The Effect of Interviewers’ and Respondents’ Accent and Gender on Willingness to Cooperate in Telephone Surveys

Marie-José Palmen, Marinel Gerritsen, Renée van Bezooijen

Department of Business Communication Studies, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

DOI: 10.4236/ojml.2012.24021                

Abstract

This article presents two real-life experiments that investigate whether an interviewer’s accent and gender combined with a respondent’s accent and gender have an impact on telephone survey cooperation rates. Expectations were based on the authority and liking principles of the compliance theory. In Study 1, 12 standard-speaking interviewers (6 men, 6 women) and 12 interviewers with a regional accent (6 men, 6 women) called 1925 male and female respondents (speaking either the standard or the regional variety). In Study 2, a female interviewer who mastered the standard accent and the regional variety, called 120 respondents from the same categories as in Study 1. The expectations were not confirmed. Interviewers with authority (male, speaking standard Dutch) had no more success than interviewers with less authority (female, speaking a regional accent), and agreement of gender and accent between interviewer and respondent had no impact on the level of cooperation of the respondents. The results seem to indicate that it is not necessary for research bureaus to reject potential employees with a regional accent or with a less authoritative voice, and that they do not need to make an effort to match interviewers and respondents in characteristics such as gender and accent.

Keywords

Response Rate; Cooperation; Authority Principle; Liking Principle; Agreement Interviewer Respondent; Selection Interviewers

