Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T11:32:59.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Individual Differences between Interviewers and their Effect on Interviewees' Conversational Behaviour

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2018

Frieda Goldman-Eisler*
Affiliation:
Medical Research Council. Unit for Research in Occupational Adaptation, Maudsley Hospital, London, S.E.5

Extract

Flexibility in adjustment on the part of the interviewer is commonly regarded as one of the main qualifications for good interviewing and part of an interviewer's skill. The high estimation of the spontaneity of the interviewing situation, which has been one of the main reasons why the interview as a technique has retained its popularity against more standardized and reliable methods, rests largely on the presupposition that skilled interviewers can adjust their own behaviour and steer the interviewing situation freely so as to obtain optimum rapport and maximum information. Thus Oldfield (5) considers changes of topic, attitute and tempo of great significance for the conduct of the interview. He particularly stresses the importance of changes of tempo; pauses in the conversation, he says, if “badly chosen may easily break the trend of the relationship which is being built up. On the other hand, if well chosen, they may contribute markedly to the success of the interview.” No evidence, however, exists to show to what extent skilled interviewers actually are free to adjust themselves to any particular interviewing task or which aspects of their interviewing behaviour are more subject to adjustment than others.

Type
Part I.—Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1952 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

(1) Chapple, E. D., and Donald, G., Jr, ., “A Method for Evaluating Supervisory Personnel,” Harvard Business Rev., 1946, 24, 197214.Google Scholar
(2) Ehrenberg, A. S. C., “ The Unbiassed Estimation of Heterogeneous Error Variances,” Biometrica, 1950, 39, 347357.Google Scholar
(3) Fisher, R. A., and Yates, F., Statistical Tables for Biological, Agricultural, and Medical Research. Google Scholar
(4) Goldman-Eisler, F., “ The Measurement of Time Sequences in Conversational Behaviour,” Brit. J. Psychol., Gen. Sec., 1951, 42, 355362.Google Scholar
(5) Oldfield, R. C., The Psychology of the Interview, 1941. London : Methuen.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.