Pe.rceptua1 and Motor Skills, 1975,41,743-746. @ Perceptual and Motor Skills 1975
FURTHER COMPARISON OF VIDEO TAPE AND FACE-TO-FACE INTERVIEWING THOMAS J. WATERS1 University of Souihern Mississippi
Summary.-Previous research has suggested strong similarity of data from the Standardized Video Tape Interview and face-to-face interview procedures. This hypothesis was substantiated by further analysis of the effects of subject variables and their possible differential interaction with the two interview modes. Although no interview mode and/or interviewer-interviewee interactions as such were found, several significant interviewer's sex differences were found and explanations offered.
Dinoff, et al. ( 1969) assert that their Standardized Video Tape Interview holds promise for applied clinical research. This procedure, featuring an interviewer over a television monitor, has been reported to yield data similar to that from a face-to-face interview (Dinoff, Stenmark, & Smith, 1970). To compare the Standardized Video Tape Interview with a face-to-face interview, Dinoff, et al. ( 1970) interviewed a 24-yr.-old psychiatric patient who had a reported past history of head trauma. S was administered the Standardized Video Tape Interview after which a different interviewer asked the same questions but in a live face-to-face encounter. The investigators noted that in general, S responded to both situations similarly, though he did tend to talk a bit more about emotionally charged topics in the Standardized Video Tape Interview given first. The present investigation ~ r o v i d e da more stringent and comprehensive analysis of the two procedures with 48 relatively normal Ss. The interviewees' GSR, State-anxiety (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1968) and rated anxiety were analyzed as well as a temporal speech measure and, an analysis of the effects of interviewer-interviewee sex was included. As the work of Dinoff, et a!. (1970) suggests, hypotheses were tested which predicted essential equivalence of Ss' GSRs, State- and rated-anxiety and Ss' speaking time for the Standardized Video Tape Interview and the face-toface interview when interviewer's and interviewee's sex were controlled.
METHOD Interviewees were 24 male and 24 female volunteer University of Southern Mississippi general psychology students during the 1973-1974 Summer Quarter. Ss' M,, was 22 yr. (a = 4 ) . 'Now Staff Psychologist at Searcy State Hospital, Mt. Vernon, Alabama 36560. This article was based on the author's doctoral dissertation .in the University of Southern Mississippi Psychology Department, 1974, Thomas D. Yarnell, Ph.D., Committee Chairman.
744
T.J. WATERS
Instrumentation included a Sony VO 1600 Video Tape Recorder and playback unit, 21-in. portable G.E. black and white television monitor, a Lafayette Model 7601 S GSR unit (Lafayette Instrument Co., 1966) and Brenet No. 15 stopwatch. Other materials included the 15 Standardized Video Tape Interview questions (Dinoff, et al., 1969), State Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger, et al., 1968), and a 7-point anxiety scale devised by the author. Ss were observed through a 1-ft. X 1-ft. one-way viewing mirror which was centered in a 8-ft. X 12-ft. insulation board. This partitioned the experimental room interviewing area from the adjacent observation area housing the videotape playback and other recording apparatus. Two male and two female volunteer interviewers (M,,, = 22 yr., u = 5 ) from upper level psychology courses were instructed to maintain a neutral comportment to curtail social reinforcement. The interviewers were trained in the interviewing procedures, briefed on ethical considerations, and videotaped as each presented the 15-item Standardized Video Tape Interview. Each interviewer then was assigned randomly to one of the four consecutive days during each of the two consecutive interviewing weeks. Each S participated in only one interview and there were 24 Ss in each of the two interview conditions, with each interviewer interviewing three males and three females under each condition. Ss who scheduled their participation during the first week were administered the Standardized Video Tape Interview. Ss who scheduled their participation during the second week were interviewed face-to-face. After completing a pre-interview State Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger, et al., 1968), S was escorted into the interviewing room and seated 4 ft, in front of the T V monitor. E then placed electrodes on S's right index and middle fingers, fastened the lavalier microphone around his neck, and gave the following instructions: "These are finger electrodes and will not hurt you. After I have put them on, rest your hand on your right leg. Keep y o u hand and arm still. O.K. W e are trying to develop modern techniques of interviewing. The man (woman) interviewing you will appear on the television screen in front of you (will come in here and talk to you). Talk to him (her) and/or to the blank screen as if he (she) were in the room with you. It may seem a little strange at first but after a while it will seem easier." E then entered the observation area where the interviewer was, obtained a GSR baseline measure of S s skin conductance and cued the interviewers when to begin. In the Standardized Video Tape Interview condition, the interviewer, observing S through the one-way mirror and following stated rules (Dinoff, Finch, & Skelton, 1972), controlled the videotape equipment presenting the successive pre-recorded interview items. In the face-to-face condition, the interviewer, after E determined S's GSR baseline, entered the interviewing area and com-
VIDEO TAPE AND FACE-TO-FACE INTERVIEWING
745
menced the face-to-face interview. E simultaneously recorded S"s GSR peak amplitudes in the interval between the interviewer's 15-item utterances. E also recorded the time S actually was speaking. Immediately after the interview, each S was readministered the State Anxiety Inventory and then asked to rate on a 7-point scale his feelings of anxiety or uneasiness during the interview. Ss were instructed that greater subjective anxiety or uneasiness should be denoted by a higher number and lesser subjective anxiety or uneasiness by a lower number. RESULTSAND DISCUSSION The principal analysis was a 2 X 2 X 2 fixed analysis of variance chat yielded eight cells in each of which there were scores of six male or six female Ss. The three factors were interview mode (standardized condition or face-toface condition), interviewer's sex (male or female interviewer), and interviewee's sex (male or female). The results supported the hypothesis that the two interview modes would yield approximately equivalent data when sex of interviewer and interviewee was controlled. Thus, non-significant F values were obtained for the interview mode for all dependent measures investigated: GSR ( F = .007, p > .05); Rated Anxiety ( F = .333, p > .05; pooled pre-post Stare-anxiety scores (F = .005, p > .05); and Ss' speaking time ( F = .01, p > .05). No significant difference was found between the pre-post State-anxiety scores (F = .409, p > .05) and there were no significant two- or three-way interaction effects. Significant interviewer's sex differences were found (Faox = 5.11, p < .05; Fs'strllle= 6.15, P < .05; FGsn = 15.64, P < .01). Inspection of group means showed that Ss responded with higher rated subjective anxiety when inter= 3.50) interviewers, and viewed by male (MA,, = 4.42) than female spoke longer when interviewed by male (Ms., ti,,, = 610.21) than female (Mgstilue = 378.00) interviewers, but with higher GSRs when interviewed by female (MGSR= 2.16) than male ( M G s I < = 1.86) interviewers. One possible explanation for the non-significant two- and three-way interactions was that restrictions due to the stringent controls, e.g., instructing interviewers to curail socially reinforcing cues, may have prevented differential personality, behavioral and/or other subtle interactional variables to operate. These controls too, at least partly, may have contributed to the hypothesized non-significant main effects. A possible explanation for the differential effects of interviewer's sex may have been that the interviewee's behavior was affected by socially learned cultural stereotypes of differences between males and females. In support of such an interpretation, Lindgren (1969) cited considerable evidence for the commonly held belief that males tend to be more aggressive than females who conversely tend to be more passive and inclined to provoke positive responses. Thus, in
746
T. J. WATERS
