题名

同居題項設計：家庭動態調查追蹤資料的研究

并列篇名

Design of Cohabitation Questions: Findings from the Panel Study of Family Dynamics

DOI

10.7014/SRMA.2021100001

作者

于若蓉(Ruoh-Rong Yu)；廖培珊(Pei-Shan Liao)

关键词

同居 ； 題項設計 ； 訪員效應 ； 第三人在場效應 ； 家庭動態調查 ； cohabitation ； questionnaire design ； interviewer effect ； third-party presence effect ； Panel Study of Family Dynamics

期刊名称

調查研究-方法與應用

卷期/出版年月

47期（2021 / 10 / 01）

页次

7 - 43

内容语文

繁體中文
中文摘要

同居是一項重要的研究議題，但有關同居題項設計對受訪者回應行為的影響效果，研究卻極為稀少。這項研究採用家庭動態調查2014、2016年的面訪追蹤調查資料，探討同居題項變動前後受訪者應答的差異。另外，輔以調查蒐集到的周邊資料，本文也分析訪員特質、第三人在場與否對受訪者回應的影響效果。研究結果發現，在同居題項改以兩階段方式詢問後，受訪者回答同居的機率高出7倍左右。另外，訪員特質並不影響受訪者對同居題項的應答結果，顯示訪員效應的問題並不嚴重。第三人在場效應的結果則顯示，在場者的身份關係著同居的應答結果：如果受訪者的直系親屬在場，受訪者回答同居的機率顯著較沒有他人在場之下為低；非直系親屬在場的影響效果則相反。除學理上的貢獻外，本文的分析結果可回饋到調查實務，用以改善同居題項的設計方式。
英文摘要

