Literature DB >> 27867231

Interviewing Practices, Conversational Practices, and Rapport: Responsiveness and Engagement in the Standardized Survey Interview.

Dana Garbarski1, Nora Cate Schaeffer2, Jennifer Dykema3.   

Abstract

"Rapport" has been used to refer to a range of positive psychological features of an interaction -- including a situated sense of connection or affiliation between interactional partners, comfort, willingness to disclose or share sensitive information, motivation to please, or empathy. Rapport could potentially benefit survey participation and response quality by increasing respondents' motivation to participate, disclose, or provide accurate information. Rapport could also harm data quality if motivation to ingratiate or affiliate caused respondents to suppress undesirable information. Some previous research suggests that motives elicited when rapport is high conflict with the goals of standardized interviewing. We examine rapport as an interactional phenomenon, attending to both the content and structure of talk. Using questions about end-of-life planning in the 2003-2005 wave of the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, we observe that rapport consists of behaviors that can be characterized as dimensions of responsiveness by interviewers and engagement by respondents. We identify and describe types of responsiveness and engagement in selected question-answer sequences and then devise a coding scheme to examine their analytic potential with respect to the criterion of future study participation. Our analysis suggests that responsive and engaged behaviors vary with respect to the goals of standardization-some conflict with these goals, while others complement them.

Entities:  

Year:  2016        PMID: 27867231      PMCID: PMC5110268          DOI: 10.1177/0081175016637890

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sociol Methodol        ISSN: 0081-1750


  7 in total

Review 1.  Sensitive questions in surveys.

Authors:  Roger Tourangeau; Ting Yan
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 17.737

2.  Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation.

Authors:  S E Brennan; H H Clark
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 3.051

3.  An Interactional Model of the Call for Survey Participation: Actions and Reactions in the Survey Recruitment Call.

Authors:  Nora Cate Schaeffer; Dana Garbarski; Jeremy Freese; Douglas W Maynard
Journal:  Public Opin Q       Date:  2013

4.  Questions for Surveys: Current Trends and Future Directions.

Authors:  Nora Cate Schaeffer; Jennifer Dykema
Journal:  Public Opin Q       Date:  2011-12

5.  The influence of interviewer and respondent psychological and behavioral variables on the reporting in household interviews.

Authors:  C F Cannell; F J Fowler; K H Marquis
Journal:  Vital Health Stat 2       Date:  1968-03

6.  Are Interactional Behaviors Exhibited When the Self-Reported Health Question is Asked Associated with Health Status?

Authors:  Dana Garbarski; Nora Cate Schaeffer; Jennifer Dykema
Journal:  Soc Sci Res       Date:  2011-07-01

7.  Requests, Blocking Moves, and Rational (Inter)action in Survey Introductions.

Authors:  Douglas W Maynard; Jeremy Freese; Nora Cate Schaeffer
Journal:  Am Sociol Rev       Date:  2010-10
  7 in total
  3 in total

1.  Interaction Before and During the Survey Interview: Insights from Conversation Analysis.

Authors:  Nora Cate Schaeffer
Journal:  Int J Soc Res Methodol       Date:  2020-09-29

2.  The time it takes to reveal embarrassing information in a mobile phone survey.

Authors:  Stefanie Fail; Michael F Schober; Frederick G Conrad
Journal:  Int J Soc Res Methodol       Date:  2020-09-29

3.  Barriers and facilitators to the utilization of the intensive adherence counselling framework by healthcare providers in Uganda: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Pius Musinguzi; Josephine Nambi Najjuma; Adellah Arishaba; Eric Ochen; Racheal Ainembabazi; Fred Keizirege; Racheal Lillian Sabano; Edith K Wakida; Celestino Obua
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2022-08-31       Impact factor: 2.908

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.