Neutral versus Leading Questions
We can obtain more accurate information by employing the neutral questions. Stewart and Cash (1988) offer the following examples:
The varying degrees of direction and the distinction between neutral and leading questions are illustrated in the following questions.
| Leading Questions | Neutral Questions |
| 1. You like close detail work, don't you? | 1. Do you like close detail work? |
| 2. Do you oppose the union like most workers I've talked to | 2. What are your attitudes toward the union? |
| 3. Wouldn't you rather have a Buick? | 3. How does this Buick compare to other cars in this price range? |
| 4. How do you feel about these asinine government rules? | 4. How do your feel about these government rules? |
| 5. Have you stopped cheating on your exams? | 5. Did you cheat on your last exam? |
| 6. Would you classify yourself as a conservative or a radical? | 6. Would you classify yourself as a reactionary, conservative, moderate, liberal, radical, or other? |
| 7. Don't you think tax reform is unfair to farmers? | 7. . How do you feel about tax reform? |
The Loaded Question
A more volatile and often annoying type of leading question is the loaded question,which stacks the deck by implying the desired answer. This form of the closed question is sometimes used to back the respondent into a corner. In effect, the interviewer poses and answers his or her own questions:
Eg.: to a left-wing militant, “Isn''t it true that violence can only make matters worse?";
to the secretary of defense at a press conference, "Hasn't your new policy been tried in the past with no success?"
Such questions are emotionally charged, and they immediately put the respondent on his or her guard. Undeniably, loaded questions are often used to advantage, especially in the news media. Thus a politician can be asked questions that are on the lips of many voters, being forced to meet the issues head on. Nonetheless, if we are interested in getting information, the loaded question is a doubtful technique.
The loaded question has no advantages unless the goal is to see if the interviewee can handle a threatening, hostile situation. The disadvantages are rather easy to surmise: the interviewee loses whatever trust may have existed, may become "unraveled," and may feel negatively toward the interviewer and the organization she or he represents.
Suspect Questions and How To Handle Them
Various Civil Rights Acts prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, marital status, religion, or national origin. In general, questions that are lawful relate specifically to the job, attitudes about work, health if relevant to the particular work, past employment, educational background and capabilities. Just about everything else, whether seemingly irrelevant (e.g., hobbies) or not, could be considered discriminatory.
Specifically, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has set up the following subjects as the source of discriminatory questions: change of name, maiden or former name, previous foreign address, birthplace of self or family, religion, complexion or skin color, citizenship or national origin, military service, name and address of relative to be notified person is ok arrest or conviction record, height (unless related to the job).
Single people, for example, cannot be asked if they live with their parents, get along with them well, or plan marriage. Engaged people cannot be asked if they plan to marry, what the occupation of the future spouse is, or plans for work after marriage. Married people cannot be asked if they own a home, have debts, the spouse's occupation, possibility of relocating, (for women) what the husband thinks of your working, what the extra money will be used for, plans for a family, ages of children, and plans are not in themselves unlawful, but they cannot be used for unlawful screening purposes.
When an individual is asked an illegal discriminatory or suspect question, there are several alternatives one can follow.
1. Of course, if the interviewee thinks the question harmless and does not care about the fact that it could be used as an unlawful screening device, she or he may simply go ahead and answer it.
2. The interviewee can inform the interviewer that the question is a personal one and she or he would be happy to answer any questions related to qualifications necessary for the job.
3. The interviewee can ask what the thrust of the question is in relation to the job, what the interviewer wants to know.
4. The interviewee can indicate that the question is not relevant, and go on to answer it (e.g., "That question has no bearing on my qualifications for the position, but I'll answer it anyway").
5. The interviewee can refuse to answer the question on the grounds that it is not related to qualifications for the job.
6. The interviewee can ignore the question and respond with an indication that she or he is willing to answer relevant questions.
7. Of course, the interviewee can stop the interviewer by expressing the belief that the question is discriminatory.
Responses
There are several problems in responding to suspect questions, most of which center around the belief that no responses or a hostile response to the question will decrease the odds of obtaining the job, and obtaining the job may be more important than the problem created by the suspect question. However, if the interviewer asks questions other than those related to qualifications for the job, and the ultimate effect is an underrepresentation of minorities and other protected groups in that employer's work force, then the company could be vulnerable to a lawsuit. Remember that the interviewer may not realize that he or she is asking improper questions, either through a lack of familiarity with the guidelines or because he or she spontaneously asks questions without thinking about their discriminatory impact (Hanna and Wilson, 1984).
