A randomized experiment evaluating survey mode effects for video interviewing
Abstract
Rising costs and challenges of in-person interviewing have prompted major surveys to consider moving online and conducting live web-based video interviews. In this paper, we evaluate video mode effects using a two-wave experimental design in which respondents were randomized to either an interviewer-administered video or interviewer-administered in-person survey wave after completing a self-administered online survey wave. This design permits testing of both within- and between-subject differences across survey modes. Our findings suggest that video interviewing is more comparable to in-person interviewing than online interviewing across multiple measures of satisficing, social desirability, and respondent satisfaction.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
This reflects social desirability biases where respondents provide more moderate answers in the presence of interviewers since extremity is normatively undesirable.
“This reflects social desirability biases where respondents provide more moderate answers in the presence of interviewers since extremity is normatively undesirable (e.g., Atkeson et al., 2014;Endres et al., 2023;Homola et al., 2016).”
From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Endres et al., 2023
Cites
A measure of survey mode differences
Homola, J., Jackson, N., & Gill, J. (2016) · Electoral Studies · doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2016.06.010 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures
Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M., & Ryan, J. B. (2026) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.70152 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Endres, K., Hillygus, D. S., DeBell, M., & Iyengar, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Northern Iowa (US)
- Duke University (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Endres, Kyle
- Venue
- Political Science Research and Methods
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2022-08-01
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 144-159
- ISSN
- 2049-8470 (ISSN-L)
- 2049-8489
- OpenAlex
- W4289130711
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7
- FWCI
- 5.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Political Science Research and Methods (publishedVersion)
- UNI ScholarWorks (University of Northern Iowa) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Survey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
- Keywords
- video interviewing, survey mode effects, online surveys, self-administered surveys, satisficing, social desirability, survey mode comparison
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
