Gender aspects in the collection of data using quantitative interviews

For some time in quantitative social research, people have been looking for possible sources of error in interviews that can result in systematic distortions in the findings.

Gender of the interviewers:
The extent to which the gender of the interviewer affects the collection of data through the reply reaction of the interviewed person being influenced by outward characteristics of the interviewer is investigated. Other factors that may cause bias in the data include the age of the interviewer or professional background (cf. Emslie/Richard, 2000).

Research findings have shown that the gender of the interviewing person affects reply behavior especially when the subject of the question refers directly to gender-specific roles or behaviors. In order to obtain as little bias as possible in such cases, some researchers argue that interviewees should be interviewed by persons of the same sex. For some particularly sensitive topics such as sexual violence, however, other procedures have proved to be more effective, for example allowing the interviewees to choose the gender of the interviewer themselves (Catania et al 1996, 371-372). In one American study of sexual behavior, the researchers found that women almost exclusively chose a female interviewer (94 %), while the choice made by men tended more to be divided. Men selected 45 % male and 55 % female interviewers (Catania et all 1996, 359).


Effect of social desirability:
Systematic bias in interview situations can also come about due to the “effect of social desirability”. For example, information about a person’s own behavior, such as daily television consumption, may be “modified” by interviewees on the basis of their assessment of “normal”, meaning “socially desirable”, behavior.
Particular attention should be paid here to the fact that the perception of what is “normal” or “socially desirable” behavior is frequently not gender neutral but marked by socially attributed gender roles.
This can be demonstrated using the example of alcohol consumption (Sieverding, 2004).
Widespread prejudices about what a “normal” amount of alcohol consumption is say that a “real man” can take a glass or two more, while it is supposed to be “unfeminine” to drink a lot of alcohol. If, for example, data is collected, differentiated by gender, that shows an approximation of alcohol consumption by professional women to alcohol consumption by professional men, this could have different causes.
On the one hand, alcohol consumption by working women could indeed approximate to that of men. It would also be conceivable that non-working women say that they consume less alcohol than is in line with reality, since this does not accord with the gender role traditionally expected of them. Working women do not drink more than other women, but are more open about talking about their real alcohol consumption because their self-confidence has been boosted by the fact that they work.

• Behnke, Cornelia/Meuser, Michael: Geschlechterforschung und qualitative Methoden, Opladen 1999, S. 20-45.
• Catania, Joseph A. et.al., 1996: Effects of Interviewer Gender, Interviewer choice, and Item Wording on Responses to Questions concerning Sexual Behavior, in: Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol 60 /Fall 1996, Number 3.
• Diekmann, Andreas: Empirische Sozialforschung. Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen. Reinbek 1995.
• Reinecke, J.: Interviewer- und Befragtenverhalten. Theoretische Ansätze und methodische Konzepte, Opladen 1991.
• Sieverding, M.: Theoretische Ansätze der Genderforschung und ihre Operationalisierbarkeit für die Gesundheitsberichterstattung, Vortrag auf der Fachtagung des Robert-Koch-Instituts „Gesundheitsberichterstattung und Gender Mainstreaming“, Berlin 16. Februar 2004.