An empirical test of alternative theories of survey response
behaviour
Market Research Society. Journal of the Market Research Society;
London; Apr
1999; Felicitas EvangelistaGerald AlbaumPatrick Poon
Volume: 41
Issue: 2
Start Page: 227-244
ISSN: 00253618
Full Text:
Copyright Market Research Society Apr 1999
[Headnote]
Abstract
This study examines the extent to which the theories of exchange,
cognitive
dissonance,
self-perception
and
commitment/involvement, when used to design surveys, can
influence potential respondents to participate in a survey. The
results from an experiment involving a total of 403 subjects in
Hong Kong and Australia expands what is known about the role
played by theory by examining consumer responses to participation
requests made on the basis of each
theoretical framework. Specific results support the relatively high
positive impact of two of the frameworks that has been reported in
a study of research practitioners.
Introduction
There is very little known about the reasons why some people
participate as respondents in a survey while others do not, and
among respondents why the quality of data varies. A great number
of empirical studies have been conducted
on response inducement techniques and other methodological
artifacts that affect response to surveys, particularly mail surveys.
Of concern in these studies have been the effects of such devices as
preliminary notification, foot-in-the-door
technique, follow-ups, questionnaire format and length, survey
source or sponsorship, nature of return envelopes, type of postage,
personalisation, cover letters, anonymity, deadline date, and
premiums and rewards. Quantitative (i.e.,
meta-analysis) and qualitative reviews of a large number of studies
relating to mail surveys have been written by Scott (1961),
Blumberg, Fuller & Hare (1974), Kanuk & Berenson (1975),
Linsky (1975), Houston & Ford (1976), Heberlein & Baumgartner
(1978), Duncan (1979), Fox, Crask & Kim (1988), Yammarino,
Skinner & Childers (1991) and Church (1993). Reviews by
Peterson & Kerin (1981) and by Yu & Cooper (1983) included all
major methods of survey data collection, as did the quantitative
review of response effects to interviews by Sudman & Bradburn
(1974). The consensus of all this research is that there is no strong
empirical evidence that any technique or aspect of a technique is
always best at inducing response, except, perhaps for
prenotification, follow-ups and the use of a monetary incentive,
particularly one that is sent with the request for participation.
Typically a study has used one or more of the following as a
dependent variable or measure of effect: response rate, item
omissions, response speed, cost and in a much more limited
manner, response content itself. Yet there is evidence that people
tend to respond to mail survey requests in a consistent manner,
especially for those who participate (Brennan & Hoek 1992).
People who return questionnaires uncompleted (refusers) were
reported to differ from those who do not respond at all (nonreturnees) with regard to predisposition toward survey
participation. One thing that seems clear is that the slow
development of a generally accepted conceptual framework or
theory has hindered the development of effective techniques to use.
A theory of survey response could explain behaviour such that a
researcher could predict which techniques would do what under
various conditions. Thus, theory can provide guidance to
researchers so that they can determine what it is they have to do to
encourage response and accurate and truthful reporting of data.
Within the context of a personal interview survey, Groves, Cialdini
& Couper (1992, p. 477) state, '...full understanding of decisions to
participate in a survey requires a theory that integrates the observed
influences of socio-demographic and survey design factors, on the
one hand, with the less observable impact of the psychological
components of the relatively brief interactions between interviewer
and respondent, on the other'. In view of the pre-eminent role of the
survey method in international marketing research (Albaum &
Peterson 1984; Aulakh & Kotabe 1993) there is need for
`methodological studies that investigate theoretically based
techniques for increasing respondent co-operation'. (Jobber &
Saunders 1988). This paper reports on a two-country study that
examines the extent to which each of the four theories that have
been proposed as alternative explanations of survey participation
can influence consumers to participate. This study builds on a study
by Albaum, Evangelista & Medina (1998) which looked at
marketing research practitioners and examined degree of
awareness, extent of use and perceptions of each theory, and the
perceived influence each had on survey design.
Alternative theoretical frameworks
A number of theories have been suggested as being applicable to
the survey response decision (Dillman 1978; Linksy
1975;Yammarino, Skinner & Childers 1991). The three most cited
that are applicable to marketing research are exchange (Dillman
1978), cognitive dissonance (Furse & Stewart 1984; Hackler &
Bourgette 1973), and self-perception (Allen 1982; Tybout & Yalch
1980). In addition, Albaum (1987) has suggested that a theory of
commitment or involvement might also fill the gap in theory
development and use by marketing researchers. Another approach
to theory is suggested by Groves, Cialdini & Couper (1992). These
authors suggest that critical elements in the development of a
theory of survey participation are an understanding of the
interaction between respondent and interviewer, and of the
behaviours, attitudes and expectations each brings to the
interaction. It is contended that understanding of survey
participation can benefit from looking at the social psychological
factors underlying compliance, helping tendencies, and opinion
change. This is what a recent study by Groves & Couper (1998) has
done. These researchers have developed and empirically studied a
basic theoretical framework of influences on survey participation.
Their study resulted in a book about why people behave the way
they do regarding survey participation. Specifically, Groves &
Couper (1998) looked at attributes of design, interviewers'
behaviour, prior experiences of the respondent, interaction between
respondent and interviewer, and the social environment in which
the request for survey participation is made, as influencing the
participation decision. Their research is limited primarily to faceto-face surveys and to studies of household population in the
United States conducted or sponsored by US government agencies.
As they acknowledge (Groves & Couper 1998, p.23), government
surveys throughout the world tend to have higher response rates
than surveys conducted in the academic or commercial sectors. One
major concluding deduction is that many survey design features
have their effect because they make favourable consequences of the
interview more salient to the respondent prior to his/her decision;
however, any stimulus presented during the survey request can
interact with individual characteristics of the respondent (Groves &
Couper 1998, p.296). Our study relates directly to this concluding
deduction.
