INTERVIEW INTRODUCTIONS AND REFUSAL RATES : EXPERIMENTS IN INCREASING RESPONDENT COOPERATION

This paper reports on an investigation of one means of reducing nonresponse in telephone surveys. It was occassioned both by the increasing use of the telephone in academic survey research and by the comparative underdevelopment of methods to reduce nonresponse in telephone surveys especially in relation to mail surveys and to a lesser extent, in rela otion to personal interview surveys. Overall, there are many strategies one might devise for reducing nonresponse in telephone surveys. They include, but are not necessarily limited to: Interviewer selection, selective retention of interviewers, manipulating interviewer norms and expectations, monitoring and reinforcing interviewer behavior, more field work to reduce noncontacts, prior test different approaches to increasing completion rates in telephone interviews by varying different aspects of the introductions. Three dimensions were tested in a split-ballot national probability telephone survey fielded between March and May 1979. All interviewing was conducted employing a computer assisted telephone interviewing system (CATI) at the University of Michigan's Survey Research Center. THE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN. All interviews were begun with the identical opening statement: "Hello this is the University of Michigan calling. As part of a research project we're interviewing people throughout the United States about two topics: their health and their television watching. " After this introductory statement, the experimental forms of the quesnotification letters (where feasible), and tionnaire differed with respect to the presome sort of two-stage "foot in the door" technique. A large proportion of refusals in telephone interviews occur in the first few minutes of the interaction. Consequently, any attempt to reduce refusal rates should carefully consider the na -. o ture of the interviewer's introductory remarks. These are the focus of this investigation. In the course of most survey introsence of early substantive questions, an extended explanation, and verbal "feedbacks. " The first experimental variation was the presence or absence of substantively relevant questions immediately after the above introduction. Questions were intended to be (i) highly relevant to stated survey objectives, (2) applicable to all respondents and (3) easy to answer. They were "First, about health: would you desductions, the respondent is typically told cribe your (family's) health as excellent, the purpose of the study, its importance, good, fair, or poor? ,', followed immediately something about the organization conductby, "How do you feel about the medical care ing the research, and occassionally its your family receives? ". sponsor. Frequently, this "interaction" The second variable involved the inis one-sided and interviewers often report sertion or deletion of an extended descripuneasiness from lack of any verbal reaction of the survey organization, the social tion on the part of the respondent until utility of the research, and the need for a rather substantial introductory explanaa representative sample following the usual tion has been read. After the respondent less extensive introduction. The exact has been told of the nature of the survey, wording of this statement was, "Before conhowever, the first several questions frequently appear totally unrelated to the subject: the phone number is verified, and rather detailed household information is collected (usually age, sex, and the relation of each household member to the respondent). Not uncommonly, interviewers tinuing, we'd like to tell you who we are and why we're calling. I am a professional interviewer from the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan, and we conduct studies on important topics like health and the use of television. Our research is of interest to organizations like are asked, "9~hat does this have to do with the United States Public Health Service. the survey? " Even though there are good scientific reasons for asking these questions, it is easy to imagine that many respondents feel mislead at this point. This can be sufficient cause to refuse to continue the interview. Several experiments were designed to Because it's important to interview a representative sample of people through the United States, our computer has produced telephone numbers from area codes all over the country. " The third experiment tested the use of verbal "feedbacks" after all responses as means of operant conditioning of respondents