,

                                 PUBLICATIONS

 

(PDownloadable in PDF format.   *Downloads are for personal use and are not to be distributed or used in any way that violates copyright law.  

Pras, A., Schober, M.F., & Spiro, N. (2017). What about their performance do free jazz improvisers agree upon? A case study.  Frontiers in Psychology 8:966. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00966  [PDF]

Conrad, F.G., Schober, M.F., Antoun, C., Yan, H.Y., Hupp, A.L., Johnston, M., Ehlen, P., Vickers, L., & Zhang, C. (2017). Respondent mode choice in a smartphone survey.  Public Opinion Quarterly 81(S1), 307-337. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfw097  [PDF]

Conrad, F.G., Schober, M.F., Hupp, A.L, Antoun, C., & Yan, H.Y. (2017). Text interviews on mobile devices.   In P.P. Biemer, E. de Leeuw, S. Eckman, B. Edwards, F. Kreuter, L.E. Lyberg, C. Tucker, & B.T. West (Eds.), Total survey error in practice (pp. 299-318).   Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. doi: 10.1002/9781119041702.ch14

Schober, M.F., & Spiro, N. (2016). Listeners’ and performers’ shared understanding of jazz improvisations.  Frontiers in Psychology 7:1629. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01629  [PDF]

Schober, M.F. (2016). Comment: Rapport in survey interaction. Sociological Methodology, 46, 43-46. doi: 10.1177/0081175016644897 [PDF]

Antoun, C., Zhang, C., Conrad, F.G., & Schober, M.F. (2016). Comparisons of online recruitment strategies for convenience samples: Craigslist, Google AdWords, Facebook and Amazon Mechanical Turk. Field Methods, 28(3), 231-246. doi:10.1177/1525822X15603149 [PDF]

Schober, M.F., Pasek, J., Guggenheim, L., Lampe, C., & Conrad, F.G. (2016). Research synthesis: Social media analyses for social measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(1), 180-211. doi:10.1093/poq/nfv048 [PDF]

Schober, M.F., & Conrad, F.G. (2015). Improving social measurement by understanding interaction in survey interviews. Policy Insights from Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2(1), 211-219. doi:10.1177/2372732215601112 [PDF]

Conrad, F.G., Schober, M.F., Jans, M., Orlowski, R., Nielsen, D., & Levenstein, R. (2015). Comprehension and engagement in survey interviews with virtual agents. Frontiers in Psychology: Cognitive Science, 6:1578. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01578 [PDF]

Sankaram, K., & Schober, M.F.(2015). Reading a blog when empowered to comment: Posting, lurking, and non-interactive reading.  Discourse Processes, 52, 406-433. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2015.1027626  [PDF]

Schober, M.F., Conrad, F.G., Antoun, C., Ehlen, P., Fail, S., Hupp, A.L., Johnston, M., Vickers, L., Yan, H., & Zhang, C. (2015). Precision and disclosure in text and voice interviews on smartphones. PLOS ONE 10(6): e0128337. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0128337 [PDF]

Spiro, N.,& Schober, M.F. (2014). Perspectives on music and communication: An introduction. Psychology of Music (Special issue Perspectives on Music and Communication), 42(6), 771-775. doi: 10.1177/0305735614549493

Schober, M.F. (2014). Audience. In B. Thompson & J.G. Golson (Eds.), Music in the social and behavioral sciences: An encyclopedia (pp. 96-101).  Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. [PDF]

Conrad, F.G., Schober, M.F., & Schwarz, N. (2014). Pragmatic processes in survey interviewing.  In T. Holtgraves (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Language and Social Psychology (pp. 420-437).  New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199838639.013.005

Schober, M.F., & Spiro, N. (2014). Jazz improvisers’ shared understanding: A case study.  Frontiers in Psychology 5:808. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00808  [PDF]

Link, M.W., Murphy, J., Schober, M.F., Buskirk, T.D., Hunter Childs, J., & Langer Tesfaye, C. (2014).  Mobile technologies for conducting, augmenting and potentially replacing surveys: Report of the AAPOR Task Force on Emerging Technologies in Public Opinion Research. AAPOR. [PDF]

Lind, L.H., Schober, M.F., Conrad, F.G., & Reichert, H. (2013).  Why do survey respondents disclose more when computers ask the questions? Public Opinion Quarterly 77(4), 888-935. doi: 10.1093/poq/nft038  [PDF]

Johnston, M., Ehlen, P., Conrad, F.G., Schober, M.F., Antoun, C., Fail, S., Hupp, A., Vickers, L, Yan, H., & Zhang, C. (2013). Spoken dialog systems for automated survey interviewing.  Proceedings of the 14th Annual SIGDIAL Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue (SIGDIAL 2013) (pp. 329-333), Metz, France. [PDF]

Schober, M.F., & Spiro, N. (2013).  How much do jazz players share understanding of their performance? A case study. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Performance Science: ISPS 2013 (pp. 257-262), Vienna, Austria. [PDF]

