1. Social Presence in Web Surveys by Mick P. Couper, Roger Tourangeau, Darby M. Steiger presented by Neal Audenaert

2. Authors  Mick P. Couper  Joint Program in Survey Methodology  University of Maryland – College Park  Sociology  Roger Tourangeau  Joint Program in Survey Methodology (director)  University of Maryland – College Park  English and Psychology Background Darby M. Steiger

3. Paper Objectives Assess tension between studies in CHI literature which find support for the social interface theory and survey interviewing literature which suggests that computer interfaces reduce the effects of a human observer has on a study.

4. Conclusions in a Nut Shell “We find little support for the social interface hypothesis.”

5. Competing Perspectives CHI Perspective  Dominant Theory  Subtle cues humanize an interface  Technique  Laboratory Setting  Narrow Population  Few Distractions Survey Perspective  Dominant Theory  Computers reduce the distortions caused by human interviewers  Technique  Participant’s Home  Broader Population  More Distractions

6. Methods: Study Design  Web Based Questionnaire  Six Versions – two variables  Interaction: more, less  Humanizing Images: logo, male photograph, female photograph  Survey Size  202 Participants  3047 Participants

7. Methods: Questions  Gender Attitudes,  Socially Undesirable Behaviors  Socially Desirable Behaviors  Marlow-Cowne Social Desirability (SD)  Impression Management (IM BIDR)  Trust  Debriefing  Demographic

8. Hypothesis “Consistent with the social interface theory, our hypotheses were that increasing the social nature of the Web survey interaction, whether by personalization or interaction would [significantly affect survey responses]”

9. Analysis and Results  Major Findings  Except for personalization of gender attitudes, no statistical differences are observable between the six versions of the study  Gender attitudes differed as expected  Minor Findings  A few scattered items (such as voting history) demonstrated significant differences

10. Conclusions  Need to Resolve Discrepancies  Rejected Error Sources  Experimental manipulations not sufficiently blatant  Use of college students in CHI vs. survey studies  Untestable Error Source  Laboratory based experiments yield results that are not replicated in field-based surveys

11. Significance of Study  Questions Social Interface Theory  Far ranging effects for addressing CHI issues in the future  Questions Experimental Method

12. Alternative Approach  Big Question (CHI)  How can we make computer interfaces more acceptable to human users?  Big Question (Survey)  How can we reduce the impact of human interviewers on survey results? Bigger Question How can (or should) we reduce the effects of the core agenda of our discipline on the results of our empirical research?