It Matters Where and With Whom You Are: A Comparison of Mobile Phone and Landline Phone Survey Interviews

  • Published : 2013.11.30


The rise and fall of social research methods rely on how much a certain method is able to appropriately reflect the change of society. The present research proposes new mobile surveying methods, considering the current and future trends in Korea. In particular, this research focuses on environmental pressure (time constraints, the presence of others and the place) as one of the major factors influencing the effects of survey modes. For example, landline surveys are conducted in the respondent's home, which is a private and fixed space. On the other hand, surveys on mobile phones can be conducted in diverse places with other people around. After sampling 500 landline respondents and 500 mobile phone respondents using a quota method, the same questionnaire was used for both the mobile and landline interviews. The findings are generally consistent with the literature supporting the data quality and comparability of the mixed mode survey. These results are encouraging for researchers designing surveys that feature mobile phone data collection.


  1. AAPOR Cell Phone Task Force. (2010). New considerations for survey researchers when planning and conducting RDD telephone surveys in the US with respondents reached via cell phone numbers. Deerfield, IL: American Association for Public Opinion Research.
  2. Bae, J. H. (2006). A sutdy on factors influencing mobile phone uses in public places. Korean Journal of Communication Science, 6(3), 237-271.
  3. Brick, J. M., Brick, P. D., Dipko, S., Presser, S., Tucker, C., & Yuan, Y. (2007). Cell Phone Survey Feasibility in The U.S.: Sampling and Calling Cell Numbers Versus Landline Numbers. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(1), 23-39. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfl040
  4. Brick, J. M., Dipko, S., Presser, S., Tucker, C., & Yuan, Y. (2006). Nonresponse Bias in a Dual Frame Sample of Cell and Landline Numbers. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5), 780-793. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfl031
  5. de Leeuw, E. D. (2005). To mix or not to mix data collection modes in surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 21(5), 233-255.
  6. Dillman, D. A., & Christian, L. M. (2005). Survey mode as a source of instability in responses across surveys. Field methods, 17(1), 30-52.
  7. Dillman, D. A., Phelps, G., Tortora, R., Swift, K., Kohrell, J., Berck, J., & Messer, B. L. (2009). Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and the Internet. Social Science Research, 38(1), 1-18. doi:
  8. Hader, S., Hader, M., & Kuhne, M. (2012). Telephone surveys in Europe research and practice. Berlin; New York: Springer.
  9. Hwang, J.-S., Yoo, J.-Y., & Lee, D.-H. (2006). Impacts of mobile communiations on the space. Korean Journal of Communication and Information studies, 34, 306-340.
  10. Kim, P. (2002). Mobility and privatism: Social dimensions of the mobile phone. Korean Journal of Communication and Information studies, 18, 37-61.
  11. Kim, S. W. (2004). The changes in fixed telephone household coverage rates due to diffusion of mobile phones: The impact insome selected conunries including South Korea. Survey research, 5(1), 27-49.
  12. Kim, S. W., Lee, S. K., Hong, S. J., & Park, S. H. (2012). List-Assisted RDD Sampling in Korea: Testing the Feasibility of National Survey Under Within-Household Selection. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24(1), 79-92.
  13. Kim, S. W., Traugott, M. W., Park, S. H., & Lee, S. K. (2011). Why did the pre-election polls in 2010 local election go all wrong?: Lessons from the 2010 dual frame post-election study. Paper presented at the Fall Conference of Korean Association for Survey Research, Seoul, Korea.
  14. Lavrakas, P. J., Shuttles, C. D., Steeh, C., & Fienberg, H. (2007). The state of surveying cell phone numbers in the United States 2007 and beyond. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(5), 840-854.
  15. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1979). Public Opinionand the Classical Tradition:A Re-evaluation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 43(2), 143-156. doi: 10.1086/268507
  16. Tucker, C., Brick, J. M., & Meekins, B. (2007). Household telephone service and usage patterns in the United States in 2004: implications for telephone samples. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(1), 3-22.
  17. Tucker, C., & Lepkowski, J. M. (2008). Telephone survey methods: Adapting to change. In J. M. Lepkowski (Ed.), Advances in telephone survey methodology (pp. 3-28). New York: Wiley.
  18. Wooldridge, A. (1999). Survey telecommunications: At the back of beyond. The Economist.