Cognitive Processes Syllabus - Survey Research Laboratory

Semester: Fall 2003 

PA 583: The Psychology of Survey Measurement: Cognitive and Social Processes 

Instructor: Allyson L. Holbrook 

Office Hours: By appointment. Phone: (312)996-0471; E-mail: allyson@uic.edu 

Course Credits: 2 hours 

Course Overview and Objectives: This course introduces students to one approach to survey 

methodology – the examination of the psychological processes through which survey respondents answer 

questions. Evidence about these processes from cognitive and social psychology, sociology, and 

linguistics is applied to survey research, particularly questionnaire construction and administration. 

Required Texts: 

Tourangeau, Roger, Lance j. Rips, and Kenneth Rasinski (2000). The Psychology of Survey 

Response. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Schwarz, N. (1996). Cognition and communication: Judgmental biases, research methods, and 

the logic of conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Assignments: There are two assignments due during the course. You will also be asked to write 

discussion question for three classes and to write a final paper. These assignments are designed for you to 

(1) demonstrate your understanding and mastery of the concepts discussed in class; (2) apply these 

concepts; and (3) prompt your discussion and questions. (Note: Due dates for assignments are listed in 

the course schedule.) 

Assignment #1: An article will be distributed for discussion. Students will be asked to write a 2- 

3 pages summary and critique of the article. The primary findings of the article or chapter should 

be briefly summarized and their implications discussed (1-2 paragraphs). In addition, you should 

discuss an issue or problem regarding the major findings of the article. For example, the 

conclusions drawn by the author might not be warranted given the evidence they reviewed, or 

there might be additional factors the authors did not consider that might be relevant to the 

question at hand. Finally, you should briefly discuss additional research that could address the 

problem or issue you described. This article (and assignment #1) will the basis for class 

discussion. 

Assignment #2: Two readings about the use of response latencies to measuring cognitive 

processes will be distributed. Students will be asked to write2-3 pages answering the following 

questions: 1) What cognitive aspects of question answering might influence response latencies? 

2) What are the challenges to using response latencies as an indicator of cognitive processes in 

surveys? 3) Briefly describe the methodology and expected results of a study using response 

latencies in a novel way to assess the cognitive process of answering survey questions. 

Discussion Questions: Students are asked to write discussion questions for 3 of the 7 classes. 

These weeks, ple ase write 2-3 discussion questions about the readings for that week and send 

them to me at allyson@uic.edu by noon on the day of class. You will be graded on the 

promptness and completeness of the questions as well as the quality of the questions themselves. 

Final Paper. A final paper is due on the Tuesday of finals week (May 3) by 5:00 p.m. The paper 

has two components. First, you should review the literature regarding one aspect of the 

psychological processes of answering survey questions and how it relates to survey methodology 

1

more broadly. Second, you should outline a proposal for research that builds on the literature 

review in Part I. The research you propose should add to our understanding of the psychological 

processes of answering survey questions and be tie directly into the aspect of these processes that 

you review in Part I of this paper (Each part of the paper should be approximately 10 pages so the 

paper should be 20 pages). 

Course Policies: 

Deadlines: All assignments are due at the beginning of class on the day they are due. Students will 

lose 10% credit for each day that an assignment is late. In addition, do the assigned readings before 

they are discussed in class. 

Extensions for assignments: Extensions for assignments are at the discretion of the instructors and 

should be requested before the deadline. Emergencies will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If 

you have a question about an extension, please talk to the instructor. 

Plagiarism or cheating: Don’t do it. It’s not worth it. Guidelines regarding academic integrity at 

UIC are available online , and sanctions for academic 

dishonesty are also available . Please don’t put me in a 

position where I need to learn more about these policies. 

Attendance: Fifteen points will be assigned based on attendance and participation. If you must miss 

a class, please let the instructors know in advance. Class attendance is strongly encouraged. Active 

involvement in class is also expected. If your final grade is on the border, a subjective assessment of 

your class participation may be used to make final adjustments. 

