Cited by 70Survey Methodology and NonresponseSurvey Sampling and Estimation TechniquesElectoral Systems and Political Participation

Nonresponse and mode effects in self‐ and interviewer‐administered surveys

Atkeson, Lonna Rae, Adams, Alex N., Alvarez, R. Michael·2014·Political Analysis

Abstract

We examine the quality of two probability-based polls, one interviewer administered (telephone) and one self-administered (Internet and mail mixed mode survey). The polls use the same sampling frame (registered voters) and the same questions. First, we examine the representativeness of both surveys using information known about the population, and although we find important differences between the two in terms of sampling and nonresponse bias, we also find that both surveys represent the underlying population despite low response rates. We also test for mode effects between surveys due to social desirability and how it influences nondifferentiation or satisficing. Using a variety of methods (t-tests, multivariate regression, and genetic propensity matching), we find evidence that the presence of an interviewer alters response patterns on ego-driven questions. The implications of our work are important, due to the increasing popularity of mixed mode surveys. Researchers need to be methodologically sensitive to these differences when analyzing surveys that allow for different response modes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/pan/mpt049

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 Atkeson et al., 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Atkeson, L. R., Adams, A. N., & Alvarez, R. M.
Affiliations
  • University of New Mexico (US)
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Atkeson, Lonna Rae
Venue
Political Analysis
Published
2014
Volume
22
Issue
3
Pages
304-320
ISSN
  • 1047-1987 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4989
OpenAlex
W2010830911
Cited by
70
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3
FWCI
17.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Political Analysis (publishedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (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 › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Keywords
nonresponse bias, mode effects, self-administered surveys, telephone surveys, online surveys, mail surveys, mixed-mode surveys, social desirability bias, satisficing, registered voters, survey representativeness, response rate

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