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Barret, M., & Davidson, M. J. (2006). Gender and Communication at Work. Aldeshot: Ashgate Publishing.
[2]	Baruffol, E. P. Verger, & Rotily, M. (2001). Using the telephone for mental health surveys. An analysis of the impact of call rank, non response, and interviewer effect. Population, 56, 987-1010. doi:10.2307/1534750
[3]	Bethlehem, J. G. (2002). Weighting nonresponse adjustment based on auxiliary information. In R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, & J. A. Roderick (Eds.), Survey Nonresponse (pp. 275-288). New York: Wiley.
[4]	Biemans, M. (2000). Gender variation in voice quality. Utrecht: Lot.
[5]	Brouwer, D. (1989). Gender variation in Dutch: A sociolinguistic study of Amsterdam speech. Dordrecht: Foris.
[6]	Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
[7]	Cacioppo, J., & Petty, R. (1982). Language variables, attitudes, and persuasion. In E. B. Ryan, & H. Giles (Eds.), Attitudes towards language variation (pp. 189-207). London: Edward Arnold.
[8]	Cohen, J. (1992). Quantitative methods in psychology: A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
[9]	Couper, M., & de Leeuw, E. (2003). Nonresponse in cross-cultural and cross-national surveys. In J. Harkness, F. van de Vijver, & P. Mohler (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 157-178). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
[10]	Coupland, N., & Giles, H. (1988). Introduction: The communicative context of accommodation. Language and communication, 8, 75-182. doi:10.1016/0271-5309(88)90015-8
[11]	Curtin, R., Presser, S., & Singer, E. (2000). The effects of response rates changes on the index of consumer sentiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 413-428. doi:10.1086/318638
[12]	Curtin, R., Presser, S., & Singer, E. (2005). Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the past quarter century. Public Opinion Quar terly, 69, 87-98. doi:10.1093/poq/nfi002
[13]	Daan, J., & Blok, D. (1969). From the urban agglomeration of Western Holland to the border. Explanation of the map dialects and onomastics, the atlas of the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij.
[14]	De Heer, W. (1999). International response trends. Journal of Official Statistics, 15, 129-142.
[15]	Dehue, F. (1997). Results observation introduction behaviour com muters. Heerlen: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek.
[16]	De Leeuw, E. D., & de Heer, W. (2002). Trends in household survey nonresponse. In R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, & J. A. Roderick (Eds.), Survey nonresponse (pp. 41-54). New York: Wiley.
[17]	De Leeuw, E. D., Callegaro, M., Hox, J., Korendijk, E., & Lensveldt Mulders, G. (2007). The influence of advance letters on response in telephone surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 413-443. doi:10.1093/poq/nfm014
[18]	Dijkstra, W., & Smit, J. H. (2002). Persuading reluctant recipients in telephone surveys. In R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, and R. J. A. Little (Eds.), Survey nonresponse. (pp. 121-134), New York: Wiley.
[19]	Durrant, G. B., Groves, R. M., Staetsky, L., & Steele, F. (2010). Effects of interviewer attitudes and behaviors on refusal in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 1-36. doi:10.1093/poq/nfp098
[20]	Eimers, T., & Thomas, E. (2000). Instruction callcenter personnel demands new approach. Nijmegen: ITS.
[21]	Feskens, R., Hox, J., Lensveldt-Mulders, G., & Schmeets, H. (2007). Nonresponse among ethnic minorities: A multivariate analysis. Journal of Official Statistics, 2, 387-408.
[22]	Fienberg, S. E. (2007). The analysis of cross-classified categorical data. New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-72825-4
[23]	Gerritsen, M., & van Bezooijen, R. (1996). How can I increase the effect of my telemarketing business? Ad Rem, 4, 9-12.
[24]	Gerritsen, M., & Palmen, M.-J. (2002). The effect of prenotification techniques on the refusal rate in telephone surveys. A real-life study in the light of the compliance and elaboration likelihood theory. Document Design, 3, 16-29. doi:10.1075/dd.3.1.04ger
[25]	Giles, H. (1973). Communicative effectiveness as a function of ac cented speech. Speech Monographs, 40, 330-331. doi:10.1080/03637757309375813
[26]	Grondelaers, S. A., & van Hout, R. W. N. M. (2010). Is standard Dutch with a regional accent standard or not? Evidence from native speakers’ attitudes. Language Variation and Change, 22, 221-239. doi:10.1017/S0954394510000086
[27]	Grondelaers, S. A., van Hout, R. W. N. M., & Steegs, M. (2010). Evaluating regional accent variation in standard Dutch. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 101-116. doi:10.1177/0261927X09351681
[28]	Groves, R. M. (2006). Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 646-675. doi:10.1093/poq/nfl033
[29]	Groves, R. M. (2011). Three eras of survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 661-671. doi:10.1093/poq/nfr057
[30]	Groves, R. M., Dilman, D. A., Eltinge, J. L., & Little, R. J. A. (2002). Survey nonresponse. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
[31]	Groves, R. M., Cialdini, B., & Couper, M. (1992). Understanding the decision to participate in a survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 475-495. doi:10.1086/269338
[32]	Groves, R. M., & Couper, M. (1996a). Nonresponse in household interview surveys. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
[33]	Groves, R. M., & Couper, M. (1996b). Contact-level influences on cooperation in face-to-face surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 12, 63-83.
[34]	Groves, R. M., & Fultz, N. (1985). Gender effects among telephone interviewers in a survey of economic attitudes. Sociological Methods and Research, 14, 31-52. doi:10.1177/0049124185014001002
[35]	Groves, R. M., & McGonagle, K. A. (2001). A theory-guided inter viewer training protocol regarding survey participation. Journal of Official Statistics, 17, 249-265.
[36]	Groves, R. M., O’Hare, B. C., Gould-Smith, D., Benkí, J., & Maher, P. (2008). Telephone interviewer voice characteristics and the survey participation decision. In J. M. Lepkowski, C. Tucker, J. M. Brick, E. de Leeuw, L. Japec, P. J. Lavrakas, M. W. Link, & R. L. Sangster (Eds.), Advances in telephone survey methodology (pp. 385-400). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
[37]	Groves, R. M., & Peytcheva, E. (2008). The impact of nonresponse rates on nonresponse bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 167-189. doi:10.1093/poq/nfn011
[38]	Hansen, K. M. (2007). The effect of incentives, interview length, and interviewer characteristics on response rates in a CAT study. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19, 112-121. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edl022
