Sex Roles

, Volume 28, Issue 5–6, pp 243–261 | Cite as

Gender interactions between interviewer and survey respondents: Issues of pornography and community standards

  • Timothy P. Johnson
  • Robert W. Moore


Several sociological perspectives, including social distance and social acquiescence theories, suggest that survey responses to threatening or sensitive questions may be influenced by interviewer gender. Most of the empirical work bearing on this issue has been conducted using face-to-face interviews. Research presented here examines interviewer gender effects in a telephone survey concerned with a sexually sensitive topic — the sale and consumption of pornographic materials. Subjects were mostly white middle-class adults living in a medium-sized metropolitan community. Approximately equal numbers of males (n=230) and females (n=219) were interviewed. Findings suggest that, although a weak trend indicative of an acquiescence effect was observed, interviewer gender effects may not in general be a serious source of nonsampling errors in telephone surveys.


Social Psychology Empirical Work Survey Respondent Survey Response Telephone Survey 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Axinn, W. G. (1991). The influence of interviewer sex on responses to sensitive questions in Nepal. Social Science Research, 20, 303–318.Google Scholar
  2. Benny, M., Riesman D., & Star, S. A. (1956). Age and sex in the interview. American Journal of Sociology, 62, 143–152.Google Scholar
  3. Bradburn, N. M., Sudman, S. & Associates (1979). Improving Interview Method and Questionnaire Design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Brorsson, B. (1984). Effects of interviewer characteristics and interviewer variability on interview responses. In C. F. Cannell & R. M. Groves (Eds.), Health Survey Research Methods: Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Health Survey Research Methods. DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 84-3346. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd Edition. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Collins, M. (1980). Interviewer variability: A review of the problem. Journal of the Market Research Society, 22, 77–95.Google Scholar
  7. Colombotos, J., Elinson, J., & Loewenstein, R. (1968). Effect of interviewers' sex on interviewer responses. Public Health Reports, 83, 685–690.Google Scholar
  8. Couper, M. P. (1991). Modeling survey participation at the interviewer level. Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods. American Statistical Association. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  9. Daniel, W. W. (1978). Applied Nonparametric Statistics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  10. Delamater, J. D. (1974). Methodological issues in the study of premarital sexuality. Sociological Methods and Research, 3, 30–61.Google Scholar
  11. Finkel, S. E., Guterbock, T. M., & Borg M. J. (1991). Race-of-interviewer effects in a preelection poll: Virginia 1989. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 313–330.Google Scholar
  12. Freeman, J., & Butler, E. W. (1976). Some sources of interviewer variance in surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40, 79–92.Google Scholar
  13. Glenn, N. D., & Weaver, C. N. (1979). Attitudes toward premarital, extramarital, and homosexual relations in the U.S. in the 1970s. The Journal of Sex Research, 15, 108–118.Google Scholar
  14. Grimes, M. D., & Hansen, G. L. (1984). Response bias in sex-role attitude measurement. Sex Roles, 10, 67–72.Google Scholar
  15. Groves, R. M. (1989). Survey Errors and Survey Costs. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  16. Groves, R. M., & Fultz, N. H. (1985). Gender effects among telephone interviews in a survey of economic attitudes. Sociological Methods and Research, 14, 31–52.Google Scholar
  17. Hatchett, S., & Schuman H. (1975–1976). White respondents and race-of-interviewer effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 39, 523–528.Google Scholar
  18. Hyman, H. H. (1954). Interviewing in Social Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Johnson, W. T., & Delamater, J. D. (1976). Response effects in sex surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40, 165–181.Google Scholar
  20. Landis, J. R., Sullivan, D., & Sheley, J. (1973). Feminist attitudes as related to sex of the interviewer. Pacific Sociological Review, 16, 305–314.Google Scholar
  21. Light, R. J., & Pillemer, D. B. (1984). Summing Up: The Science of Reviewing Research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Loewenstein, R., & Varma, A. A. O. (1970). Effect of variation of interviewers and respondents in health surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34, 472–473.Google Scholar
  23. Nealon, J. (1983). The effects of male vs. female telephone interviewers. Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, American Statistical Association.Google Scholar
  24. Reiss, I. L. (1967). The Social Context of Premarital Sexual Permissiveness. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  25. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641.Google Scholar
  26. Schaeffer, N. C. (1980). Evaluating race-of-interviewer effects in a national survey. Sociological Methods and Research, 8, 400–419.Google Scholar
  27. Schofield, M. (1965). The Sexual Behavior of Young People. London: Longmans, Green.Google Scholar
  28. Singh, B. K. (1980). Trends in attitudes toward premarital sexual relations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 387–395.Google Scholar
  29. Smith, T. W. (1990). Report: The Sexual Revolution? Public Opinion Quarterly, 54, 415–435.Google Scholar
  30. Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. M. (1974). Response Effects in Surveys. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy P. Johnson
    • 1
  • Robert W. Moore
    • 2
  1. 1.University of IllinoisUSA
  2. 2.University of KentuckyUSA

Personalised recommendations