Who's calling? the impact of caller id on telephone survey response

Field Methods

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 175-191

  Callegaro, Mario ^a   McCutcheon, Allan L ^b   Ludwig, Jack ^c  

^a GOOGLE INC   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

^c Gallup Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

Advance notification; Caller ID; List sample; RDD sample; Response rates; Unknown caller

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952340484     PISSN: 1525822X     EISSN: 15523969     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1525822X09356046     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. American Association for Public Opinion Research. 2008. Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. 5th ed. Lenexa, KS: American Association for Public Opinion Research.
2. American Teleservices Association. 2002. Consumer study 2002. http://www.ataconnect.org/public/resourcecenter/consumerstudy2002.php (accessed June 2008).
3. Barron, M., and M. Khare. 2008. Manipulating caller ID for higher survey response in RDD surveys. In 2007 JSM proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section: 62nd annual conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research [CD-ROM], ed. American Statistical Association, 3957-3962. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.
4. Battaglia, M., M. Khare, L.R. Frankel, M. Cay Murray, P. Buckley, and S. Peritz. 2007. Response rates: How have they changed and where are they headed? In Advances in telephone survey methodology, ed. J. Lepkowski, C. Tucker, M. Brick, E. De Leeuw, L. Japec, P. J. Lavrakas, M. Link, and R. Sangster, 529-60. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
5. Brick, M., D. Martin, P. Warren, and J. Wivagg. 2003. Increased efforts in RDD surveys. In Proceedings of the 57th annual conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research [CD-ROM], ed. American Statistical Association, 26-31. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.
6. Brown, K.D., M.W. Link, K.D. Vallar, N.G. Trussel, and C.D. Shuttles. 2008. Turning the tables: Use of caller-ID signaling to improve response to a multi-stage dual-mode survey. Paper presented at the 63rd conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, New Orleans, LA, May 15-18.
7. Brunner, G.A., and S.J. Carroll, Jr. 1969. The effect of prior notification on the refusal rate in fixed address surveys. Journal of Advertising Research 9 (1): 4.
8. Couper, M.P. 2005. Technology trends in survey data collection. Social Science Computer Review 23 (4): 486-501.
9. Curtin, R., S. Presser, and E. Singer. 2005. Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the past quarter century. Public Opinion Quarterly 69 (1): 87-98.
10. Dillman, D.A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys. The total design method. New York: John Wiley.
11. Fernandez, B.M., and K.M. Hannah. 2007. The impacts of caller ID on response and refusal rates for the BRFSS. Paper presented at the 62nd annual conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Anaheim, CA, May 17-20.
12. Frankel, L.R. 1983. The report of the CASRO Task Force on response rates. In Improving data quality in a sample survey. Proceedings of Marketing Science Institute workshop, November 8, 1982, ed. F. Wiseman, 1-11. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
13. Frankel, L.R. 2004. RDD surveys: Past and future. In Eighth conference on health survey research methods, ed. A. A Cohen and J. M. Lepkowski, 131-35. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.
14. Glaser, P. 2006. CMOR industry image study 2006. Paper presented at the respondent cooperation workshop, San Antonio, TX, September 13-15.
15. Groves, R.M., and M.P. Couper. 1998. Nonresponse in household interview surveys. New York: John Wiley.
16. Groves, R.M., E. Singer, and A. Corning. 2000. Leverage-saliency theory of survey participation. Public Opinion Quarterly 64 (3): 299-308.
17. Lepkowski, J.M. 1999. More about telephone surveys. ASA series What is a survey? Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research Methods.
18. Link, M.W., and R.W. Oldenick. 1999. Call screening: It is really a problem for survey research? Public Opinion Quarterly 63 (4): 577-89.
19. Lynn, P., R. Beerten, J. Laiho, and J. Martin. 2002. Towards standardisation of survey outcome categories and response rate calculations. Research in Official Statistics 5 (1): 61-84.
20. Matos, J., and K. Krey. 2005. When a stranger calls. The impact of caller ID on telephone surveys. Poster presented at the 60th annual conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Miami Beach, FL, May 12-15.
21. Melgar, A.P., P.J. Lavrakas, and T.N. Thompson. 2004. Evaluating an ad campaign to raise a survey organization's name recognition. Paper presented at the 59th annual conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Phoenix, AZ, May 13-16.
22. Mukherjee, R., and R. Samarajiva. 1996. Regulating caller ID emulation and learning in U.S. state-level telecommunication policy processes. Telecommunications Policy 20 (7): 531-42.
23. Nathan, G. 2001. Telesurvey methodologies for household surveys-A review and some thoughts for the future. Survey Methodology 27 (1): 7-31.
24. Okon, A.A., J.C. Moore, and N.A. Bates. 2008. Census Bureau vs. Unknown Caller-Caller-ID displays and survey cooperation, 2008-5. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/srd/papers/pdf/rsm2008-05.pdf (accessed October 2009).
25. Pew Research Center. 2004. Polls face growing resistance, but still representative survey experiment shows. http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/211.pdf (accessed June 2008).
26. Roth, S. Brock, J. Montaquila, and M. Brick. 2002. Effects of telephone technologies and call screening devices on sampling, weighting and cooperation in a random digit dialing (RDD) survey. In Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods annual conference 2001 [CD-ROM]. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association. Available athttp://www.amstat.org/sections/SRMS/Proceedings/y2001/Proceed/00197.pdf.
27. Steeh, C., N. Kirgis, B. Cannon, and J. DeWitt. 2001. Are they really as bad as they seem? Nonresponse rates at the end of the twentieth century. Journal of Official Statistics 17 (2): 227-47.
28. Tortora, B. 2004. Response trends in a national random digit dial survey. Metodološki zvezki 1 (1): 21-32.
29. Tourangeau, R., ed. 2004. Recurring surveys: Issue and opportunities. Report to the National Science Foundation based on a workshop, Arlington, VA, March 28-29, 2003.
30. Trussell, N., and P.J. Lavrakas. 2005. Testing the impact of caller ID technology on response rates in a mixed mode survey. Paper presented at the 60th annual conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Miami Beach, FL, May 12-15.
31. Tuckel, P. 1996. New technologies and response bias in RDD surveys. In Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, American Statistical Association, 889-94. Washington, DC: American Statistical Association.
32. Tuckel, P. 2001. The vanishing respondent in telephone surveys. In Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods [CD-ROM]. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.
33. Tuckel, P., and H.W. O'Neill. 1996. Screened out. New telephone technologies erect barriers to researchers, but it's nothing personal. Marketing Research B (3): 34-43.