Skip to main content
Log in

Probing: A dangerous practice in social surveys?

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Quality and Quantity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is widely accepted among survey researchers that the use of probes by their interviewers can lead to more intelligible, more complete, and more easily coded answers from respondents. Yet it is not hard to find examples of the use of probes in the survey research literature that have failed to produce demonstrably better data. Since the poor codability of respondents' answers is the product of a number of factors, merely training interviewers to be more skilful in their use of probes is unlikely to significantly improve the quality of survey data. If probes are to be used, they should be both standardized and used systematically. It would be better, however, to try to eliminate the need for interviewers to have to use probes. Two positive steps the researcher can take in this direction are: to define key terms properly, and to specify the response frameworks that respondents should adopt when formulating replies to particular questions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bilmes, J. (1975). Misinformation in verbal accounts: some fundamental considerations,Man 10: 60–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, M. (1985). Intensive interviewing, chapter 7 in: M. Brenner, J. Brown & D. Canter (eds.),The Research Interview: Uses and Approaches, London. Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cady, H.M. (1924). On the psychology of testimony,American Journal of Psychology 35: 110–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A.A. (1945). Two problems in the use of the open question,Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 40: 340–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantril, H. & Fried, E. (1944). The meaning of questions, in H. Cantrilet al. (eds.),Gauging Public Opinion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Converse, J. (1984). Strong arguments and weak evidence: The open/closed questioning controversy of the 1940's,Public Opinion Quarterly 48: 267–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Converse, J. & Presser, S. (1986).Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standardized Questionnaire, Beverly Hills, Sage Publications. Quantitative series in the social Sciences: #07-063:

    Google Scholar 

  • Crittenden, K.S. & Hill, R.J. (1971). Coding reliability and validity of interview data,American Sociological Review 36: 1073–1080.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crutchfield, R.S. & Gordon, D.A. (1947). Variations in respondents' interpretations of an opinion-poll question,International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research 1: 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dohrenwend, B.S. (1965). Some effects of open and closed questions on respondents' answers,Human Organization 24: 175–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foddy, W. (1993).Constructing Questions for Interviews and Questionnaires: Theory and Practice in Social Research, London, Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, F.J. Jr. (1992). How unclear terms affect survey data,Public Opinion Quarterly 56: 218–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, F.J. Jr. & Mangione, T.W. (1990).Standardized Survey Interviewing: Minimizing Interviewer-Related Error, London, Sage. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiselman, R.E. (1988). Improving eyewitness memory through mental reinstatement of context. Chapter 11 in G.M. Davies and D.M. Thompson (eds.),Memory in Context: Context in Memory, Chichester, Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, G.N. & Mulkay, M. (1983). In search of the action, chapter 1 in G.N. Gilbert and P. Abel (eds.);Accounts and Actions, London, Gower.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, R. (1956). Dimensions of the depth interview,American Journal of Sociology LXII: 158–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, H. (1951).We Cannot Ask “sWhy’. Paper delivered at a joint conference of the European Society for Opinion and Market Research, and the World Association for Public Opinion Research, Lausanne. Reprinted in H. Henry (ed.),Perspectives in Management and Marketing Research, London, Crossby Lockwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jabine, T., Straf, M., Tanur, J., & Tourangeau, R. (eds.) (1984).Cognitive Aspects of Survey Methodology: Building a Bridge between Disciplines. Report of the Advanced Research Seminar on Cognitive Aspects of Survey Methodology. Washington, D. C., National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasarsfeld, P.F. (1944). The controversy over detailed interviews-an offer for negotiation,Public Opinion Quarterly 8: 38–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, H.C. (1943). An experiment in depth interviewing on the issue of internationalism vs. isolationism,Public Opinion Quarterly 7: 267–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipton, J.P. (1977). On the psychology of eyewitness testimony.Journal of Applied Psychology 62: 90–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, E.F. (1982). Interrogating eyewitnesses-good questions and bad, in R.M. Hogarth (ed.),Question Framing and Response Consistency, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. New Directions for Methodology of Social Science, #11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marquis, K.H., Marshall, J., & Oskamp, S. (1972). Testimony validity as a function of question form, atmosphere and item difficulty,Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2: 167–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marston, W.W. (1924). Studies in testimony,Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 15: 5–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishler, E.G. (1986).Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, A.C. & Crittenden, K.S. (1977). Improving coding reliability for open-ended questions,Public Opinion Quarterly 41: 235–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, P. (1981). The cognitive psychology of self reports, chapter 8 in C. Antaki (ed.),The Psychology of Ordinary Explanations of Social Behaviour. N.Y., Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nachman, S.R. (1984). Lies my informants told me,Journal of Anthropological Research 40: 536–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett, R.E. & Wilson, T.D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental processes,Psychological Review 84: 231–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter, J. & Mulkay, M. (1985). Scientists' interview talk: interviews as a technique for revealing participants' interpretive practices, chapter 11 in M. Brenner, J. Brown, and D. Canter (eds),The Research Interview: Uses and Approaches, London, Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, S. A., Snell Dohrenwend, B. & Klein, D. (1965).Interviewing: Its Forms and Functions, New York, Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, M.E. & Morchio, G. (1992). Probing “don't know” answers: effects on survey estimates and variable relationships,Public Opinion Quarterly 56: 454–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuman, H. (1966). The random probe: a technique for evaluating the validity of closed questions,American Sociological Review 31: 218–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuman, H. & Presser, S. (1979). The open and closed question,American Sociological Review 44: 692–712.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, T.W. (1989). Random probes of G.S.S. questions,International Journal of Public Opinion Research 1: 305–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E.R. & Miller, F.D. (1978). Limits on perception of cognitive processes: a reply to Nisbett and Wilson,Psychological Review 85: 355–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L. & Jordan, B. (1987).Interactional Troubles in Survey Interviews. Paper presented in the session Cognitive Aspects of Surveys, 1987 American Statistical Association Meetings, August, 1987, San Francisco, CA.

  • Sudman, S. & Bradburn, N.M. (1982).Asking Questions: A Practical Guide to Questionnaire Design, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, T.D. & Nisbett, R.E. (1978). The Accuracy of Verbal Reports about the Effects of Stimuli on Evaluations and Behaviour,Social Psychology 41: 118–131.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Foddy, W. Probing: A dangerous practice in social surveys?. Qual Quant 29, 73–86 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01107985

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01107985

Keywords

Navigation