Grades 

Assignment 

Points 

Percent of Total 

Grade 

Assignment #1 20 20 

Assignment #2 20 20 

Discussion Questions 15 15 

Class Participation 10 10 

Final Paper 30 30 

Attendance 5 5 

Total 100 points 100 % 

Outline: 

March 8 (Week 1) 

Part I: Cognitive Models of the Response Process 

Part II: Pre-testing and measuring cognitive processes 

Part III: Cognitive interview exercise and discussion 

2

March 15 (Week2): 

Part I: Comprehension and Interpretation of Survey Questions 

Part II: Autobiographical Memory 

Part III: Discussion Questions (set 1) 

Distribute Assignment #1 

March 22: NO CLASS - SPRING BREAK 

March 29 (Week 3): 

Part I: Context Effects in Surveys 

Part II: Cognitive Processes and Response Effects (Satisficing) 

Part III: Assignment #1 (critique and discussion of article) 

Assignment #1 due 

April 5 (Week 4) 

Part I: Memory Errors in Surveys 

Part II: Temporal Judgments 



Part I: Estimation Processes 

Part II: Probability Judgments 



Part I: Attitudes 

Part II: Persuasion, Social Influence, and Nonresponse 

Part III: Mapping, Social Norms and Social Desirability 

Distribute Assignment #2 


Part I: Interviewers: Rapport and Social Distance 

Part II: Implications and Summing up 

Part III: Assignment #2 Discussion 

Assignment #2 due 

May 3: Final paper due by 5:00 p.m. 

****************************************************************************** 

3

Schedule and Reading Assignments 

Week 1 

Part I: Cognitive Models of the Response Process 

Readings: 

Chapter 1 of Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinksi, K. (2000). The Psychology of 

Survey Response. 

Part II: Pre-testing 

Week2: 

Readings: To be distributed 

Part I: Comprehension and Interpretation of Survey Questions 

Readings: 

Chapter 2 of Tourangeau et al. (2000) 

Fowler, F. (1992). How unclear terms affect survey data. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 

218-231. 

Schwarz, N. (1996). Cognition and communication: Judgmental biases, research 

methods, and the logic of conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Part II: Autobiographical Memory 

Readings 


Shum, M. S., & Rips, L. J. (1999). The Respondent’s Confession: Autobiographical 

Memory in the context of Surveys. In Sirken, M. G., Herrmann, D. J., Schechter, S., 

Schwarz, N., Tanur, J. M., & Tourangeau, R. (Eds.), Cognition and Survey Research. 

New York: Wiley. 


4

Week 3: 

Week 4 

Part I: Context Effects in Surveys 

Readings 

Chapter 7 of Tourangeau et al. 

Bishop, G., Oldendick, R., & Tuchfarber, A. (1984). What must my interest in politics be if 

I just told you "I don't know"? Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 510-519. 

Schwarz, N., Strack, F., & H. Mai. (1991). Assimilation and contrast effects in part-whole 

question sequences: A conversational logic analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 3-23. 

Part II: Cognitive Processes and Response Effects 

Readings 

Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of 

attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 213-236. 

Krosnick, J., & Alwin, D. (1987). An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response order 

effects in survey measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 201-219. 

Krosnick, J. A., Narayan, S., & Smith, W. R. (1996). Satisficing in Surveys: Initial 

Evidence. New Directions for Evaluation, 70, 29-44. 

Part III: Assignment #1 (critique and discussion of article) 

Part I: Memory Errors in Surveys 

Readings 

Loftus, E. F., Smith, K. D., Klinger, M. R. & Fiedler, J. (1992). Memory and mismemory 

for health events. In J. M. Tanur (ed), Questions about questions: inquiries into the 

cognitive bases of surveys (pp. 102-137). New York: Sage. 

Belli, R. F., Traugott, M. W., Young, M., & McGonagle, K. A. (1999). Reducing 

Vote Overreporting in Surveys: Social Desirability, Memory Failure, and Source 

Monitoring. Public Opinion Quarterly, 63, 90-108. 