this study the male interviewers possibly induced "facilitating" type anxiety, which both maintained longer speech in Ss and resulted in their higher rated subjective anxiety. The interesting but rather unexpected result of female interviewers' eliciting higher GSRs and male interviewers' eliciting higher rated anxiety may be explained by considering that GSR not only measures anxiety, which subjectively may be defined as uneasiness or discomfort, but also may be a non-specific index of autonomic arousal. The low negative correlation (-.13) between GSR and Ss' rated anxiety in this study supports this interpretation, as do the findings of others (Martin & Stroufe, 1970) who note that physiological and self-report type anxiety indices often correlate poorly. Particularly noteworthy in this study, however, was the finding of no essential differences between Ss' speaking time and their GSRs, State- and raredanxiety in both interview-conditions. The results of this comparison lent further support and validity to the finding of Dinoff, e t al. ( 1970) and seems supportive of the clinical utility or applicability of the Standardized Video Tape Interview. Presumably, as in the original feasibility study (Dinoff, et al., 1969), Ss responded to the videotape recorded interviewer seemingly as if the interviewer were present in vivo. REFERENCES & SMITH, R. E. The feasibility of videotape interviewing. Psychological Reports, 1969, 25, 239-242. DINOPF,M., FINCH,A. J., & SKELTON, H. A circuit for video-tape interviewing and its recording reliability. Journal o f Applied Behavior Analysis, 1972, 5 , 203-207. DINOFP,M., STENMARK, D. E., & SMITH,R. E. A comparison of video-tape and faceto-face interviewing. P~ychologicalReports, 1970, 27, 53-54. LAFAYE~TEINSTRUMENT CO. In~tructionsfor Model 7 6 0 1 s Psychogalvanometer. Lafayette, Ind.: Author, 1966. LINDGREN, H. C. An introduction to social psychology. New York: Wiley, 1969. MARTIN, B., & STROUPE, L. A. Anxiety. In C. G. Costello (Ed.), Symptoms o f prychopathology: a handbook. New York: Wiley, 1970. Pp. 216-259. SPIBLBERGER, C. D., GORSUCH, R. L., & LUSHENB, R. The State-Trait Anxiety Inuentory (STAI): test manual for Form X . Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1968.
DINOFF,M., CLARK, C. C., REI'IUAN, L. M.,
Accepted September 3, 1975.
FURTHER COMPARISON OF VIDEO TAPE AND FACE-TO-FACE INTERVIEWING THOMAS J. WATERS1 University of Souihern Mississippi
Summary.-Previous research has suggested strong similarity of data from the Standardized Video Tape Interview and face-to-face interview procedures. This hypothesis was substantiated by further analysis of the effects of subject variables and their possible differential interaction with the two interview modes. Although no interview mode and/or interviewer-interviewee interactions as such were found, several significant interviewer's sex differences were found and explanations offered.
Dinoff, et al. ( 1969) assert that their Standardized Video Tape Interview holds promise for applied clinical research. This procedure, featuring an interviewer over a television monitor, has been reported to yield data similar to that from a face-to-face interview (Dinoff, Stenmark, & Smith, 1970). To compare the Standardized Video Tape Interview with a face-to-face interview, Dinoff, et al. ( 1970) interviewed a 24-yr.-old psychiatric patient who had a reported past history of head trauma. S was administered the Standardized Video Tape Interview after which a different interviewer asked the same questions but in a live face-to-face encounter. The investigators noted that in general, S responded to both situations similarly, though he did tend to talk a bit more about emotionally charged topics in the Standardized Video Tape Interview given first. The present investigation ~ r o v i d e da more stringent and comprehensive analysis of the two procedures with 48 relatively normal Ss. The interviewees' GSR, State-anxiety (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1968) and rated anxiety were analyzed as well as a temporal speech measure and, an analysis of the effects of interviewer-interviewee sex was included. As the work of Dinoff, et a!. (1970) suggests, hypotheses were tested which predicted essential equivalence of Ss' GSRs, State- and rated-anxiety and Ss' speaking time for the Standardized Video Tape Interview and the face-toface interview when interviewer's and interviewee's sex were controlled.
