J. Gergen, ‘Idea orientation and ingratiation in the interview: A dynamic model of response bias.’ Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section of the American Statistical Association, Technical Report No. 13, 284–288, 1963.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, J. S. and B. G. Gilmartin, ‘Sociology today: Lacunae, emphases and surfeits.’ Amencan Sociologist 4, 283–291, 1969.Google Scholar
  3. Cannell, C. F., K. H. Marquis and A. Laurent, ‘A summary of studies of interviewing methodology.’ Vital and Health Statistics, Series 2, Nr. 69, 1977.Google Scholar
  4. Cannell, C. F., L. Oksenberg and J. M. Converse, Experiments in interviewing techniques: Field experiments in health reporting, 1971–1977, Hyattsville: NCHSR, 1977.Google Scholar
  5. Cartwright, D. and F. Harary, ‘Structural Balance: A generalization of Heider’s theory.’ The Psychological Review 63, 277–293, 1956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Converse, J. M., ‘Predicting No Opinion in the Polls.’ Public Opinion Quarterly 40, 515–530, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dexter, L. A., ‘Role relationships and conceptions of neutrality in interviewing.’ American Journal of Sociology 62, 153–157, 1956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dijkstra, W. and J. van der Zouwen, ‘Testing auxiliary hypotheses behind the interview.’ Annals of Systems Research 6, 49–63, 1977.Google Scholar
  9. Freeman, J. and E. W. Butler, ‘Some sources of interviewer variance in surveys.’ Public Opinion Quarterly 40, 79–92, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goudy, W. L. and H. R. Potter, ‘Interview rapport: Demise of a concept.’ Public Opinion Quarterly 39, 529–543, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hatchett, S. and H. Schuman, ‘White respondents and race-of-interviewer effects.’ Public Opinion Quarterly 39, 523–528, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heider, F., ‘Attitudes and cognitive organization.’ Journal of Psychology 21, 107–112, 1946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Henson, R., ‘Effects of instructions and verbal modeling in a survey interview setting.’ Social Science Research 3, 323–342, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Henson, R., C. F. Cannell and S. Lawson, ‘Effects of interviewer style on quality of reporting in a survey interview.’ Journal of Psychology 93, 221–227, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Insko, C. A. and R. B. Cialdini, ‘A test of three interpretations of attitudinal verbal reinforcement.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 12, 333–341, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Phillips, D. L., Knowledge from what? Theories and Methods in Social Research, Chicago: Rand McNally, 1971.Google Scholar
  17. Phillips, D. L., Abandoning Method: Sociological studies in Methodology, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1973.Google Scholar
  18. Rosnow, R. L. and L. S. Aiken, ‘Mediation of artifacts in behavioral research.’ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 9, 181–201, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sarbin, T. R. and V. L. Allen, ‘Role Theory’ in G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. I, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 488–567, 1968.Google Scholar
  20. Scheuch, E. K., ‘Das Interview in der Sozialforschung’ in R. König (ed.), Handbuch der empirischen Sozialforschung, Vol. I, Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke, 136–196, 1967.Google Scholar
  21. Shulman, A. D. and H. J. Berman, ‘Role expectations about subjects and experimenters in psychological research.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32, 368–380, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Silverman, I., The human subject in the psychological laboratory, New York: Pergamon, 1977.Google Scholar
  23. Sudman, S. and N. M. Bradhurn, Response effects in surveys, Chicago: Aldine, 1974.Google Scholar
  24. Weber, S. J. and T. D. Cook, ‘Subject effects in laboratory research: An examination of subject roles, demand characteristics, and valid inference.’ Psychological Bulletin 77, 273–295, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weiss, C. H., ‘Interviewing in evaluation research’ in E. L. Struening and M. Gutentag (eds.), Handbook of evaluation research, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 355–395, 1975.Google Scholar
  26. Zouwen, J. van der, ‘A conceptual model for the auxiliary hypotheses behind the interview.’ Annals of Systems Research 4, 21–37, 1974.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© R. F. Geyer and J. van der Zouwen 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wil Dijkstra
  • Johannes van der Zouwen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations