Who Participates in Telephone and Residential Face-to-Face Surveys: A Comparative Analysis

Abstract

The article discusses the steady decline in response rate, which calls into question further applicability of the Gallup paradigm for probability population surveys at national and regional scales. The authors propose and justify the introduction of the concept of mode for comparative studies of the specificity and errors of representation and measurement when using survey methods such as face-to-face, telephone, and online. They demonstrate that global science and industry are responding to declining response rate through adaptive designs, the most powerful of which is the mixed-mode survey, which combines modes of communication with respondents to effectively implement probability samples designed on a full-fledged basis. The authors note country-specific characteristics of the institutional research environment that determine the applicability of the mixed-mode survey in high-quality probability surveys of the Gallup paradigm; in particular, they demonstrate that not all probability survey models have a sufficient information base for the transition to a mixed-mode survey. The analytical section of the article examines the similarities and differences in the responses of respondents who answered the same formalized interview questions in different modes—computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) and face-to-face interviews at their place of residence (F2F). The observed differences were interpreted as consequences of the specific population coverage. Respondents to telephone interviews consistently demonstrated higher levels of wealth and cultural capital and lower ratings of political loyalty and personal well-being than respondents to face-to-face surveys. However, the authors conclude that despite intermodal differences, there is no reason to believe that these modes represent different populations rather than a single one.

Acknowledgements. The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their attention to the text and important comments that allowed them to improve the manuscript during the revision stage.