An exception, however, is the interaction term between a female respondent and the interviewer’s opinion. In three of the five models, Corruption, Law & Order, and Women’s Rights, the interaction is strongly significant. These results are robust to the inclusion of the gender of interviewer and associated interactions. In two of the models, Corruption and Dispute Resolution, the interaction between a female interviewer, a female respondent, and the interviewer’s opinion are also significant. The only question which shows no evidence of this is Land Titling. In no cases, however, is the interaction between a female interviewer and the interviewer’s opinions significant. The conclusion that can be drawn is that female respondents to this survey were more likely to be influenced by the opinions of the interviewer than male respondents. This is true even if the interviewer is a woman. Also, these findings are robust to the inclusion of an education variable, and therefore the results are not driven in differences in education between genders. Overall these results suggest that female respondents are more likely to be influenced by the interviewers’ opinions.

# _4.5 Salience_

Salience may impact the magnitude of the interviewer effects if respondents are less susceptible to pressure if they believe strongly about a subject, or if interviewer are more likely to exert pressure if they feel strongly. To test this, I repeat the analysis for Women’s Rights, separating the sample into male-only and female-only samples, and into male interviewer and female interviewer sample, under the hypothesis that women’s rights issues would be less salient to men than women. The separate male and female respondent subgroups have roughly equal sample sizes (n=638 for men, n=621 for women). Using the fixed effects model, I find that the interviewer effects are jointly significant for the male-only sample (p<0.0001) but only weakly significant for the female-only sample (p<0.0670). Comparing the percentage of variance explained, again using a Nagelkerke test the overall interviewer effects explain a slightly higher proportion of the variance for the female-only sample, but overall the explanatory power of this model is much higher for the male sample (R<sup>2</sup> =0.250) compared with the female sample (R<sup>2</sup> =0.162). Therefore even the limited explanatory power of the interviewer effects contributes a large portion of the explanation for the female sample. Repeating the analysis with male and female interviewer subsamples, a Nagelkerke test shows that interviewer effects explain a higher portion of the variance in the female interviewer sample, 37.8 percent compared to 30.7 percent, but again the overall variance explained was lower (see Table 5). If these results are explained as Women’s Rights being more relevant to urban education women than to the average female respondent, the results support the finding in Hermann (1983) that issues that are salient to interviewers are more likely to show interviewer effects while those important to respondent are less likely, but the results are again not conclusive.

# **5. Conclusions**

Overall, the analysis finds strong evidence that interviewer effects are present in the data from the TLSLS-2X survey, but that these effects are stronger for subjective and potentially sensitive 11