METHOD Interviewees were 24 male and 24 female volunteer University of Southern Mississippi general psychology students during the 1973-1974 Summer Quarter. Ss' M,, was 22 yr. (a = 4 ) . 'Now Staff Psychologist at Searcy State Hospital, Mt. Vernon, Alabama 36560. This article was based on the author's doctoral dissertation .in the University of Southern Mississippi Psychology Department, 1974, Thomas D. Yarnell, Ph.D., Committee Chairman.
744
T.J. WATERS
Instrumentation included a Sony VO 1600 Video Tape Recorder and playback unit, 21-in. portable G.E. black and white television monitor, a Lafayette Model 7601 S GSR unit (Lafayette Instrument Co., 1966) and Brenet No. 15 stopwatch. Other materials included the 15 Standardized Video Tape Interview questions (Dinoff, et al., 1969), State Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger, et al., 1968), and a 7-point anxiety scale devised by the author. Ss were observed through a 1-ft. X 1-ft. one-way viewing mirror which was centered in a 8-ft. X 12-ft. insulation board. This partitioned the experimental room interviewing area from the adjacent observation area housing the videotape playback and other recording apparatus. Two male and two female volunteer interviewers (M,,, = 22 yr., u = 5 ) from upper level psychology courses were instructed to maintain a neutral comportment to curtail social reinforcement. The interviewers were trained in the interviewing procedures, briefed on ethical considerations, and videotaped as each presented the 15-item Standardized Video Tape Interview. Each interviewer then was assigned randomly to one of the four consecutive days during each of the two consecutive interviewing weeks. Each S participated in only one interview and there were 24 Ss in each of the two interview conditions, with each interviewer interviewing three males and three females under each condition. Ss who scheduled their participation during the first week were administered the Standardized Video Tape Interview. Ss who scheduled their participation during the second week were interviewed face-to-face. After completing a pre-interview State Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger, et al., 1968), S was escorted into the interviewing room and seated 4 ft, in front of the T V monitor. E then placed electrodes on S's right index and middle fingers, fastened the lavalier microphone around his neck, and gave the following instructions: "These are finger electrodes and will not hurt you. After I have put them on, rest your hand on your right leg. Keep y o u hand and arm still. O.K. W e are trying to develop modern techniques of interviewing. The man (woman) interviewing you will appear on the television screen in front of you (will come in here and talk to you). Talk to him (her) and/or to the blank screen as if he (she) were in the room with you. It may seem a little strange at first but after a while it will seem easier." E then entered the observation area where the interviewer was, obtained a GSR baseline measure of S s skin conductance and cued the interviewers when to begin. In the Standardized Video Tape Interview condition, the interviewer, observing S through the one-way mirror and following stated rules (Dinoff, Finch, & Skelton, 1972), controlled the videotape equipment presenting the successive pre-recorded interview items. In the face-to-face condition, the interviewer, after E determined S's GSR baseline, entered the interviewing area and com-
VIDEO TAPE AND FACE-TO-FACE INTERVIEWING
745
menced the face-to-face interview. E simultaneously recorded S"s GSR peak amplitudes in the interval between the interviewer's 15-item utterances. E also recorded the time S actually was speaking. Immediately after the interview, each S was readministered the State Anxiety Inventory and then asked to rate on a 7-point scale his feelings of anxiety or uneasiness during the interview. Ss were instructed that greater subjective anxiety or uneasiness should be denoted by a higher number and lesser subjective anxiety or uneasiness by a lower number. RESULTSAND DISCUSSION The principal analysis was a 2 X 2 X 2 fixed analysis of variance chat yielded eight cells in each of which there were scores of six male or six female Ss. The three factors were interview mode (standardized condition or face-toface condition), interviewer's sex (male or female