Do interviewers' voice characteristics influence cooperation rates in telephone surveys?

International Journal of Public Opinion Research

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 488-499

  Van Der Vaart, Wander ^a   Ongena, Yfke ^a   Hoogendoorn, Adriaan ^a   Dijkstra, Wil ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845235686     PISSN: 09542892     EISSN: 14716909     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ijpor/edh117     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2000). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. Ann Arbor, MI: AAPOR.
2. Barath, A., & Cannell, C. F. (1976). Effect of interviewer's voice intonation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40, 370-373.
3. Blair, E. (1978). More on the effects of interviewers voice intonation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 41, 544-548.
4. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2000). Praat [linguistic program]. Amsterdam: Department of Phonetics, University of Amsterdam.
5. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1987). Stalking rudimentary processes of social influence: A psychological approach.' In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 41-73). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Cialdini, R. B. (1987). Compliance and principles of compliance professionals: Psychologists of necessity. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 165-184). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Cialdini, R. B. (1988). Influence: Science and practice. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
8. Dijkstra, W., & Smit, J. H. (2002). Persuading reluctant recipients in telephone surveys. In R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, & R. J. A. Little (Eds.), Survey Nonresponse (pp. 121-134). New York: Wiley.
9. Dillman, D., Gallegos, J. G., & Rencher, A. C. (1976). Reducing refusal rates for telephone interviews. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40, 66-78.
10. Groves, R. M., & Couper, M. P. (1998). Non-response in household interview surveys. New York: Wiley.
11. Groves, R. M., & McGonnacle, K. A. (2001). A theory-guided interviewer training protocol regarding survey participation. Journal of Official Statistics, 17, 249-265.
12. Haan, J. (2001). Speaking of questions: An exploration of Dutch question intonation. Ph.D. thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.
13. Hüfken, V., & Schäfer, A. (2003). Zum Einfluss stimmlicher Merkmale und Überzeugungsstrategien der Interviewer auf die Teilnahme in Telefonumfragen [On the influence of interviewers' vocal features and persuasion strategies on participation in telephone surveys]. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 55, 321-339.
14. Maynard, D. W., & Schaeffer, N. C. (1997). Keeping the gate: Declinations of the request to participate in a telephone survey interview. Sociological Methods & Research, 26, 34-79.
15. McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30-46.
16. Ohala, J. J. (1994). The frequency code underlies the sound-symbolic use of voice pitch. In L. Hinton, J. Nichols, & J. Ohala (Eds.), Sound symbolisms (pp. 325-347). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. Oksenberg, L., & Cannell, C. F. (1988). Effects of vocal characteristics on nonresponse. In R. M. Groves, P. P. Biemer, L. E. Lyberg, J. T. Massey, W. L. Nichols, & J. Waksberg (Eds.), Telephone survey methodology (pp. 257-269). New York: Wiley.
18. Oksenberg, L., Coleman, L., & Cannell, C. F. (1986). Interviewers' voices and refusal rates in telephone surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 97-111.
19. Pondman, L. M. (1998). The influence of the interviewer on the refusal rate in telephone interviews. Ph.D. thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.
20. Sharf, D. J., & Lehman, M. E. (1984). Relationship between the speech characteristics and effectiveness of telephone interviewers. Journal of Phonetics, 12, 219-228.
21. Smit, E. G., & Neijens, P. C. (2000). Segmentation based on affinity for advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 40, 35-43.
22. Smith, S. M., & Shaffer, D. R. (1991). Celerity and cajolery: Rapid speech may promote or inhibit persuasion through its impact on message elaboration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 663-669.
23. Smith, S. M., & Shaffer, D. R. (1995). Speed of speech and persuasion: Evidence for multiple effects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1051-1060.