IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nam/defipp/2401.html

Measuring Norms and Enumerator Effects: Survey Method Matters

Author

Listed:
  • Pablo Álvarez-Aragón

    (Development Finance and Public Policies, University of Namur)

  • Hugues Champeaux

    (University of Cagliari)

Abstract

The reliability of quantitative data is a prerequisite for the study and design of sound public policy. However, the process of data collection and the way in which individuals are interviewed affects the data collected and can lead to bias. While this process directly impacts the quality of the data, little empirical evidence investigates the key role of the survey methods themselves. In this paper, we compare two survey methods: the standard face-to-face interview and an alternative method we call in-group individual survey. In the latter, respondents are guided by an enumera- tor who reads them the questions, but they answer individually and privately on an electronic de- vice. Taking advantage of an RCT in Benin, we randomize the survey method across respondents while holding the questionnaire constant. We show that the survey method leads to different re- sults depending on the degree of enumerator influence. Identifying this influence by quantifying how much of the variation in the outcome variable is attributable to enumerators, we document that variables that are unlikely to be influenced by enumerators do not differ significantly across surveymethods. However, variables that are likely to be affected differ systematically. These vari- ables are mainly related to norms, opinions, and beliefs. In particular, we find that respondents who answer directly on an electronic device report less gender-equal behavior and values. To rule out other mechanisms, we show that social desirability bias is more likely to affect responses in classical face-to-face interviews, where individuals’ responses are less confidential.

Suggested Citation

  • Pablo Álvarez-Aragón & Hugues Champeaux, 2024. "Measuring Norms and Enumerator Effects: Survey Method Matters," DeFiPP Working Papers 2401, University of Namur, Development Finance and Public Policies.
  • Handle: RePEc:nam:defipp:2401
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://defipp.unamur.be/wp/defipp_wp_2024_1.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2024
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ivar Krumpal, 2013. "Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 2025-2047, June.
    2. Abate, Gashaw T. & de Brauw, Alan & Hirvonen, Kalle & Wolle, Abdulazize, 2023. "Measuring consumption over the phone: Evidence from a survey experiment in urban Ethiopia," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    3. John A. List & Azeem M. Shaikh & Yang Xu, 2019. "Multiple hypothesis testing in experimental economics," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(4), pages 773-793, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kadam, Aditi & McCullough, Ellen B. & McGavock, Tamara J. & Magnan, Nicholas, 2025. "Who is asking and how? Effects of survey mode and enumerator gender on measuring women’s life experience," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Seres, Gyula & Balleyer, Anna Helen & Cerutti, Nicola & Danilov, Anastasia & Friedrichsen, Jana & Liu, Yiming & Süer, Müge, 2021. "Face masks increase compliance with physical distancing recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 7(2), pages 139-158.
    2. Rebecca Walcott & Isabelle Cohen & Denise Ferris, 2024. "When Who Matters: Interviewer Effects and Survey Modality," Evaluation Review, , vol. 48(6), pages 1024-1049, December.
    3. Youcef Meriane & Hind Dib‐Slamani & Sami Ben Jabeur, 2026. "Judging Firms' Unethical Behaviors: Does Cultural Similarity Matter?," Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(1), pages 308-320, January.
    4. Shagata Mukherjee, 2020. "What Drives Gender Differences in Trust and Trustworthiness?," Public Finance Review, , vol. 48(6), pages 778-805, November.
    5. Alexandre Belloni & Victor Chernozhukov & Denis Chetverikov & Christian Hansen & Kengo Kato, 2018. "High-dimensional econometrics and regularized GMM," CeMMAP working papers CWP35/18, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    6. C. Mónica Capra & Bing Jiang & Yuxin Su, 2022. "Do pledges lead to more volunteering? An experimental study," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(1), pages 87-100, January.
    7. Sumit Maheshwari & Chandra K. Jaggi & Prerna Gautam, 2026. "A state-of-the-art review of green supply chain management: observations and business insights," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 358(1), pages 193-273, March.
    8. Ek, Claes, 2017. "Some causes are more equal than others? The effect of similarity on substitution in charitable giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 45-62.
    9. Mechtenberg, Lydia & Perino, Grischa & Treich, Nicolas & Tyran, Jean-Robert & Wang, Stephanie W., 2024. "Self-signaling in voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    10. Andreoni, James & Serra-Garcia, Marta, 2021. "Time inconsistent charitable giving," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    11. Andrea F.M. Martinangeli & Lisa Windsteiger, 2019. "Immigration vs. Poverty: Causal Impact on Demand for Redistribution in a Survey Experiment," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2019-13, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
    12. Roland Fryer & Steven Levitt & John List & Anya Samek, 2020. "Introducing CogX: A New Preschool Education Program Combining Parent and Child Interventions," Framed Field Experiments 00718, The Field Experiments Website.
    13. Aycinena, Diego & Bogliacino, Francesco & Kimbrough, Erik O., 2024. "Measuring norms: Assessing the threat of social desirability bias to the Bicchieri and Xiao elicitation method," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 225-239.
    14. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List & Claire Mackevicius & Min Sok Lee & Dana Suskind, 2019. "How Can Experiments Play a Greater Role in Public Policy? 12 Proposals from an Economic Model of Scaling," Artefactual Field Experiments 00679, The Field Experiments Website.
    15. Michael L. Anderson & Fangwen Lu, 2017. "Learning to Manage and Managing to Learn: The Effects of Student Leadership Service," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(10), pages 3246-3261, October.
    16. Grolleau, Gilles & Ibanez, Lisette & Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2020. "Moral judgment of environmental harm caused by a single versus multiple wrongdoers: A survey experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    17. Dan Liu & Jia You & Michael Vardanyan & Zhiyang Shen, 2026. "Assessing the Impact of China's Broadband Village Pilot Project on the Consumption Patterns of Rural Households," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 77(1), pages 57-73, February.
    18. Billur Aksoy & Silvana Krasteva, 2020. "When does less information translate into more giving to public goods?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 1148-1177, December.
    19. Jinkwon Lee & Sujin Min, 2021. "The effects of repeated induction of emotions on cooperation and punishment," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(3), pages 925-943, July.
    20. Aksoy, Cevat Giray & Cabrales, Antonio & Dolls, Mathias & Durante, Ruben & Windsteiger, Lisa, 2025. "Calamities, common interests, shared identity: What shapes social cohesion in Europe?," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 1049-1068.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nam:defipp:2401. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: François-Xavier Ledru (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fsfunbe.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.