IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/kud/kucebi/2306.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Conducting qualitative interviews with AI

Author

Listed:
  • Felix Chopra

    (University of Copenhagen, CEBI)

  • Ingar Haaland

    (Norwegian School of Economics)

Abstract

Qualitative interviews are one of the fundamental tools of empirical social science research and give individuals the opportunity to explain how they understand and interpret the world, allowing researchers to capture detailed and nuanced insights into complex phenomena. However, qualitative interviews are seldom used in economics and other disciplines inclined toward quantitative data analysis, likely due to concerns about limited scalability, high costs, and low generalizability. In this paper, we introduce an AI-assisted method to conduct semi-structured interviews. This approach retains the depth of traditional qualitative research while enabling large-scale, cost-effective data collection suitable for quantitative analysis. We demonstrate the feasibility of this approach through a large-scale data collection to understand the stock market participation puzzle. Our 395 interviews allow for quantitative analysis that we demonstrate yields richer and more robust conclusions compared to qualitative interviews with traditional sample sizes as well as to survey responses to a single open-ended question. We also demonstrate high interviewee satisfaction with the AI-assisted interviews. In fact, a majority of respondents indicate a strict preference for AI-assisted interviews over human-led interviews. Our novel AI-assisted approach bridges the divide between qualitative and quantitative data analysis and substantially lowers the barriers and costs of conducting qualitative interviews at scale.

