Interviewer Vocal Characteristics and RDD Screener Refusal Rates

1. Interviewer Vocal Characteristics and RDD Screener Refusal Rates Author: Katrina Ott, MA Presenter: Diane Burkom, MA

2. Problem • Difference in screener refusal rates among our interviewers completing two large national RDD studies. • Majority of refusals occur within the opening minutes. • Key is getting the person hooked into the study during the first few sentences – standardized script. • If everyone is saying the same words, why then are some interviewers significantly more successful than their counterparts?

3. Limited Research • Study by Oskenberg, Coleman, and Cannell (1986): • Refusals in face-to-face interviews are often attributed not only to content, but to the R’s perception of the interviewer during the initial introduction. Based on appearance. • In phone interviews, appearance cues are absent; auditory stimuli are the sole basis for evaluation. • Characteristics of voice and speech patterns provide the basis for first impressions. • If vocal characteristics lead the respondent to perceive the interviewer asunappealing, cooperation will be less likely.

4. Limited Research • Study by Okenberg and Cannell (1988) attempt to define these appealing characteristics: • Interviewers rated as speaking rapidly, loudly, and with a standard American pronunciation and perceived as sounding competent and confident had lower screener refusal rates than those with opposite patterns. • Also found that interviewers who used falling intonations are likely to achieve higher cooperation rates than interviewers who use rising intonations. • Our observations on two large RDD studies have been those interviewers with lower refusal rates did not always have these patterns. In fact, some had the opposite.

5. Qualitative Observations • Interviewer A: • Male • Speaks rapidly and loudly • Excellent pronunciation • Perceived as sounding competent and confident – sounds like principal investigator is calling • Fits the research standard

6. Qualitative Observations • Interviewer B: • Top producer on current RDD study • Female • Quiet • Slower pace • Sweet and nice voice • Has infectious positive attitude • Her mantra is “dial and smile”

7. Qualitative Observations • Interviewer C: • Female • Moderate volume • Slow pace • Clear pronunciation • Familiar, but not overly confident

8. Qualitative Observations • Interviewer D: • Female • Moderate volume • Slow pace • Sweet and nice voice • Mispronunciations – not used on some other studies because of this

9. Qualitative Observations • Interviewer E: • Female • Extremely quiet • Shy and timid • Good pronunciation • We were hesitant to assign her to RDD studies – surprised at her rates

10. Qualitative Observations • Interviewer F: • Top producer • Female • Moderate volume and pace • Does not have a standard American pronunciation – Island accent • Pleasant and appealing voice and accent

11. Qualitative Observations • Interviewer G: • Not successful – worked on same study as Interviewer F • Also did not have standard American pronunciation – African accent • Male • Moderate volume and pace Perhaps the kind of accent is significant?

12. Why these differences? • Perhaps other factors are involved. • Study by Singer, Frankel, and Glassman (1983) • Reported that expectations about the ease of persuading Rs to be interviewed had a strong and significant effect on response rate. • Suggest that general attitudes of optimism or pessimism are significant. • Our interviewers who did not have some of the more successful vocal characteristics suggested by Okenberg and Cannell are definitely optimistic. • “Smile and dial” seems to work.

13. Hiring and Training Issues • Interviewers characterized by high or low response rates – tend to remain consistent across studies and over time. • If factors can be identified, this has implications for hiring and training. • Process of taping introductions and using them as learning tool. • We have already begun to see results.

14. References • Oskenberg, L. & Cannell, C. (1988). Effects of interviewer vocal characteristics on nonresponse. In R. M. Groves, P.P. Biemer, L.E. Lyberg, J.T. Massey, W.L. Nicholls II, and J. Waksberg (eds.), Telephone Survey Methodology. New York: John Wiley. • Oskenberg, L., Coleman, L., & Cannell, C. F. “Interviewers’ Voices and Refusal Rates in Telephone Surveys”. Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 50, 1986, pp. 97 – 111. • Singer, E., Frankel, M. R., & Glassman, M. B. “The Effect of Interviewer Characteristics and Expectations on Response”. Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 47, 1983, pp. 68-83.

15. For further information • Please contact: Katrina Ott Telephone: 410-372-2735 E-mail: ottk@battelle.org