Running Head: Face-To-Face Versus Web Surveying in a High-Internet-Coverage Population

Face-To-Face Versus Web Surveying in a High-Internet-Coverage Population Amanda Poole Queens University of Charlotte

Running Head: Face-To-Face Versus Web Surveying in a High-Internet-Coverage Population For this assignment, I chose to analyze an article from The Public Opinion Quarterly. I chose to analyze this article because web surveying has become increasingly popular among researchers nowadays. The article focuses on the differences in data quality between a face-toface and a web survey. Based on satiscing theory, it was hypothesized that web survey respondents would be more likely to satisce for a multitude of reasons, thereby producing data of lower quality (Heerwegh & Loosveldt, 2008). The data shows support for the hypothesis. Web survey respondents were shown to produce a higher dont know response rate, to differentiate less on rating scales, and to produce more item non-response than face-to-face survey respondents (Heerwegh & Loosveldt, 2008). Surveying can have its advantages and disadvantages. One advantage of surveying is that a large amount of data can be collected and many variables can be examined by researchers (Wimmer &Dominick, 2011). A disadvantage of surveying is that the independent variables cannot be manipulated the way they are in laboratory experiment (Wimmer &Dominick, 2011). In this article the survey is intended to measure respondents attitudes toward immigrants and toward asylum seekers in Belgium, as well as respondent characteristics thought to affect these attitudes (Heerwegh & Loosveldt, 2008). 180 to 235 survey questions were asked. As stated earlier, the surveying methods used was face-to-face surveys and web surveys. To avoid differences in primacy versus recency effects due to visual versus aural presentation of the response options, show cards were used in the face-to-face survey to make these stimuli visual in both survey modes (Heerwegh & Loosveldt, 2008). To prevent differences in questionnaire context effects across both modes web survey respondents only saw one question at a time (Heerwegh & Loosveldt, 2008). The sample was randomly drawn from the official database of freshmen of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium). The database contained a number of

Running Head: Face-To-Face Versus Web Surveying in a High-Internet-Coverage Population variables such as name, address, e-mail address, major, and date of birth (Heerwegh & Loosveldt, 2008). Prior to the fieldwork, 3,000 sample cases were randomly selected and assigned to the web survey and the remaining 255 cases were assigned to a face-to-face survey condition (Heerwegh & Loosveldt, 2008). Second year sociology students would each conduct six face-to-face interviews (Heerwegh & Loosveldt, 2008). The face-to-face survey was done with the interviewers using a pencil and paper questionnaire, and took place March 1 to March 25, 2005. Prior to the fieldwork, all the interviewers attended two 2-hour training sessions. The first session focused on gaining cooperation and the second session focused on correctly administering the survey questionnaire (Heerwegh & Loosveldt, 2008).One week prior to the fieldwork start, an advance letter containing the same information as the invitation e-mail sent to the web survey sample cases was sent to the face-to-face sample cases (Heerwegh & Loosveldt, 2008). Of the 255 sampled cases, 228 addresses were randomly selected (38 interviewers 6 interviews each) (Heerwegh & Loosveldt, 2008). Of the 228 that were surveyed the response rate was high; over 90 percent of all fielded addresses led to an interview (Heerwegh & Loosveldt, 2008). This high percentage could be attributed to the fact that (first year) student population was approached by other (second year) students who served as interviewers, which might have led to feelings of sympathy for a fellow student who had to do the interview as an assignment (Heerwegh & Loosveldt, 2008). While it was expected that the face-to-face survey would take somewhat longer than the web survey since interviewers had to read questions aloud, record responses, use probing techniques, etc., the web survey was completed much faster than the face-to-face even though the questionnaires were nearly identical (Heerwegh & Loosveldt, 2008). The data suggest that

Running Head: Face-To-Face Versus Web Surveying in a High-Internet-Coverage Population the web survey respondents might have paid less attention to the questions, which would imply a lower level of data quality in the web survey (Heerwegh & Loosveldt, 2008). As the hypothesis predicted, the web survey contributed more dont know responses, more non-differentiation on the rating scales, and a larger no response rating. This suggests that web survey respondents are more prone to satiscing than are face-to-face survey respondents (Heerwegh & Loosveldt, 2008). Because this experiment was fielded in a student population, more research is needed to see how well this experiment can be generalized across the population. However, as long as web surveys preclude nonverbal communication, foster multitasking, and add difficulty to the task of responding because of maintained predominant reliance on visual rather than aural cues, the satiscing likelihood will probably remain higher in web than in face-to-face surveys, regardless of the specific study population (Heerwegh & Loosveldt, 2008).

Running Head: Face-To-Face Versus Web Surveying in a High-Internet-Coverage Population References HEERWEGH, D., & LOOSVELDT, G. (2008). FACE-TO-FACE VERSUS WEB SURVEYING IN A HIGH-INTERNET-COVERAGE POPULATION. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 836-846. Wimmer, R.D. & Dominick J.R. (2011).Mass Media Research: An introduction (9th edition). Boston: Wadsworth Publishing.