In a society which lacks a registration system for cohabitation, whether an individual is cohabiting with someone relies on self-reported information. The quality of the self-reported information matters for estimates of proportions of cohabitation. Such information is also important for research in the fields of demography and family studies on the topics of, for example, reproductive behavior and gender equality. Cohabitation is often asked as one of the options for marital status, while some see it a type of living arrangement. In some societies, however, cohabitation is considered to be a sensitive issue because it is not a legal marital status, and thus respondents might under-report cohabitation when asked relevant questions. In Taiwan, self-reported survey data are the main source of information for habitation. This response option is often combined with being married due to its sensitivity, or viewed as a distinct option in the marital status question. It is important to understand whether the design of cohabitation question affects respondents' self-reported behavior. Using panel data from the Taiwan Panel Study of Family Dynamics (PSFD), this study examines the effects of changes in the cohabitation question on the respondents' answers. The PSFD is a longitudinal survey project initiated in 1999. Up till the survey conducted in 2014, the question on marital status contained seven answer options: unmarried, cohabiting, married, separated, divorced, widowed, and other. Starting with the 2016 PSFD survey, the seven-option marital status question has been revised into a two-question version. The question on marital status is asked first with six mutually exclusive options: unmarried, married, separated, divorced, widowed, and others. Respondents who select the options legally compatible with cohabitation (including ＂unmarried,＂ ＂divorced,＂ and ＂widowed＂) are then asked whether they are cohabiting with someone. The difference in the probability of reporting cohabitation between the 2014 and 2016 in-person surveys is analyzed based on the sample who are legally compatible with the cohabitation status. For this analytical purpose, the sample of the 2014 survey is confined to the respondents who chose ＂unmarried,＂ ＂divorced,＂ ＂widowed,＂ or ＂cohabiting＂ from the question on marital status. As to the sample of the 2016 survey, it is limited to the respondents who selected ＂unmarried,＂ ＂divorced,＂ or ＂widowed＂ when answering the first item. Using the merged data, the random-effects logit model is applied to analyze the respondents' likelihood of reporting cohabitation. In addition to analyzing the effects of changes in question design, we also explore whether interviewer characteristics and third-person presence matter for the respondents' likelihood of answering cohabitation. Interviewer characteristics include the interviewers' gender, age, and interviewing experience. The dummies on third-person presence contain three categories: presence of direct family member(s), presence of non-direct family member(s), and no third-person presence. The findings indicate that the probability of reporting cohabitation is about seven times higher in the 2016 survey with the revised question on marital status than that in the 2014 survey with the original design. With respect to interviewer effects, none of the interviewer variables is significant. The results on third-person presence effects reveal that the presence of direct family member(s) is associated with a lower probability of reporting cohabitation than that of no third-person presence. The presence of non-direct family member(s) shows an opposite effect. These findings suggest that who the third person is matters for the respondents' self-reporting of cohabitation. This study not only contributes to our understanding of the effects of question design for cohabitation on the respondents' answers, but also provides implications for improving the design of the cohabitation question.
主题分类 社會科學 > 社會科學綜合
参考文献
  1. Yang, Meng-Li,Yu, Ruoh-Rong(2011).Exploring the Relationship between Telephone Interviewers’ Psychological Traits and Performance.Survey Research—Method and Application,25,7-46.
    連結：
  2. 杜素豪, Suhao(2001)。問卷訪問中第三者在場的訪答效應。調查研究，9，11-40。
    連結：
  3. 侯佩君, Pei-chun,杜素豪, Su-hao,廖培珊, Pei-shan,洪永泰, Yung-tai,章英華, Ying-hwa(2008)。台灣鄉鎮市區類型之研究：「台灣社會變遷基本調查」第五期計畫之抽樣分層效果分析。調查研究—方法與應用，23，7-32。
    連結：
  4. 黃淑玲, Shu-ling,李思賢, Szu-hsien Tony,趙運植, Yun-chin(2012)。台灣人性態度與性價值觀分析：性別、世代與三種集群的差異。臺灣性學學刊，18(1)，83-114。
    連結：
  5. Aquilino, William S.(1993).Effects of Spouse Presence During the Interview on Survey Responses Concerning Marriage.Public Opinion Quarterly,57(3),358-376.
  6. Baughman, Reagan,Dickert-Conlin, Stacy,Houser, Scott(2002).How Well Can We TrackCohabitation Using the SIPP? A Consideration of Direct and Inferred Measures.Demography,39(3),455-465.
  7. Benstead, Lindsay J.(2014).Effects of Interviewer–Respondent Gender Interaction on Attitudes toward Women and Politics: Findings from Morocco.International Journal of Public Opinion Research,26(3),369-383.