Inadequate Responses
Regardless of the kinds of questions chosen, the interviewer is never completely sure of obtaining the number and quality of answers he or she would like to have. Interviewing is a dynamic process, not a programmed event with the participation of the respondent. Thus another aspect of interviewing skill involves handling inadequate responses.There are five inadequate responses that the interviewer can anticipate and try to avoid.
No Answer
The respondent gives no answer—that is, either refuses to answer ("No comment" or "I'd rather not say") or says nothing at all. Such responses might bring the interview to a dead end. Hence, the interviewer might follow up such a response with a second, related question or, if necessary, drop the line of inquiry altogether.
Partial Answer
The respondent gives a partial answer. The interviewer might then restate the part of the question that has not been answered. If the respondent gives a good many partial answers, the interviewer should review the questions asked. Perhaps some could be subdivided and posed individually. In general, it is best to avoid asking more than one question at a time.
Irrelevant Answer
There are two reasons the respondent may have gone off on a tangent: he or she may not have understood the question completely or may be making a conscious effort to avoid answering it. Politicians frequently evade questions by offering irrelevant answers.
Inaccurate Answer
A respondent who does not wish to disclose information may offer an inaccurate answer, especially if revealing the truth would be embarrassing. An inaccurate answer is often difficult for the interviewer to detect, especially in an initial interview. The accuracy of the information the interviewer receives might be determined by the respondent's motivation. A person who feels threatened by an interview is more inclined to provide data within what he or she perceives to be the interviewer's expectations. People sometimes respond inaccurately in an attempt to maintain their status level or achieve a higher one. It has been found, for example, that people (particularly those with high incomes) overestimate the number of plane trips they have made but play down any automobile loans they have taken out (Lansing and Blood, 1964).
Whether they are intentional or not, inaccurate responses are damaging not only to the interviewer but to the respondent: some of these distortions may be revealed at a later date. If the interviewer finds that over a series of meetings the respondent has been giving inaccurate answers, he or she should consider possible reasons for this behavior.
Oververbalized Answer
The respondent who gives an oververbalized answer tells the interviewer much more than he or she wants to know. Sometimes lengthy answers contain a great deal of irrelevant information. Oververbalized responses severely limit the number of topics that an interviewer can cover in the time allotted. He or she should try as tactfully as possible to guide the respondent back to the heart of the question, and to increase the number of closed questions.
Response Sets
As if these difficulties were not enough to contend with, it now seems that there are people who have a response set to agree (yea-sayers) or to disagree (nay-sayers). Couch and Keniston (I960), two psychologists who have analyzed response tendencies as a personality variable, describe yea-sayers as impulsive people who respond easily to stimuli. Nay-sayers, on the other hand, inhibit and suppress their impulses and tend to reject emotional stimuli. The language in which statements are cast also affects response bias. Yea-sayers are particularly attracted to statements that are enthusiastic and colloquial in tone. On the rare occasions when nay-savers do agree, they are inclined to go along with statements that seem guarded, qualified or cautious.
Interview main types
Linda Beamer classifies interviews into three general types [2]:
1) opinion,
2) information, and
3) personality.
Some interviews include more than one of these aspects. A personality, for instance, may offer an opinion on a subject or provide information.
Opinion Interviews
The opinion interview is a feature of many radio stations that broadcast conversations between talk-show hosts and audience members who telephone in. The hosts state a subject that they invite members of the audience to discuss. Often they stimulate discussion by presenting their own opinions on the subject. They may actually argue with those among their callers who disagree with them. The telephone interview has largely replaced the “man on the street” broadcast, in which an interviewer stationed himself on a busy street corner to query passersby about subjects in the news. The opinion interview occurs in television in such programs as that conducted by William Buckley, who makes a point of interviewing individuals who are controversial in their backgrounds and their views. The opinion of an expert is often as pertinent to the audience as the information provided.
Information Interviews
Many interviews seek to elicit information from a person who is an authority on some subject. A series that specializes in this type of interview is NBC’s Today show. The “peg” on which the interview often turns is the fact that the individual has just written a book on the subject on which he or she is being questioned. A great many other programs also use this type of interview as the means of getting information to the audience.
Information interviews used to be scripted before broadcast, but now they are almost always delivered extemporaneously after thorough preparation and research by the interviewers or their assistants. In fact, many go on the air at the moment the interviewer and the guest meet for the first time. On public broadcasting stations interview programs may be rehearsed. Rehearsal does offer the participants better control of the content of the broadcast, but it generally has the disadvantage of making the interview sound stilted and planned.