Part II: Temporal Judgments 

Readings 

Required 

Chapters 4 and 5 in Tourangeau, et al. (2000) 


5

Week 5 

Part I: Estimation Processes 

Readings 

Required 

Schaeffer, N.C., & Bradburn, N. (1989). Respondent behavior in magnitude 

estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 84, 402-413. 

Burton, S., & Blair, E. (1991). Task conditions, response formulation processes, and 

response accuracy for behavioral frequency questions in surveys. Public Opinion 

Quarterly, 55, 50-79. 

Part II: Probability Judgments 

Week 6: 

Readings 

Part II: Attitudes 

Readings 

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and 

biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131. 

Hastie, R. & Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends 

on whether the judgment is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review, 93, 258- 

268. 


Dawes, R., & Smith, T. (1985). Attitude and opinion measurement. In G. Lindzey & E. 

Aronson (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology: Vol. 1. (3rd ed.). New York: 

Random House, pp. 509-566. 

Cunningham, W. A., Preacher, K. J., Banaji, M. R. (2001). Implicit attitude 

measures: Consistency, stability, and convergent validity. Psychological Science, 121, 

163-170. 

Fazio, R., Sanbonmatsu, D., Powell, M., & Kardes, F. (1986). On the automatic 

activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 229-238. 

Part II: Persuasion, Social Influence, and Nonresponse 

Readings 

Required 

Groves, R., Cialdini, R., & Couper, M. (1992). Understanding the decision to 

participate in a survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 475-495. 

6

Petty, R. E., Wheeler, S. C., & Tormala, Z. L. (2002). Persuasion and Attitude 

Change. In T. Millong & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of 

psychology. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 

Part III: Mapping, Social Norms and Social Desirability 

Week 7: 

Readings 

Required 

Chapters 8 and 9 of Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinksi, K. (2000). The 

Psychology of Survey Response. 

Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. 

Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 46, 598-609. 

Bishop, G., Oldendick, R., & Tuchfarber, A. (1986). Opinions on fictitious issues: The 

pressure to answer survey questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 240-250. 

Part I: Interviewers: Rapport and Social Distance 

Readings 

Required 


Schaeffer, N. (1991). Conversation with a purpose--or conversation? Interaction in the 

standardized interview. In P. P. Biemer, R. M. Groves, L. E. Lyberg, N. A. Mathiowetz 

& S. Sudman (eds), Measurement errors in surveys. New York: Wiley, pp. 367-391. 

van der Zouwen, J., Dijkstra, W., & Smit, J. (1991). Studying respondent interviewer 

interaction: The relationship between interviewing style, interviewer behavior, and 

response behavior. P. P. Biemer, R. M. Groves, L. E. Lyberg, N. A. Mathiowetz & S. 

Sudman (eds), Measurement errors in surveys. New York: Wiley, pp. 419-437. 

Schober, M. F. (1999). Making sense of questions: An interactional approach. In 

Sirken, M. G., Herrmann, D. J., Schechter, S., Schwarz, N., Tanur, J. M., & 

Tourangeau, R. (Eds.), Cognition and Survey Research. New York: Wiley. 

Katz, D. (1942). Do interviewers bias poll results? Public Opinion Quarterly, 6, 248- 

268. 

Part II: Implications and Summing up 

Reading (required) 

Chapter 11 of Tourangeau et al. (2000). 

Part III: Assignment #2 Discussion 

7

Optional readings: 

Cognitive Models of the Response Process 

Chapters 1-3 in Sudman, S., Bradburn, N., & Schwarz, N. (1996), Thinking about Answers: The 

Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Bradburn, N., & Danis, C. (1984). Potential contributions of cognitive research to survey 

questionnaire design. In T. Jabine et al. (Eds.), Cognitive Aspects of Survey Design: Building a 

Bridge Between Disciplines. Washington: National Academy Press, pp. 101-129. 