Schober, M.F., Conrad, F.G., Dijkstra, W., & Ongena, Y.P. (2012).  Disfluencies and gaze aversion in unreliable responses to survey questions. Journal of Official Statistics, 28(4), 555-582. [PDF]

 Schober, M.F., & Glick, P.J. (2011). Self-deceptive speech: A psycholinguistic view.  In C. Piers (Ed.), Personality and psychopathology: Critical dialogues with David Shapiro (pp. 183-200). New York: Springer.  [PDF]

 Schober, M.F., & Carstensen, L.L. (2010).  Does being together for years help comprehension? In E. Morsella (Ed.), Expressing oneself/Expressing one's self: Communication, cognition, language, and identity (pp. 107-124).  New York: Taylor & Francis.  [PDF]

Healey, P.G.T., Frauenberger, C., Oxley, R., Schober, M.F., & Welton, M. (2009). Engaging audiences.  Abstract of paper presented at CHI 2009 Crowd Computer Interaction workshop, Boston, MA. [PDF]

 Schober, M.F. (2009).  Spatial dialogue between partners with mismatched abilities.  In K.R. Coventry, T. Tenbrink, & J.A. Bateman (Eds.), Spatial language and dialogue (pp. 23-39). Oxford: Oxford University Press.  [PDF]

 Schober, M.F. (2008).  Standardized survey interviewing.  In P.J. Lavrakas (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.  [PDF]

 Schober, M.F. (2008).  Collaborative design. In M. Erlhoff & T. Marshall (Eds.), Design dictionary: Perspectives on design terminology (pp. 65-67). Zurich: Birkhäuser Verlag AG.  [PDF]

 Conrad, F.G., & Schober, M.F. (2008).  New frontiers in standardized survey interviewing. In S.N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavey (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 173-188).  New York: Guilford Press.  [PDF]

Conrad, F.G., & Schober, M.F. (Eds.) (2008). Envisioning the survey interview of the future.  New York: Wiley.

Fussell, S.R., Zhang, Q., Conrad, F.G., Schober, M.F., & Setlock, L.D. (2008).  Culture, computer-mediated communication, and survey interviewing. In F.G. Conrad & M.F. Schober (Eds.), Envisioning the survey interview of the future (pp. 215-239).  New York: Wiley.  [PDF]

Schober, M.F., & Conrad, F.G. (2008). Survey interviews and new communication technologies. In F.G. Conrad & M.F. Schober (Eds.), Envisioning the survey interview of the future (pp. 1-30).  New York: Wiley.  [PDF]

Conrad, F.G., Schober, M.F., & Dijkstra, W. (2007). Cues of communication difficulty in telephone interviews. In J.M. Lepkowski, C. Tucker, M. Brick, E. de Leeuw, L. Japec, P. Lavrakas, M. Link, & R. Sangster (Eds.), Advances in telephone survey methodology(pp. 212-230). New York: Wiley.  [PDF]

Turner, G., & Schober, M.F. (2007). Feedback on collaborative skills in remote studio design. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (HICSS-40).  [PDF]

Ehlen, P., Schober, M.F., & Conrad, F.G. (2007). Modeling speech disfluency to predict conceptual misalignment in speech survey interfaces.  Discourse Processes, 44(3), 245-265.  [PDF]

Schober, M.F. (2007). Commentary in “Questions & Answers: Experts Comment on a Public Opinion Classic.” Public Opinion Pros (online magazine), March 2007, www.publicopinionpros.com.

Schober, M.F. (2007).  Epilogue: Language at the heart of social psychology.  In K. Fiedler (Ed.), Social communication (pp. 435-440). New York: Psychology Press.  [PDF]

Conrad, F.G., Schober, M.F., & Coiner, T. (2007). Bringing features of dialogue to web surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 165-187.   [PDF]

Schober, M.F. (2006). Virtual environments for creative work in collaborative music-making. Virtual Reality, 10(2), 85-94.  [PDF]

Schober, M.F. (2006). Dialogue and interaction. In K. Brown (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd Edition (pp. 564-571).  Oxford: Elsevier.  [PDF]

Conrad, F.G., & Schober, M.F. (2005).  Promoting uniform question understanding in today’s and tomorrow’s surveys.  Journal of Official Statistics (20th Anniversary Special Issue), 21, 215 - 231[PDF]

DiNardo, A.C., Schober, M.F., & Stuart, J. (2005). Chair and couch discourse: A study of visual copresence in psychoanalysis.  Discourse Processes, 40, 209-238.  [PDF]

Schober, M.F. (2005). Conceptual alignment in conversation.  In B.F. Malle & S.D. Hodges (Eds.), Other minds: How humans bridge the divide between self and others (pp. 239-252).  New York: Guilford Press. [PDF]

O’Hara, M., & Schober, M.F. (2004). Attitudes and comprehension of terms in opinion questions about euthanasiaIn Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research Methods.  Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.  [PDF]

