Discourse Cues That Respondents Have Misunderstood Survey Questions
Discourse Cues That Respondents Have Misunderstood Survey Questions
复制标题
受访者误解调查问题的话语线索
DOI：
10.1207/s15326950dp3803_1
复制
发表时间：
2004
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Jonathan E. Bloom
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. F. Schober;Jonathan E. Bloom
当受访者的回答包括停顿、口吃和模糊限制语时，这是否表明他们有误解调查问题的危险？或者，在日常话语中，不流利现象是如此普遍，以至于它们是非诊断性的？我们在42个基于实验室的电话访谈语料库中分析了受访者在调查问题后的第一句话（斯科贝尔和康拉德，1997）。由于受访者是根据虚构的情景回答问题的，因此很明显，他们的回答反映了需要澄清的问题。一半的受访者参加了严格标准化的访谈，其中任何澄清都是禁止的，一半的受访者参加了更多的合作访谈，其中鼓励澄清。结果显示，受访者更有可能停顿更长时间，产生一个嗯或嗯，修复他们的话语，并描述他们的情况下，在第一轮被问到一个问题时，回答有关的情况下，他们需要澄清。话语线索的各种组合也诊断需要澄清，虽然往往只有在严格标准化的采访。
When survey respondents' answers include pauses, stammers, and hedges, does this indicate that they are in danger of misinterpreting the survey question? Or are disfluencies so common in ordinary discourse that they are nondiagnostic? We analyzed respondents' first utterances after survey questions in a corpus of 42 laboratory-based telephone interviews (Schober & Conrad, 1997). Because respondents had answered questions on the basis of fictional scenarios, it was clear when their answers reflected a need for clarification. Half the respondents participated in strictly standardized interviews in which any clarification was prohibited, and half participated in more collaborative interviews in which clarification was encouraged. Results showed that respondents were more likely to pause longer, produce an um or uh, repair their utterance, and describe their circumstances in the first turn after a question was asked when answering about scenarios for which they needed clarification. Various combinations of discourse cues were also diagnostic of the need for clarification, although often only in the strictly standardized interviews.