Strack, F., & Martin, L. (1987). Thinking, judging, and communicating: A process account of context 

effects in attitude surveys. In H. Hippler, N. Schwarz, & S. Sudman (Eds.), Social information 

processing and survey methodology (pp. 123-148). New York: Springer-Verlag. 

Tourangeau, R. (1984). Cognitive science and survey methods. In T. Jabine et al. (Eds.), Cognitive 

Aspects of Survey Design: Building a Bridge Between Disciplines. Washington: National Academy 

Press, pp.73-100. 

Chapter 9 of Groves, R. (1989). Survey Costs and Survey Errors. New York: Wiley. 

Comprehension and Interpretation of Survey Questions 

Bradburn, N., & Miles, C. (1979). Vague quantifiers. Public Opinion Quarterly, 43, 92-101. 

Clark, H. (1985). Language use and language users. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The 

Handbook of Social Psychology: Vol. 2. Special fields and applications (3rd ed.). New York: 

Random House, pp. 179-231. 

Chase, C. (1969). Often is where you find it. American Psychologist, 24, 1043. 

Pace, C., & Friedlander, J. (1982). The meaning of response categories: How often is 'Occasionally,' 

'Often,' and 'Very Often'? Research in Higher Education, 17, 267-281. 

Pepper, S., & Prytulak, L. (1974). Sometimes frequently means seldom: Context effects in the 

interpretation of quantitative expressions. Journal of Research in Personality, 8, 95-101. 

Schaeffer, N. C. (1991). Hardly or constantly? Group comparisons using vague quantifiers. Public 

Opinion Quarterly, 55, 395-423. 

Wallsten, T., Budescu, D., Rapoport, A., Zwick, R., & Forsythe, B. (1986). "Measuring the vague 

meaning of probability terms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 348-365. 

Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & T. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Vol. 

3 Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Seminar Press. 

Context Effects in Surveys 

Tourangeau, R. (1999). Context effects on answers to attitude questions. In Sirken, M. G., 

Herrmann, D. J., Schechter, S., Schwarz, N., Tanur, J. M., & Tourangeau, R. (Eds.), Cognition and 

Survey Research. New York: Wiley. 

8

Chapters 4 and 5 in Sudman, S., Bradburn, N., & Schwarz, N. (1996), Thinking about Answers: The 


Tourangeau, R., & Rasinski, K. (1988). "Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude 

measurement." Psychological Bulletin, 103, 229-314. 

Schuman, H. (1992). Context effects: State of the art/state of the past. In N. Schwarz & S. Sudman 

(Eds.), Context effects in social and psychological research. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 35-47. 

Tourangeau, R. (1992). "Context effects on attitude responses: The role of retrieval and memory 

structures." In N. Schwarz & S. Sudman (Eds.), Context effects in social and psychological research. 

New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 35-47. 

Tourangeau, R., Rasinski, K., Bradburn, N., & D'Andrade, R. (1989a). Carryover effects in attitude 

surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 53, 495-524. 

Bishop, G., Oldendick, R., & Tuchfarber, A. (1982). Political information processing: Question order 

and context effects. Political Behavior, 4, 177-200. 

Bishop, G., Oldendick, R., & Tuchfarber, A. (1984a). Interest in political campaigns: The influence of 

question order and electoral context. Political Behavior, 6, 159-168. 

McClendon, M., & O'Brien, D. (1988). Question-order effects on subjective well-being. Public 

Opinion Quarterly, 52, 351-364. 

Smith, T. W. (1991). Context effects in the General Social Survey. In P. P. Biemer, R. M. Groves, 

L. E. Lyberg, N. A. Mathiowetz & S. Sudman (eds), Measurement errors in surveys. New York: 

Wiley, pp. 367-391. 