An expert interviewer should follow several rules:
1. Prepare for the interview carefully. If it is based on a book, read it ahead a time or at least review notes prepared by an assistant who has read the book.
2. Try to develop the information in an organized way while maintaining a conversational flavor.
3. Keep the spotlight on the guest, recognizing that his/her role as an interviewer is to do the best possible job of drawing out the guest.
4. Try to avoid replying to the guest’s comments with such meanings remarks as “I see.” Instead, use the guest’s answer to make a conversational bridge to the next question.
5. Ask one question at a time to avoid confusing the quest and irritating the TV director, who usually likes to put the face of the person who is doing the talking on the line monitor.
6. Attend carefully to what the guest says. One of the most important qualifications of a good interviewer is to be a good listener.
Personality Interviews
In personality interviews the persons interviewed are important primarily because of what has happened to them, what they have done, or the position they hold in the public eye. A personality interview may occur as a feature-story interview presented when the occasion arises, or built as a regular series; it may be a celebrity interview.
Feature-story interviews range from novelties and stunts to eyewitness accounts of disasters. Great flexibility and sensitivity must be possessed by the interviewers. Language, visual image, and delivery must match the mood of the occasion. This seems obvious, and yet reporters have been guilty upon personal grief or using a type of delivery more suited to a sports account. When novelty or stunt interviews are conducted, an interviewer must be careful not to seem superior or to be making fun of the “interviewee.” An objective attitude may be hard to maintain when one encounters eccentrics who come to public attention through their activities. The audience may decide to ridicule the person on the basis of the interview, but the interviewer should not slant it in that direction. Avoid correcting grammatical errors made by the interviewees or commenting on gaps in their knowledge. The audience does not like a smart-aleck interviewer; it prefers an interviewer who is genuinely interested in the subject of the interview.
The following rules apply particularly to the interviewing of celebrities:
1. Know as much as possible about the subject.
2. Avoid obvious or trite questions.
3. Do not put celebrities “on the spot” by asking questions that will embarrass them.
4. Take an oblique or indirect approach.
5. Give every personality the plush treatment (7, 436-439)
Tubbs groups interviews into standardized and unstandardized interviews.
Standardized and Unstandardized Interviews
Whatever his or her objectives, the interviewer may use one of two approaches: standardized or unstandardized. The standardized interviewconsists of a set of prepared questions from which the interviewer is not allowed to deviate. The interviewer poses the questions precisely as they are worded on the form. He or she does not even have the option of changing their order. The standardized interview has one distinct advantage: uniform responses over a large number of interviewers and respondents. An inexperienced interviewer may still be able to conduct a fairly successful interview.
The unstandardized interviewallows the interviewer as well as the respondent considerable latitude, flexibility and potential for discovery: The interviewer may
1) deviate from any of the prepared questions;
2) follow up a prepared question with one of his or her own to obtain a more complete or appropriate answer;
3) drop a question that seems unsuitable or one that might put the respondent on the defensive;
4) if he or she suddenly discovers an interesting subject that had not been anticipated, the interviewer has the freedom to pursue this line of questioning as far as is desired.
The standardized and unstandardized interviews are extremes. In fact, some standardized interviews allow some departure from the prepared questions; some unstandardized interviews do not permit the interviewer unlimited freedom. No matter how the interview is structured, however, some feedback must flow between interviewer and respondent.
Linda Beamer characterizes other types of interviews [2]:
1) highly scheduled interview,
2) nonscheduled interview and
3) moderately scheduled interview.
A highly scheduled interview consists of a standardized list of questions. In its most extreme form, it even specifies their precise wording and the order in which they are asked. Highly scheduled interviews are most common in market research, opinion polls, and attitude surveys. Most of the questions allow a limited range of answers: “How many televisions do you own?” “Which of the following words best describes your evaluation of the company?” The answers to closed questions such as these are easy to tabulate, which makes this approach convenient for surveying large numbers of respondents. Because of their detailed structure, highly scheduled interviews call for less skill by the questioner.
Highly scheduled interviews have drawbacks, however, that make them unsuitable for most situations. The range of topics is limited by a predetermined list of questions. And there is no chance for the interviewer to follow up intriguing or unclear answers that might arise during the conversation.