  8. Blackwell, Debra L.,Lichter, Daniel T.(2000).Mate Selection among Married and Cohabiting Couples.Journal of Family Issues,21(3),275-302.
  9. Breen, Richard,Karlson, Kristian Bernt,Holm, Anders(2018).Interpreting and Understanding Logits, Probits, and Other Nonlinear Probability Models.Annual Review of Sociology,44,39-54.
  10. Brown, Susan L.,Booth, Alan(1996).Cohabitation versus Marriage: A Comparison of Relationship Quality.Journal of Marriage and Family,58(3),668-678.
  11. Casper, Lynne M.,Cohen, Philip N.(2000).How Does POSSLQ Measure Up? Historical Estimates of Cohabitation.Demography,37(2),237-245.
  12. Catania, Joseph A.,Binson, Diane,Canchola, Jesse,Pollack, Lance M.,Hauck, Walter,Coates, Thomas J.(1996).Effects of Interviewer Gender, Interviewer Choice, and Item Wording on Responses to Questions Concerning Sexual Behavior.Public Opinion Quarterly,60(3),345-375.
  13. Duncan, Beverly,Duncan, Otis Dudley(1978).Sex Typing and Social Roles.New York:Academic Press.
  14. Flores-Macias, Francisco,Lawson, Chappell(2008).Effects of Interviewer Gender on Survey Responses: Findings from a Household Survey in Mexico.International Journal of Public Opinion Research,20(1),100-110.
  15. Groves, Robert M.(1989).Survey Error and Survey Costs.New York:Wiley.
  16. Gunasekara, Fiona I.,Carter, Kristie,Blakely, Tony(2012).Comparing Self-rated Health and Self-assessed Change in Health in a Longitudinal Survey: Which Is More Valid?.Social Science & Medicine,74(7),1117-1124.
  17. Hayford, Sarah R.,Morgan, S. Philip(2008).The Quality of Retrospective Data on Cohabitation.Demography,45(1),129-141.
  18. Herrera, Aubrey V.,Benjet, Corina,Méndez, Enrique,Casanova, Leticia,Medina-Mora, Maria Elena(2017).How Mental Health Interviews Conducted Alone, in the Presence of an Adult, a Child or Both Affects Adolescents’ Reporting of Psychological Symptoms and Risky Behaviors.Journal of Youth and Adolescence,46(2),417-428.
  19. Holbrook, Allyson L.,Green, Melanie C.,Krosnick, Jon A.(2003).Telephone versus Face-to-Face Interviewing of National Probability Samples with Long Questionnaires: Comparisons of Respondent Satisficing and Social Desirability Response Bias.Public Opinion Quarterly,67(1),79-125.
  20. Huddy, Leonie,Billig, Joshua,Bracciodieta, John,Hoeffler, Lois,Moynihan, Patrick J.,Pugliani, Patricia(1997).The Effect of Interviewer Gender on the Survey Response.Political Behavior,19(3),197-220.
  21. Kane, Emily W.,Macaulay, Laura J.(1993).Interviewer Gender and Gender Attitudes.Public Opinion Quarterly,57(1),1-28.
  22. Karlson, Kristian Bernt,Holm, Anders(2011).Decomposing Primary and Secondary Effects: A New Decomposition Method.Research in Social Stratification and Mobility,29(2),221-237.
  23. Karlson, Kristian Bernt,Holm, Anders,Breen, Richard(2012).Comparing Regression Coefficients between Same-sample Nested Models Using Logit and Probit: A New Method.Sociological Methodology,42(1),286-313.
  24. Knab, J. Tansey(2005).Center for Research on Child Wellbeing Working PaperCenter for Research on Child Wellbeing Working Paper,Princeton, NJ:Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University.
  25. Knab, J. Tansey,McLanahan, Sara(2006).Measuring Cohabitation: Does How, When, and Who You Ask Matter.Handbook of Measurement Issues in Family Research,London:
  26. Kohler, Ulrich,Karlson, Kristian Bernt,Holm, Anders(2011).Comparing Coefficients of Nested Nonlinear Probability Models.The Stata Journal,11(3),420-438.
  27. Lalwani, Ashok K.,Shavitt, Sharon,Johnson, Timothy(2006).What Is the Relation between Cultural Orientation and Socially Desirable Responding?.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,90(1),165-178.
  28. Liu, Mingnan,Stainback, Kevin(2013).Interviewer Gender Effects on Survey Responses to Marriage-Related Questions.Public Opinion Quarterly,77(2),606-618.
  29. Manning, Wendy D.(1993).Marriage and Cohabitation Following Premarital Conception.Journal of Marriage and Family,55(4),839-850.
  30. Manning, Wendy D.,Joyner, Kara,Hemez, Paul,Cupka, Cassandra(2016).Measuring Cohabitation in National Surveys.2016 Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America,Washington D. C., America:
  31. Manning, Wendy D.,Smock, Pamela J.(2005).Measuring and Modeling Cohabitation: New Perspectives from Qualitative Data.Journal of Marriage and Family,67(4),989-1002.
  32. Nock, Steven L.(1995).A Comparison of Marriages and Cohabiting Relationships.Journal of Family Issues,16(1),53-76.
  33. Olson, Kristen,Bilgen, Ipek(2011).The Role of Interviewer Experience on Acquiescence.Public Opinion Quarterly,75(1),99-114.
  34. Pollner, Melvin,Adams, Richard E.(1997).The Effect of Spouse Presence on Appraisals of Emotional Support and Household Strain.Public Opinion Quarterly,61(4),615-626.
  35. Schröder, Jette,Schmiedeberg, Claudia(2020).Sociological Methods & ResearchSociological Methods & Research,未出版
