Do survey participants in conflict zones respond differently if they have been interviewed before? Academic and policy interest in postwar political opinion has increased tremendously. One unexpected consequence of this surge of survey research is a growing probability that individuals will be interviewed multiple times. However, if participating in one survey causes respondents to change their attitudes or behavior, their subsequent survey responses may be biased in comparison to the rest of the sample population. Our article aims to investigate such ‘survey participation effects’ in conflict contexts. We draw on original survey data collected in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). In our representative sample, 18% of respondents report that they have been interviewed before. Multivariate analyses demonstrate that their stated attitudes on social relations, political institutions, gender norms, and wartime victimization differ substantively from the responses of first-time interviewees. Moreover, our analyses indicate that experienced respondents have specific response styles – in particular, a tendency to support extreme response options. While substantive bias in multivariate analyses seems to be rather rare, our findings indicate that researchers should be aware of the footprints of data collection efforts in areas frequently targeted by household and opinion surveys.

如果冲突地区的调查参与者之前曾接受过采访，他们的反应是否会有所不同？对战后政治见解的学术和政策兴趣已大大增加。这项调查研究激增的意外结果是，人们多次被采访的可能性越来越高。但是，如果参加一项调查导致受访者改变其态度或行为，则其随后的调查回答可能会与其他样本人群相比有所偏差。本文旨在研究冲突环境下的这种“调查参与效应”。我们利用在刚果民主共和国东部（DRC）收集的原始调查数据。在我们的代表性样本中，有18％的受访者表示他们之前曾被采访过。多变量分析表明，他们对社会关系，政治制度，性别规范和战时受害的既定态度与初次受访者的回答有很大不同。此外，我们的分析表明，经验丰富的受访者具有特定的应对方式，尤其是倾向于支持极端应对方案的趋势。尽管多元分析中的实质性偏见似乎很少见，但我们的发现表明，研究人员应注意住户和民意调查经常针对的领域中数据收集工作的足迹。我们的分析表明，经验丰富的受访者具有特定的应对方式，尤其是倾向于支持极端应对方案的趋势。尽管多元分析中的实质性偏见似乎很少见，但我们的发现表明，研究人员应注意住户和民意调查经常针对的领域中数据收集工作的足迹。我们的分析表明，经验丰富的受访者具有特定的应对方式，尤其是倾向于支持极端应对方案的趋势。尽管多元分析中的实质性偏见似乎很少见，但我们的发现表明，研究人员应注意住户和民意调查经常针对的领域中数据收集工作的足迹。