The nonscheduled interviewstands in contrast to its highly scheduled counterpart. It usually consists of a topical agenda without specific questions. Many managers make a point of regularly “dropping in” on their employers. The conversation may be generally directed at finding how the employees are doing with their work, whether they are satisfied with their jobs, whether they have any problems – personal or work-related – that the manager should know about, but there are no specific, planned questions. Nonscheduled interviews allow considerable flexibility about the amount of time and nature of the questioning in the various content about the amount of time and nature of the questioning in the various content areas. They permit the conversation to flow in whatever direction seems most productive.
Nonscheduled interviewing looks easy when it’s done with skill, but it’s actually very difficult. It’s easy to look track of time or to focus too much on one topic and neglect others. When the interviewer worried about what to ask next, he/she may forget to listen closely to the interviewee’s answer and may miss clues to ask for more information.
The moderately scheduled interview combines features of the other types. The interviewer prepares a list of topics to be covered, anticipates their probable order, and lists several major questions and possible follow-up probes. These make up a flexible plan, which the interviewer can use or adapt as circumstances warrant. The planned questions ensure coverage of important areas, while allowing for examination of important but unforeseen topics [2, 162-163].
Linda Beamer and Iris Varner point out some differences between Highly Scheduled and Nonscheduled Interviews [2, 164]:
| Highly Scheduled Interviews | Nonscheduled Interviews |
| Usually takes less time | Usually takes more time |
| Easier for interviewer to control | More difficult for interviewer to control |
| Provides quantifiable results | Results more difficult to quantify |
| Requires less skill by interviewer | Requires high degree of interviewer skill |
| Low flexibility in exploring responses | High flexibility in exploring responses |
However, there exist other types of interviewing besides Linda Beamer’ classifications. Below are some descriptions of the different types of interviews and what its participants can expect in each of them.
Screening Interview
A preliminary interview either with person or by phone, in which a company representative determines whether the interviewee has the basic qualifications to warrant a subsequent interview.
Structured Interview
In a structured interview, the interviewer explores certain predetermined areas using questions, which have been written in advance. The interviewer has a written description of the experience, skills, and personality traits of an ideal candidate. This type of interview is very common and most traditional interviews are based on this format.
Unstructured Interview
Although the interviewer is given a written description of the ideal candidate, in the unstructured interview, the interviewer is not given instructions on what specific areas to cover.
Multiple Interviews
Multiple interviews are commonly used with professional jobs. This approach involves a series of interviews in which the interviewee meets individually with various representatives of the organization. In the initial interview, the representative usually attempts to get basic information on interviewee’s skills and abilities. In subsequent interviews, the focus is on how interviewee would perform the job in relation to the company's goals and objectives. After the interviews are completed, the interviewers meet and pool their information about interviewee qualifications for the job. A variation on this approach involves a series of interviews in which unsuitable candidates are screened out at each succeeding level.
Stress Interview
The interviewer intentionally attempts to upset interviewee to see how he/she reacts under pressure. Interviewee may be asked questions that make him/her uncomfortable. Although it is uncommon for an entire interview to be conducted under stress conditions, it is common for the interviewer to incorporate stress questions as a part of a traditional interview.
Targeted Interview
Although similar to the structured interview, the areas covered are much more limited. Key qualifications for success on the job are identified and relevant questions are prepared in advance.
Situational Interview
Situations are set up which simulate common problems interviewee may encounter on the job. His/Her responses to these situations are measured against pre-determined standards. This approach is often used as one part of a traditional interview rather than as an entire interview format.
Group Interview
Interviewee may be interviewed by two or more company representatives simultaneously. Sometimes, one of the interviewers is designated to ask stress questions to see how he/she responds under pressure. A variation on this format is for two or more company representatives to interview a group of candidates at the same time (11).
Basic stages of interview
Every interview’s structure consists of three stages: an opening (or introduction), a body, and a closing – and the interviewer has specific responsibilities during each part:
Opening
A good introduction can shape the entire interview. Research suggests that people form lasting impressions of one another in the first few minutes of a conversation. Dave Deaver, a national management recruiter, describes the importance of first impressions in a job interview this way: "The first minute is all-important in an interview. Fifty percent of the decision is made within the first 30 to 60 seconds. About 25 percent of the evaluation is made during the first 15 minutes. It's very difficult to recover the last 25 percent if interviewer blown the first couple of minutes." These initial impressions shape how a listener regards everything that follows (2, 168).
A good introduction ought to contain two parts: a greeting and an orientation. The opening is also a time for motivating the interviewee to cooperate and giving a sense of what will follow.