  36. Singer, Eleanor,Frankel, Martin R.,Glassman, Marc B.(1983).The Effect of Interviewer Characteristics and Expectations on Response.Public Opinion Quarterly,47(1),68-83.
  37. Single, Eric,Kandel, Denise,Johnson, Bruce D.(1975).The Reliability and Validity of Drug Use Responses in a Large Scale Longitudinal Survey.Journal of Drug Issues,5(4),426-443.
  38. Smith, Tom W.(1997).The Impact of the Presence of Others on a Respondent’s Answers to Questions.International Journal of Public Opinion Research,9(1),33-47.
  39. Smock, Pamela J.(2000).Cohabitation in the United States: An Appraisal of Research Themes, Findings, and Implications.Annual Review of Sociology,26(1),1-20.
  40. Taietz, Philip(1962).Conflicting Group Norms and the “Third” Person in the Interview.American Journal of Sociology,68(1),97-104.
  41. Tourangeau, Roger,Rips, Lance J.,Rasinski, Kenneth(2000).The Psychology of Survey Response.New York:Cambridge University Press.
  42. Tourangeau, Roger,Smith, Tom W.(1996).Asking Sensitive Questions: The Impact of Data Collection Mode, Question Format, and Question Ontext.Public Opinion Quarterly,60(2),275-304.
  43. Tourangeau, Roger,Yan, Ting(2007).Sensitive Questions in Surveys.Psychological Bulletin,133(5),859-883.
  44. Weaver, David A.(2000).The Accuracy of Survey-Reported Marital Status: Evidence from Survey Rec4ords Matched to Social Security Records.Demography,37(3),395-399.
  45. West, Brady T.,Blom, Annelies G.(2017).Explaining Interviewer Effects: A Research Synthesis.Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology,5(2),175-211.
  46. White, Halbert(1980).A Heteroskedasticity-consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity.Econometrica,48(4),817-838.
  47. Yang, Meng-Li,Yu, Ruoh-Rong(2008).The Interviewer Effect When There Is an Education Gap with The Respondent: Evidence from a Survey on Biotechnology in Taiwan.Social Science Research,37(4),1321-1331.
  48. Yu, Ruoh-Rong,Liu, Yu-Sheng,Yang, Meng-Li(2014).Does Interviewer Personality Matter for Survey Outcomes? Evidence from a Face-to-face Panel Study of Taiwan.Survey Research—Method and Application,31,89-121.
  49. Zipp, John F.,Toth, Joann(2002).She Said, He Said, They Said: The Impact of Spousal Presence in Survey Eesearch.Public Opinion Quarterly,66(2),177-208.
  50. 于若蓉, Ruoh-rong(2018)。中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫,中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心=Academia Sinica。
  51. 于若蓉, Ruoh-rong(2018)。中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫,中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心=Academia Sinica。
  52. 于若蓉, Ruoh-rong(2018)。中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫,中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心=Academia Sinica。
  53. 于若蓉，2019，108 年人力資源調查統計年報（https://ebook.dgbas.gov.tw/public/Data/0330105344GEYI9Z14.pdf，取用日期：2020 年 10 月 23 日）。（Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan, ROC (Taiwan), 2019, “Yearbook of Manpower Survey Statistics, 2019.” https://ebook.dgbas.gov.tw/public/Data/0330105344GEYI9Z14.pdf (Date visited: October 23, 2020.)）
  54. 行政院主計總處，2010，99 年人口及住宅普查表（https://www.stat.gov.tw/public/Attachment/1122915352871.pdf，取用日期：2020 年 10 月 23 日）。（Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan, ROC (Taiwan), 2010, “Questinnaire of Population and Housing Census, 2010.” https://www.stat.gov.tw/public/Attachment/1122915352871.pdf (Date visited: October 23, 2020.)）
  55. 行政院主計總處，2020，109 年人口及住宅普查表（https://www.stat.gov.tw/public/Attachment/092910340FDXHDYF3.pdf， 取用日期：2021 年 4 月 26 日）。（Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan, ROC (Taiwan), 2020, “Questinnaire of Population and Housing Census, 2020.” https://www.stat.gov.tw/public/Attachment/092910340FDXHDYF3.pdf (Date visited: April 26, 2021.)）
  56. 張苙雲, Ly-yun,廖培珊, Pei-shan(2008)。,臺北=Taipei:中央研究院社會學研究所=Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica。
  57. 章英華, Ying-hwa(2016)。中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫,中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心=Academia Sinica。
  58. 章英華, Ying-hwa(2016)。中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫,中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心=Academia Sinica。
  59. 章英華, Ying-hwa(2016)。中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫,中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心=Academia Sinica。
  60. 傅仰止, Yang-chih,陸洛, Luo(2012)。陌生人互動的社會期望反應：外在情境與個人屬性。台灣的社會變遷 1985– 2005：心理、價值與宗教，臺北=Taipei:
  61. 傅仰止, Yang-chih,章英華, Ying-hwa,廖培珊, Pei-shan,謝淑惠, Shu-hui(2017)。,臺北=Taipei:中央研究院社會學研究所=Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica。
  62. 楊靜利, Ching-li(2004)。同居的生育意涵與台灣同居人數估計。台灣社會學刊，32，189-213。
  63. 楊靜利, Ching-li(2013)。從普查與戶籍登記資料差異估計我國同居人數的潛在問題。主計月刊，691，28-35。
  64. 楊靜利, Ching-li(2014)。同居、婚姻與生育：人口學觀點的多元成家。巷仔口社會學
  65. 鍾宜吟, Yi-yin,蔡明璋, Ming-chang(2008)。婚前同居、婚姻價值與婚姻滿意度：台灣民眾的分析。研究台灣，5，43-72。
被引用次数
  1. 潘淑滿,劉一龍,林雅容,林東龍(2023)。敏感性問題訪問調查的挑戰：以婦女遭受親密伴侶暴力為例。臺大社會工作學刊，48，37-67。
print cancel