Mail vs. telephone surveys of criminal justice attitudes: A comparative analysis

Abstract

This study compares results from surveys using two modes of administration. A subset of questions from the 1992 Texas Crime Poll, a statewide poll conducted annually by mail, was replicated in telephone interviews using the Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing System. The phone survey yielded better participation rates but less complete responses to individual attitude questions than did the mail poll. As expected, the mail survey was less expensive but less efficient than the automated phone survey. The central finding was that all but one of the responses to five attitude questions differed significantly across the surveys. The samples differed in their demographic composition, but this did not explain differences in the substantive findings from the mail and phone surveys. The discussion considers alternative explanations for differences in the findings from the two surveys and suggests directions for further comparative research.

Death penalty support for special offender populations of legally convicted murderers: juveniles, the mentally retarded, and the mentally incompetent

“…The jury pools in Florida consist of a random selection of residents 18 years of age and older who possess a valid state driver's license or state identification card. Despite any shortcomings related to statutory exclusions for those under eighteen years of age, protected populations, or law enforcement personnel, the jury pool offers social scientists a cost-effective, convenient, accessible, and fairly representative sample of the local community (Farnworth, Bennett, & West, 1996). According to 1990 Census data, this jury pool sample of participants in this study closely resembles the demographic characteristics of Hillsborough County with two exceptions: potential jurors had a slightly higher household income and were better educated.…”

Death penalty support for special offender populations of legally convicted murderers: juveniles, the mentally retarded, and the mentally incompetent

“…The jury pools in Florida consist of a random selection of residents 18 years of age and older who possess a valid state driver's license or state identification card. Despite any shortcomings related to statutory exclusions for those under eighteen years of age, protected populations, or law enforcement personnel, the jury pool offers social scientists a cost-effective, convenient, accessible, and fairly representative sample of the local community (Farnworth, Bennett, & West, 1996). According to 1990 Census data, this jury pool sample of participants in this study closely resembles the demographic characteristics of Hillsborough County with two exceptions: potential jurors had a slightly higher household income and were better educated.…”

Capital punishment preferences for special offender populations

“…The jury pool offered social scientists a convenient, accessible, and fairly representative sample of the community that more than compensated for any shortcomings or potential biases in the sample that might occur due to the underrepresentation of certain populations due to statutory exclusions. Additionally, the access to the jury pool saved valuable time, money, and labor that would be required if using a mailed questionnaire, or a door-to-door or telephone survey (Farnworth, Bennett, & West, 1996). More importantly, these venirepersons constituted a sample from the same population from which capital juries were selected.…”

Community views on crime and policing: Survey mode effects on bias in community surveys

“……”

Death penalty support for special offender populations of legally convicted murderers: juveniles, the mentally retarded, and the mentally incompetent

“…The jury pools in Florida consist of a random selection of residents 18 years of age and older who possess a valid state driver's license or state identification card. Despite any shortcomings related to statutory exclusions for those under eighteen years of age, protected populations, or law enforcement personnel, the jury pool offers social scientists a cost-effective, convenient, accessible, and fairly representative sample of the local community (Farnworth, Bennett, & West, 1996). According to 1990 Census data, this jury pool sample of participants in this study closely resembles the demographic characteristics of Hillsborough County with two exceptions: potential jurors had a slightly higher household income and were better educated.…”

Capital punishment preferences for special offender populations

“…The jury pool offered social scientists a convenient, accessible, and fairly representative sample of the community that more than compensated for any shortcomings or potential biases in the sample that might occur due to the underrepresentation of certain populations due to statutory exclusions. Additionally, the access to the jury pool saved valuable time, money, and labor that would be required if using a mailed questionnaire, or a door-to-door or telephone survey (Farnworth, Bennett, & West, 1996). More importantly, these venirepersons constituted a sample from the same population from which capital juries were selected.…”

Community views on crime and policing: Survey mode effects on bias in community surveys

“……”

Death penalty support for special offender populations of legally convicted murderers: juveniles, the mentally retarded, and the mentally incompetent

“…The jury pools in Florida consist of a random selection of residents 18 years of age and older who possess a valid state driver's license or state identification card. Despite any shortcomings related to statutory exclusions for those under eighteen years of age, protected populations, or law enforcement personnel, the jury pool offers social scientists a cost-effective, convenient, accessible, and fairly representative sample of the local community (Farnworth, Bennett, & West, 1996). According to 1990 Census data, this jury pool sample of participants in this study closely resembles the demographic characteristics of Hillsborough County with two exceptions: potential jurors had a slightly higher household income and were better educated.…”

Capital punishment preferences for special offender populations

“…The jury pool offered social scientists a convenient, accessible, and fairly representative sample of the community that more than compensated for any shortcomings or potential biases in the sample that might occur due to the underrepresentation of certain populations due to statutory exclusions. Additionally, the access to the jury pool saved valuable time, money, and labor that would be required if using a mailed questionnaire, or a door-to-door or telephone survey (Farnworth, Bennett, & West, 1996). More importantly, these venirepersons constituted a sample from the same population from which capital juries were selected.…”

Community views on crime and policing: Survey mode effects on bias in community surveys

“……”