Schober, M.F. (2004).  Just how aligned are interlocutors’ representations? Commentary on Pickering and Garrod.  Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 209-210.  [PDF]

Vazan, P., & Schober, M.F. (2004). Detecting and resolving metrical ambiguity in a rock
song upon multiple rehearings.  In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition.  
[PDF]

Schober, M.F., & Bloom, J.E. (2004).  Discourse cues that respondents have misunderstood survey questions.  Discourse Processes, 38, 287-308.  [PDF]

Schober, M.F., Conrad, F.G., & Fricker, S.S. (2004).  Misunderstanding standardized language in research interviews.  Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 169-188.  [PDF]

Schober, M.F., & Brennan, S.E. (2003).  Processes of interactive spoken discourse: The role of the partner. In A.C. Graesser, M.A. Gernsbacher, & S.R. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 123-164). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.   [PDF]

Schober, M.F., Conrad, F.G., Ehlen, P., & Fricker, S.S. (2003).  How web surveys differ from other kinds of user interfaces.  In Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research Methods.  Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.  [PDF]

Schober, M.F., & Conrad, F.G. (2002). A collaborative view of standardized survey interviews. In D. Maynard, H. Houtkoop-Steenstra, N.C. Schaeffer, & J. van der Zouwen (Eds.), Standardization and tacit knowledge: Interaction and practice in the survey interview (pp. 67-94). New York: John Wiley & Sons.  [PDF]

Kurtz, V., & Schober, M.F. (2001).  Readers’ varying interpretations of theme in short fiction.  Poetics, 29, 139-166.  [PDF]

Lind, L.H., Schober, M.F., & Conrad, F.G. (2001). Clarifying question meaning in a web-based survey.  In Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research Methods.  Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.  [PDF]

Bortfeld, H., Leon, S.D., Bloom, J.E., Schober, M.F. & Brennan, S.E. (2001). Disfluency rates in conversation: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender. Language and Speech, 44, 123-149.  [PDF]

Brennan, S.E., & Schober, M.F. (2001). How listeners compensate for disfluencies in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 274-296.  [PDF]

Schober, M.F., Conrad, F.G., & Bloom, J.E. (2000).  Clarifying word meanings in computer-administered survey interviewsIn L.R. Gleitman & A.K.Joshi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 447-452).  Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  [PDF]

Suessbrick, A.L., Schober, M.F., & Conrad, F.G. (2000).  Different respondents interpret ordinary questions quite differently.  In Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research Methods.  Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.  [PDF]

Conrad, F.G., & Schober, M.F. (2000).  Clarifying question meaning in a household telephone survey.  Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 1-28.  [PDF]

Schober, M.F. (1999).  Making sense of questions: An interactional approach.  In M.G. Sirken, D.J. Hermann, S. Schechter, N. Schwarz, J.M. Tanur, & R. Tourangeau (Eds.), Cognition and survey research (pp. 77-93).  New York: John Wiley & Sons.  [PDF]

Russell, A.W., & Schober, M.F. (1999).  How beliefs about a partner’s goals affect referring in goal-discrepant conversations. Discourse Processes, 27(1), 1-33.  [PDF]

Schober, M.F. (1998).  Conversational evidence for rethinking meaning. Social Research (special issue “Conversation”), 65(3), 511-534.  [PDF]

Schober, M.F. (1998).  Different kinds of conversational perspective-taking.  In S.R. Fussell & R.J. Kreuz (eds.), Social and cognitive psychological approaches to interpersonal communication (pp. 145-174).  Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.  [PDF]

Schober, M.F. (1998). How addressees affect spatial perspective choice in dialogue.  In P.L. Olivier & K.-P. Gapp (Eds.), Representation and processing of spatial expressions (pp. 231-245). Mahwaw, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.  [PDF]

Schober, M.F., & Conrad, F.G. (1997).  Does conversational interviewing reduce survey measurement error?  Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 576-602.  Reprinted in N.G. Fielding (Ed.), (2005), Interviewing, Vol. 1 (SAGE Benchmarks in Social Research Methods Series).  London, UK/Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [PDF]

Schober, M.F. (1995).  Speakers, addressees, and frames of reference:  Whose effort is minimized in conversations about location?  Discourse Processes, 20(2), 219-247.  [PDF]

Schober, M.F. (1993).  Spatial perspective-taking in conversation.  Cognition, 47(1), pp. 1-24.  [PDF]

Clark, H.H., & Schober, M.F. (1991). Asking questions and influencing answers.  In J.M. Tanur (Ed.), Questions about questions:  Inquiries into the cognitive bases of surveys (pp. 15-48).  New York:  Russell Sage Foundation.  [PDF]

Schober, M.F., & Clark, H.H. (1989).  Understanding by addressees and overhearers.  Cognitive Psychology, 21, 211‑232.    Reprinted in H.H. Clark (1992), Arenas of language use (pp. 176-197).  Chicago:  University of Chicago Press.   [PDF]

 

*Downloads are for personal use and are not to be distributed or used in any way that violates copyright law.