[39]	Heijmer, T., & Vonk, R. (2002). Effects of a regional accent on the evaluation of the speaker. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psy chologie, 57, 108-113.
[40]	Holmes, J., & Meyerhoff, M. (2005). The handbook of language and gender. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
[41]	Hoppenbrouwers, C. (2001). The classification of Dutch dialects. Dialects of 156 towns and villages classified according the FFM. Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum.
[42]	Houtkoop-Steenstra, H., & van den Bergh, H. (2000). Effects of introductions in large-scale telephone survey interviews. Sociological Methods and Research, 28, 281-300. doi:10.1177/0049124100028003002
[43]	Hox, J. J., & de Leeuw, E. D. (2002). The influence of interviewers’ attitude and behavior on household survey nonresponse: An international comparison. In R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, & J. A. Roderick (Eds.), Survey nonresponse (pp. 103-120). New York: Wiley.
[44]	Keeter, S., Miller, C., Kohut, A., Groves, R. M., & Presser, S. (2000). Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 125-148. doi:10.1086/317759
[45]	Keeter, S., Kennedy, C., Dimock, M., Best, J., & Craighill, P. (2006). Gauging the impact of growing nonresponse on estimates from a national RDD telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 759 779. doi:10.1093/poq/nfl035
[46]	Kraaykamp, G. (2005). Dialect and social inequality: An empirical study of the social-economic consequences of speaking a dialect in one’s youth. Pedagogische Studi?n, 85, 390-403.
[47]	Lambert, W. (1967). A social psychology of bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues, 23, 91-109. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1967.tb00578.x
[48]	Mai, R., & Hoffmann, S. (2011). Four positive effects of a sales person’s regional dialect in services selling. Journal of Service Research, 14, 460-474. doi:10.1177/1094670511414551
[49]	Maynard, D. W., & Schaeffer, N. C. (1997). Keeping the gate. Decli nations of the request to participate in a telephone survey interview. Sociological Methods and Research, 26, 34-79. doi:10.1177/0049124197026001002
[50]	Merkle, D., & Edelman, M. (2002). Nonresponse in exit polls: A comprehensive analysis. In R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, & J. A. Roderick (Eds.), Survey nonresponse (pp. 243-258). New York: Wiley.
[51]	Merkle, D., Edelman, M., Dykeman, K., & Brogan, C. (1998). An experimental study of ways to increase exit poll response rates and re duce survey error. The Annual Meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, St. Louis.
[52]	Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (1999). Authority in language: Investigating standard English. London: Routledge.
[53]	Oksenberg, L., Coleman, L., & Cannel, C. F. (1986). Interviewers’ voices and refusal rates in telephone surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 97-111. doi:10.1086/268962
[54]	Oksenberg, L., & Cannell, C. F. (1988). Effects of vocal characteristics on nonresponse. In R. Groves, P. P. Biemer, L. E. Lyberg, J. T. Massey, W. L. Nicholls, & J. Waksberg (Eds.), Telephone survey methodology (pp. 257-273). New York: Wiley.
[55]	Palmen, M.-J. (2001). Response in telephone surveys. A study of the effect of sociolinguistic factors. Nijmegen: Nijmegen University Press.
[56]	Pickery, J., & Loosveldt, G. (1998). The impact of respondent and in terviewer characteristics on the number of “no opinion” answers: A multilevel model for count data. Quality and Quantity, 32, 31-45. doi:10.1023/A:1004268427793
[57]	Pondman, L. M. (1998). The influence of the interviewer on the refusal rate in telephone surveys. Amsterdam: Print Partners Ipskamp.
[58]	Singer, E. (2006). Introduction. Nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 637-645. doi:10.1093/poq/nfl034
[59]	Singer, E., van Hoewyk, J., Gebler, N., Ragunathan, T., & McGonacle, K. (1999). The effect of incentives on response rates in interview mediated surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 15, 217-230.
[60]	Smakman, D. (2006). Standard Dutch in the Netherlands. A sociolinguistic and phonetic description. Utrecht: Lot.
[61]	Snijkers, C., Hox, J., & de Leeuw, E. D. (1999). Interviewers’ tactics for fighting survey nonresponse. Journal of Official Statistics, 15, 185-198.
[62]	Steeh, C. (1981). Trends in nonresponse rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45, 40-57. doi:10.1086/268633
[63]	Steeh, C., Kirgis, N., Cannon, B., & DeWitt, J. (2001). Are they really as bad as they seem? Nonresponse rates at the end of the 20th century. Journal of Official Statistics, 17, 227-247.
[64]	Stoop, I. A. L. (2005). The hunt for the last respondent. Nonresponse in sample surveys. The Hague: Sociaalen Cultureel Planbureau.
[65]	Stoop, I., Billiet, J., Koch, A., & Fitzgerald. R. (2010). Improving survey response. Lessons learned from the european social survey. Chicester: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. doi:10.1002/9780470688335
[66]	Tielen, M. (1992). Male and female speech: An experimental study of sex-related voice and pronunciation characteristics. Ph.D. Thesis, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
[67]	Van Bezooijen, R. (1995). Sociocultural aspects of pitch differences between Japanese and Dutch women. Language and Speech, 38, 253 265.
[68]	Van der Vaart, W., Ongena, Y., Hoogendoorn, A., & Dijkstra, W. (2005). Do interviewers’ voice characteristics influence cooperation rates in telephone surveys? International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18, 488-499. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh117
[69]	Van Ingen, E., Stoop, I., & Breedveld, K. (2009). Nonresponse in the Dutch time use survey: Strategies for response enhancement and bias reduction. Field Methods, 21, 69-90. doi:10.1177/1525822X08323099
[70]	Vercruyssen, A., van de Putte, B., & Stoop, I. A. L. (2011). Are they really too busy for survey participation? The evolution of busyness and busyness claims in Flanders. Journal of Official Statistics, 27, 619-632.
[71]	Visscher, G. (1999a). Het CBS is niet meer geloofwaardig. Statistics Netherlands is not trustworthy anymore. NRC Handelsblad, 21 January 1999.
[72]	Visscher, G. (1999b). CBS overschrijdt de grens van het betamelijke (Statistics Netherlands exceeds bounds of decency). NRC Handels blad, 1 February 1999.
[73]	Walrave, M. (1996). Telemarketing: Breakdown on the line? Leuven/ Amersfoort: Acco.
[74]	Wenemark, M., Persson, A., Brage, H. N., Svensson, T., & Kristenson, M. (2011). Applying motivation theory to achieve increased response rates, respondent satisfaction, and data quality. Journal of Official Statistics, 27, 393-414.