Suggested Citation

  • Felix Chopra & Ingar Haaland, 2023. "Conducting qualitative interviews with AI," CEBI working paper series 23-06, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
  • Handle: RePEc:kud:kucebi:2306
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econ.ku.dk/cebi/publikationer/working-papers/CEBI_WP_06-23.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anja Lambrecht & Catherine Tucker, 2019. "Algorithmic Bias? An Empirical Study of Apparent Gender-Based Discrimination in the Display of STEM Career Ads," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(7), pages 2966-2981, July.
    2. Luca Henkel & Christian Zimpelmann, 2022. "Proud to Not Own Stocks: How Identity Shapes Financial Decisions," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2022_380, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    3. John J. Horton, 2023. "Large Language Models as Simulated Economic Agents: What Can We Learn from Homo Silicus?," NBER Working Papers 31122, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2023. "Designing Information Provision Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 3-40, March.
    5. Geertz, Clifford, 1978. "The Bazaar Economy: Information and Search in Peasant Marketing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 68(2), pages 28-32, May.
    6. Jens Ludwig & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2024. "Machine Learning as a Tool for Hypothesis Generation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 139(2), pages 751-827.
    7. Guiso, Luigi & Sodini, Paolo, 2013. "Household Finance: An Emerging Field," Handbook of the Economics of Finance, in: G.M. Constantinides & M. Harris & R. M. Stulz (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Finance, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1397-1532, Elsevier.
    8. Nikhil Agarwal & Alex Moehring & Pranav Rajpurkar & Tobias Salz, 2023. "Combining Human Expertise with Artificial Intelligence: Experimental Evidence from Radiology," NBER Working Papers 31422, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. J. Tobin, 1958. "Liquidity Preference as Behavior Towards Risk," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 25(2), pages 65-86.
    10. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang & Richard H. Thaler, 2006. "Individual Preferences, Monetary Gambles, and Stock Market Participation: A Case for Narrow Framing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1069-1090, September.
    11. Bewley, Truman F, 1995. "A Depressed Labor Market as Explained by Participants," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(2), pages 250-254, May.
    12. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens, 2019. "Machine Learning Methods That Economists Should Know About," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 11(1), pages 685-725, August.
    13. Merton, Robert C, 1969. "Lifetime Portfolio Selection under Uncertainty: The Continuous-Time Case," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 51(3), pages 247-257, August.
    14. John J. Horton, 2023. "Large Language Models as Simulated Economic Agents: What Can We Learn from Homo Silicus?," Papers 2301.07543, arXiv.org.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Samuel Chang & Andrew Kennedy & Aaron Leonard & John List, 2024. "12 Best Practices for Leveraging Generative AI in Experimental Research," Artefactual Field Experiments 00796, The Field Experiments Website.
    2. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Stefanie Stantcheva & Johannes Wohlfart, 2024. "Measuring What Is Top of Mind," CEBI working paper series 24-10, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nir Chemaya & Daniel Martin, 2023. "Perceptions and Detection of AI Use in Manuscript Preparation for Academic Journals," Papers 2311.14720, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    2. Hong, Claire Yurong & Lu, Xiaomeng & Pan, Jun, 2021. "FinTech adoption and household risk-taking," BOFIT Discussion Papers 14/2021, Bank of Finland Institute for Emerging Economies (BOFIT).
    3. repec:zbw:bofitp:2021_014 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    5. Samuel Chang & Andrew Kennedy & Aaron Leonard & John A. List, 2024. "12 Best Practices for Leveraging Generative AI in Experimental Research," NBER Working Papers 33025, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Felipe A. Csaszar & Harsh Ketkar & Hyunjin Kim, 2024. "Artificial Intelligence and Strategic Decision-Making: Evidence from Entrepreneurs and Investors," Papers 2408.08811, arXiv.org.
    7. Hong, Claire Yurong & Lu, Xiaomeng & Pan, Jun, 2021. "FinTech adoption and household risk-taking," BOFIT Discussion Papers 14/2021, Bank of Finland, Institute for Economies in Transition.
    8. Benjamin S. Manning & Kehang Zhu & John J. Horton, 2024. "Automated Social Science: Language Models as Scientist and Subjects," Papers 2404.11794, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    9. Andreas Fagereng & Luigi Guiso & Davide Malacrino & Luigi Pistaferri, 2020. "Heterogeneity and Persistence in Returns to Wealth," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(1), pages 115-170, January.
    10. Pelizzon, Loriana & Weber, Guglielmo, 2009. "Efficient portfolios when housing needs change over the life cycle," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 33(11), pages 2110-2121, November.
    11. Baker, Scott R. & Johnson, Stephanie & Kueng, Lorenz, 2024. "Financial returns to household inventory management," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    12. Taras Bodnar & Yarema Okhrin & Valdemar Vitlinskyy & Taras Zabolotskyy, 2018. "Determination and estimation of risk aversion coefficients," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 297-317, June.
    13. Kirshner, Samuel N., 2024. "GPT and CLT: The impact of ChatGPT's level of abstraction on consumer recommendations," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    14. Luc Arrondel & Jérôme Coffinet, 2018. "Demand For Stocks in the Crisis: France 2004-2014," PSE Working Papers halshs-01785324, HAL.
    15. Raman Uppal & Harjoat Bhamra, 2016. "Do Individual Behavioral Biases Affect Financial Markets and the Macroeconomy?," 2016 Meeting Papers 1358, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    16. Briggs, Joseph & Cesarini, David & Lindqvist, Erik & Östling, Robert, 2021. "Windfall gains and stock market participation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(1), pages 57-83.
    17. David S. Jones & V. Vance Roley, 1981. "Bliss Points in Mean-Variance Portfolio Models," NBER Technical Working Papers 0019, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Börsch-Supan, Axel & Ludwig, Alexander & Sommer, Mathias, 2005. "Aging and asset prices," Papers 07-29, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    19. Benjamin M. Friedman, 1980. "The Effect of Shifting Wealth Ownership on the Term Structure of Interest Rates," NBER Working Papers 0239, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Matthias Horn & Andreas Oehler, 2020. "Automated portfolio rebalancing: Automatic erosion of investment performance?," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 21(6), pages 489-505, October.
    21. Luc Arrondel & André Masson, 2017. "Why does household demand for shares decline during the crisis? The French case," Economie et Statistique / Economics and Statistics, Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques (INSEE), issue 494-495-4, pages 155-177.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Artificial Intelligence; Interviews; Large Language Models; Qualitative Methods; Stock Market Participation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods
    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • D14 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Household Saving; Personal Finance
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • Z13 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Language; Social and Economic Stratification

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kud:kucebi:2306. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Thomas Hoffmann (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cebkudk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.