Cognitive Processes and Response Effects 

Chapter 6 in Sudman, S., Bradburn, N., & Schwarz, N. (1996), Thinking about Answers: The 


Schwarz, N., & Hippler, H. (1987). What response scales may tell your respondents: Informative 

functions of response alternatives. In H. Hippler, N. Schwarz, & S. Sudman (Eds.), Social 

Information Processing and Survey Methodology. New York: Springer-Verlag. 

Wanke, M., Schwarz, N., & Noelle-Neumann, E. (1995). Asking comparative questions: The impact 

of the direction of comparison. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59, 347-372. 

Bishop, G., Oldendick, R., & Tuchfarber, A. (1983). Effects of filter questions in public opinion 

surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 528-546. 

Autobiographical Memory 

Loftus, E. F., & Fathi, D. C. (1985). Retrieving multiple autobiographical memories. Social 

Cognition, 3, 280-295. 

Wagenaar, W. (1986). My memory: A study of autobiographical memory over six years. Cognitive 

Psychology, 18, 225-252. 

Robinson, J. (1986). Temporal reference systems and autobiographical memory. In D. Rubin (Ed.), 

Autobiograpical memory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 159-188. 

9

Mathiowetz, N. A. (1988). Forgetting events in autobiographical memory: findings from a health care 

survey. Proceedings of the Section on Survey Methods Research, American Statistical Association, 

pp. 167-172. 

Temporal Judgments 



Friedman, W. (1993). Memory for the time of past events. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 44-66. 

Thompson, C. P., Skowronski, J. J. & Lee, D. J. (1988). Telescoping in dating naturally occurring 

events. Memory and Cognition, 16, 461-468. 

Loftus, E. F. & Marburger, W. (1983). Since the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, has anyone beaten you 

up? Improving the accuracy of retrospective reports with landmark events. Memory and Cognition, 

11, 114-120. 

Huttenlocher, J., Hedges, L., & Prohaska, V. (1988). Hierarchical organization in ordered domains: 

estimating the dates of events. Psychological Review, 95, 471-484. 

Sudman, S. & Bradburn, N. M. (1973). Effects of time and memory factors on response in surveys. 

Journal of the American Statistical Association, 68, 805-815. 

Baddeley, A. D., Lewis, V. & Nimmo-Smith, I. (1978). When did you last ... ? In M. M. Gruneberg & 

R. N. Sykes (eds), Practical aspects of memory (pp. 77-83). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 

Rubin, D.C. & Baddeley, A.D. (1989). Telescoping is not time compression: a model of the dating of 

autobiographical events. Memory and Cognition, 17, 653-661. 

10

Estimation Processes 



Huttenlocher, J., Hedges, L., & Bradburn, N. M. (1990). Reports of elapsed time: bounding and 

rounding processes in estimation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and 

Cognition, 16, 196-213. 

Memory Errors in Surveys 



Kolers, P. A., & Palef, S. R. (1976). Knowing not. Memory and Cognition, 4, 553-558. 

Neter, J., & Waksberg, J. (1964). A study of response errors in expenditures data from household 

interviews. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 59, 17-55. 

Jobe, J., Tourangeau, R., & Smith, A.F. (1993). "Contributions of survey research to the 

understanding of memory." Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, 567-584. 

Blair, J., Menon, G., & Bickart, B. (1991). Measurement effects in self vs. proxy responses: An 

information-processing perspective. In P. P. Biemer, R. M. Groves, L. E. Lyberg, N. A. Mathiowetz 

& S. Sudman (eds), Measurement errors in surveys (pp. 145-166). New York: Wiley. 

Cash, W. S. & Moss, A. J. (1972). Optimum recall period for reporting persons injured in motor 

vehicle accidents. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 2, No. 50 (DHEW Publication No. HSM 72- 

1050). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Loftus, E. F., Klinger, M. R., Smith, K. D. & Fiedler, J. (1990). A tale of two questions: benefits of 

asking more than one question. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54, 330-345. 

Means, B. & Loftus, E. F. (1991). When personal history repeats itself: decomposing memories for 

recurring events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 297-318. 

