Interview Effects in an Environmental Valuation Telephone Survey

Abstract

Abstract.Because of the lack of markets for many environmental services, economists have turned to valuation surveys to estimate the value of these services. However, lack of market experience may cause respondents in valuation surveys to be more prone to interview effects than they would be with other opinion surveys. Without reference to market price or experience, respondents are less likely to have well-defined preferences, which may cause respondents to be more easily influenced by the interview process and characteristics of the interviewer. In this paper, we investigate interview effects in a random digit dial telephone survey of recycling valuation and behavior. Following previous research in both psychology and survey methodology, we test the direct effects of interviewer gender and race, as well as the interaction effects between interviewer and respondent characteristics. Using data from 130 interviewers and 1,786 interviewees, we apply a hierarchical regression model that accounts for the clustering of interviews and controls for a variety of other confounding variables. We confirm the existence of both direct and conditional interviewer effects. Respondents state higher willingness to pay when interviewed by white or female interviewers than by non-white or male interviewers. There were also significant interaction effects between interviewer and respondent characteristics. The directions of the interviewer effects are consistent with previous survey research and social psychology theories. We also identify some non-traditional interview process factors that have an influence on survey responses.

Using Field Experiments in Environmental and Resource Economics

“…For example, while Lusk (2003) finds that cheap talk eliminated bias amongst ordinary consumers, there is no such evidence when considering the sample of knowledgeable consumers. Similar insights are reported in a number of other framed field experiments, see e.g., List (2001), Aadland andCaplan (2003, 2006), and Blumenschein et al (2008).…”

“…Loureiro and Lotade (2005) find that WTP for eco-labeled products are approximately 128.6 to 177.9 percent greater amongst subjects approached by an interviewer from a region that produces the products. Gong and Aadland (2009) find that monthly WTP for curbside recycling was approximately 7 -8% higher amongst respondents interviewed by a Caucasian or a woman.…”

Survey misreporting of welfare receipt—Respondent, interviewer, and interview characteristics

“…Among others, McKenzie (1977), Riphahn and Serfling (2005), and Gong and Aadland (2011) confirm the relevance of matched respondent-interviewer characteristics with respect to, e.g., gender, and race. Our evidence supports that matching the interview participants on migration background and education can yield a significantly lower propensity of welfare underreporting.…”

Data collection challenges experienced while conducting the international alcohol control study (IAC) in Tshwane, South Africa

“…Based on our understanding of the communities from our previous surveys, our fieldworkers interviewed participants during the week and at weekends as potential participants were at work or school during the week. Some literature sources such as Gong and Aadland (2011) suggest that participants are more likely to participate in a survey if they are approached between 5 pm and 9 pm on weeknights and not over the weekend. While this may be true for some contexts, and not for others such as in the South Africa context, it may highlight the importance and need for a comprehensive formative phase, prior to implementation, to establish the most ideal times to conduct fieldwork.…”

“…Blohm, Hox, and Koch (2006) found that fieldworkers who emphasise the importance of a survey are less successful in persuading potential respondents to participate in a survey than those who do not. According to the Social Attribution Model, respondents edit their responses to conform to what they perceive to be the interviewer's norms and expectations based purely on the interviewer's observable characteristics (Gong & Aadland, 2011).…”