interviewer), and interviewee's sex (male or female). The results supported the hypothesis that the two interview modes would yield approximately equivalent data when sex of interviewer and interviewee was controlled. Thus, non-significant F values were obtained for the interview mode for all dependent measures investigated: GSR ( F = .007, p > .05); Rated Anxiety ( F = .333, p > .05; pooled pre-post Stare-anxiety scores (F = .005, p > .05); and Ss' speaking time ( F = .01, p > .05). No significant difference was found between the pre-post State-anxiety scores (F = .409, p > .05) and there were no significant two- or three-way interaction effects. Significant interviewer's sex differences were found (Faox = 5.11, p < .05; Fs'strllle= 6.15, P < .05; FGsn = 15.64, P < .01). Inspection of group means showed that Ss responded with higher rated subjective anxiety when inter= 3.50) interviewers, and viewed by male (MA,, = 4.42) than female spoke longer when interviewed by male (Ms., ti,,, = 610.21) than female (Mgstilue = 378.00) interviewers, but with higher GSRs when interviewed by female (MGSR= 2.16) than male ( M G s I < = 1.86) interviewers. One possible explanation for the non-significant two- and three-way interactions was that restrictions due to the stringent controls, e.g., instructing interviewers to curail socially reinforcing cues, may have prevented differential personality, behavioral and/or other subtle interactional variables to operate. These controls too, at least partly, may have contributed to the hypothesized non-significant main effects. A possible explanation for the differential effects of interviewer's sex may have been that the interviewee's behavior was affected by socially learned cultural stereotypes of differences between males and females. In support of such an interpretation, Lindgren (1969) cited considerable evidence for the commonly held belief that males tend to be more aggressive than females who conversely tend to be more passive and inclined to provoke positive responses. Thus, in
746
T. J. WATERS
this study the male interviewers possibly induced "facilitating" type anxiety, which both maintained longer speech in Ss and resulted in their higher rated subjective anxiety. The interesting but rather unexpected result of female interviewers' eliciting higher GSRs and male interviewers' eliciting higher rated anxiety may be explained by considering that GSR not only measures anxiety, which subjectively may be defined as uneasiness or discomfort, but also may be a non-specific index of autonomic arousal. The low negative correlation (-.13) between GSR and Ss' rated anxiety in this study supports this interpretation, as do the findings of others (Martin & Stroufe, 1970) who note that physiological and self-report type anxiety indices often correlate poorly. Particularly noteworthy in this study, however, was the finding of no essential differences between Ss' speaking time and their GSRs, State- and raredanxiety in both interview-conditions. The results of this comparison lent further support and validity to the finding of Dinoff, e t al. ( 1970) and seems supportive of the clinical utility or applicability of the Standardized Video Tape Interview. Presumably, as in the original feasibility study (Dinoff, et al., 1969), Ss responded to the videotape recorded interviewer seemingly as if the interviewer were present in vivo. REFERENCES & SMITH, R. E. The feasibility of videotape interviewing. Psychological Reports, 1969, 25, 239-242. DINOPF,M., FINCH,A. J., & SKELTON, H. A circuit for video-tape interviewing and its recording reliability. Journal o f Applied Behavior Analysis, 1972, 5 , 203-207. DINOFP,M., STENMARK, D. E., & SMITH,R. E. A comparison of video-tape and faceto-face interviewing. P~ychologicalReports, 1970, 27, 53-54. LAFAYE~TEINSTRUMENT CO. In~tructionsfor Model 7 6 0 1 s Psychogalvanometer. Lafayette, Ind.: Author, 1966. LINDGREN, H. C. An introduction to social psychology. New York: Wiley, 1969. MARTIN, B., & STROUPE, L. A. Anxiety. In C. G. Costello (Ed.), Symptoms o f prychopathology: a handbook. New York: Wiley, 1970. Pp. 216-259. SPIBLBERGER, C. D., GORSUCH, R. L., & LUSHENB, R. The State-Trait Anxiety Inuentory (STAI): test manual for Form X . Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1968.
DINOFF,M., CLARK, C. C., REI'IUAN, L. M.,
Accepted September 3, 1975.