Means, B., Swan, G. E., Jobe, J., & Esposito, J. L. (1993). Estimating frequencies for habitual 

behaviors: reports of cigarette smoking. In N. Schwarz & S. Sudman (eds), Autobiographical memory 

and the validity of retrospective reports. New York: Springer-Verlag. 

Means, B., Swan, G. E., Jobe, J. B. & Esposito, J. L. (1991). An alternative approach to obtaining 

personal history data. In P. P. Biemer, R. M. Groves, L. E. Lyberg, N. A. Mathiowetz & S. Sudman 

(eds), Measurement errors in surveys (pp. 167-183). New York: Wiley. 

Menon, G. (1993). Judgments of behavioral frequencies: memory search and retrieval strategies. In 

N. Schwarz & S. Sudman (eds), Autobiographical memory and the validity of retrospective reports. 

New York: Springer-Verlag. 

Mingay, D. J. & Greenwell, M. T. (1989). Memory bias and response-order effects. Journal of 

Official Statistics, 5, 253-263. 

Smith, A. F. & Jobe, J. B. (1993). Reports of long-term dietary memories: data and a model. In N. 

Schwarz & S. Sudman (eds), Autobiographical memory and the validity of retrospective reports. New 

York: Springer-Verlag. 

11

Smith, A. F., Jobe, J. B. & Mingay, D. J. (1991). Question-induced cognitive biases in reports of 

dietary intake by college men and women. Health Psychology, 10, 244-251. 

Sudman, S., Finn, A. & Lannom, L. (1984). The use of bounded recall procedures in single 

interviews. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 520-524. 

Tourangeau, R. & Rasinski, K. A. (1987). Evaluation of data collection frequency and the use of a 

summary in the National Medical Care Utilization and Expenditure Survey. National Medical Care 

Utilization and Expenditure Survey, Series A, No. 2 (DHHS Publication No. PHS 87-20002). 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Glucksberg, S. & McCloskey, M. (1981). Decisions about ignorance: knowing what you don't know. 

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 311-325. 

Probability Judgments 

Gentner, D., & Collins, A. (1981). Studies of inference from lack of knowledge. Memory and 

Cognition, 9, 434-443. 

Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. 

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 

Sherman, S., & Corty, E. (1984). Cognitive heuristics. In R. Wyer and T. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of 

Social Cognition (pp. 189-286). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 

Attitudes 

Salancik, G., & Conway, M. (1975). Attitude inferences from salient and relevant cognitive content 

about behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 829-840. 

Schuman, J., & Presser, S. (1981). Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments in 

question form, wording, and context. New York: Academic Press. 

12

Persuasion, Social Influence, and Nonresponse 

Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus 

message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766. 

McGuire, W. (1968). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), 

The handbook of social psychology, (Vol. 3). Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley. 

Mapping, Social Norms and Social Desirability 

DeMaio, Theresa J., "Social Desirability and Survey Measurement: A Review," Chapter Nine, pp. 

257-282 in Charles F. Turner and Elizabeth Martin, Surveying Subjective Phenomena, Vol. 2, Russell 

Sage, 1985. 

Interviewers: Rapport and Social Distance 

Suchman, L., & Jordan, B. (1990). Interactional troubles in face-to-face survey interviews. Journal of 

the American Statistical Association, 85, 232-241. 

Fowler, F., & Mangione, T. (1985). The value of interviewer training and supervision. Final Report to 

the National Center for Health Services Research. 

Fowler, F., & Mangione, T. (1989). Standardized survey interviewing: Minimizing interviewerrelated 

error. Newbury Park, California: Sage. 

Horvitz, D. (1952). Sampling and field procedures in the Pittsburgh Morbidity Survey, Public Health 

Reports, 67, 1003-1012. 

Hyman, H., Cobb, W., Feldman, J., Hart, C., & Stember, C. (1954). Interviewing in social research. 

Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

13

Cognitive Processes Syllabus - Survey Research Laboratory

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?