2014 / April

面訪員的人格特質是否會影響訪問結果？臺灣面訪追蹤調查的實證研究
Does Interviewer Personality Matter for Survey Outcomes? Evidence from a Face-to-face Panel Study in Taiwan

研究論文 Article

于若蓉, 劉育昇, 楊孟麗
Ruoh-Rong Yu, Yu-Sheng Liu, Meng-Li Yang

89-121

本研究的主要目的，在探索面訪員的人格特質對訪問結果的影響。我們以受訪者拒訪的可能性衡量訪員工作表現，並以五大人格模型（five-factor model）測量訪員的人格特徵。在調查研究領域，以訪員人格與其工作表現為題材的研究相當稀少，而相關研究多發現訪員人格與工作表現間並無顯著關係。Yang and Yu（2011）、Jäckle et al.（2013）是少數的例外。本文採用社會科學研究領域廣被使用的NEO-FFI 作為人格測驗工具，分析面訪員人格特質對其拒訪機率的影響效果。文中採用多階層模型（multilevel model），同時考量訪員、受訪者特性的可能影響。研究結果發現，外向性（extraversion）對樣本拒訪機率有顯著的負向影響，親和性（agreeableness）呈顯著的正向影響。審慎性（conscientiousness）、開放性（openness）與神經質（neuroticism）則無顯著的影響效果。相較以英國面訪員為分析對象的Jäckle et al.（2013），及以臺灣電訪員為對象的Yang and Yu（2011），本文的研究結果不盡相同。對此，文中嘗試尋求可能的解釋。另外，也就調查實務上的意涵做了討論。

We examine the effects of personality traits on interviewer performance in terms of the likelihood of refusal using a face-to-face panel of Taiwan. Studies on interviewer personality have been rare, and most found that interviewer personality is not associated with survey out-comes. Yang and Yu (2011) and Jäckle et al. (2013) are few exceptions. This study adopted the well-developed NEO-FFI to measure personality traits. In addition, respondent characteristics were controlled in the multilevel model to better clarify the influence of interviewer personality. After controlling for interviewer and respondent characteristics, extraversion was found to be negatively associated with refusal, while agreeableness exhibited the opposite effect. However, no significant association was found for conscientiousness, openness, or neuroticism. These findings are somewhat different from the study of Jäckle et al. on face-to-face interviewers in the UK, as well as the study of Yang and Yu on telephone interviewers of Taiwan. The possible underlying explanations were discussed. The implications of these findings on survey practice were also discussed.

訪員特質, 訪員表現, 單位無回應, 拒訪, 五大人格模型
interviewer personality, interviewer performance, unit non-response, refusal, Big-Five model

社會學, 心理學
Sociology , Psychology

https://doi.org/10.7014/SRMA.2014040003

Full-text