EXCHANGE
The process of using (mail) survey techniques to obtain truthful
information from potential respondents is viewed by Dillman
(1978) as a special case of `social exchange'. Very simply, social
exchange theory asserts that the actions of individuals in answering
a questionnaire are motivated by the return or rewards, not
necessarily monetary, these actions are expected to, or usually do,
bring from others. Whether a given behaviour occurs is a function
of the perceived costs of engaging in that activity and the expected
rewards (Tullar, Pressley & Gentry 1979). In order that survey
response be maximised, then, three conditions must be present: (1)
the costs for responding must be minimised, (2) the rewards must
be maximised and (3) there must be a belief by potential
respondents that such rewards will, in fact, be provided. Dillman
(1978) asserts that the guidance offered by exchange theory is only
general. Many of the techniques used to induce compliance with
the request for response, including the nature of the request itself,
can be viewed as being designed to provide rewards, lower costs,
and establish trust. For example, if completing a questionnaire or
responding to an interviewer's questions can be made to be a
rewarding act, the process itself may provide the motivation to
participate in the mail or telephone survey. An implication for the
researcher, therefore, is to make the questionnaire as interesting as
possible (Dillman 1978). Another example is that of token financial
incentives. Their effectiveness is probably not so much due to their
monetary value as it is to their being a symbol of trust.
Social exchange theory may not apply equally to mail and
telephone surveys. The main reasons for this are due to differences
in time to make the initial response decision, extent of prenotification, and amount of information available for consideration.
Consequently, social exchange is probably not as important in
telephone surveys as in mail surveys. However, costs, rewards, and
trust may be important to some respondents.
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger 1957) provides a
mechanism for integrating, within a single model, much of the
empirical research that has been done on inducement techniques for
survey response (Furse & Stewart 1984). As used for explaining
survey response, the theory postulates that reducing dissonance is
an important component of the `respond/not respond' decision of
potential survey respondents.
In a mail survey the process is triggered by receipt of a
questionnaire and cover letter asking for participation (Furse &
Stewart 1984). For telephone and personal interview surveys the
process is started by the request for participation. Failure to
respond to a survey may be inconsistent with a person's self-belief
of being helpful, or at least a person who honors reasonable
requests. The inconsistency created by the failure to respond will
produce a state of dissonance which the potential respondent seeks
to reduce by becoming a survey respondent. Since the decision
process involves a series of decisions for some people, delaying the
ultimate decision may be a way to avoid completing the
questionnaire without having to reject the request outright and,
thus, experience dissonance. Delaying a decision, therefore, may in
itself be a dissonance reducing response.
The dissonance model has had limited tests. Hackler & Bourgette
(1973) attributed the high response rate they found for a dollar
inducement to the ability of the money sent to induce cognitive
dissonance in potential respondents. Furse et al (1981) found that
the initial monetary incentive served to create dissonance, but that
repeating the same incentive in a follow-up mailing did not induce
dissonance among those not responding initially. Apparently, there
are people who are dissonance resistant. These researchers felt that
dissonance explained the success they found regarding the foot-inthe door technique and would also explain some of the negative
findings experienced when that technique was used.
SELF-PERCEPTION
Self-perception theory asserts that persons infer attitudes and
knowledge of themselves through interpretations made about the
causes of their behaviour (Bem 1972). Interpretations are made on
the basis of self-observation. To the extent
that a person's behaviour is attributed to internal causes and is not
perceived as due to circumstantial pressures, a ositive attitude
towards the behaviour develops. These attitudes (i.e., selfperception) then affect subsequent behaviour.
Allen (1982) extended the self-perception paradigm to the broad
issue of mail survey response. To increase the precision of the
paradigm, he introduced the concepts of salience (behaviours one
has attended to), favourability (the affect of feeling generated by a
given behavioural experience), and availability (information in
memory). In addition, to enhance the effects of these on response,
labels should be created. Labelling involves classifying people on
the basis of their behaviour such that they will later act in a manner
consistent with the characterisation. Self-perception would predict
that labelling one's behaviour would cause that person to view
herself or himself as the kind of person who engages in such
behaviour, therefore the likelihood of later label-consistent
behaviour is increased (Tybout &Yalch 1980).
Self-perception theory has often been applied in survey research to
explain the effects, or lack of effects, associated with the foot-inthe-door techniques (DeJong 1979). This technique attempts to
elicit participating in a study by first gaining compliance with a
small request, such as answering a couple of questions in a
telephone pre-call. Self-perception is purported to operate as
follows (Allen 1982, p. 3). '... responding with a small behaviour
(answering the phone interviewer's questions) should alter one's
self-perception (I am a participator) and influence subsequent
behaviour (filling out and returning the mail questionnaire)'. This
technique was studied rather extensively in the 1970s and early
1980s (Swan & Martin 1982). Self-perception predicted foot-inthe-door effects in some studies (Freedman & Fraser 1966; Hansen
& Robinson 1979; Reingen & Kernan 1977), whereas in other
studies significant effects were not demonstrated (Allen, Schewe
&Wijk 1980; Furse et al 1981; Reingen & Kernan 1979, Seligman,
Bush & Kirsch 1976).
COMMITMENT/INVOLVEMENT
Somewhat related to the theories presented above is the theory of
commitment or involvement (Becker 1960). The concept of
commitment has been used by sociologists to explain consistent
behaviour. It can be defined as 'a variable
which encompasses the ranges of allegiance an individual may be
said to have for the social system of which he is a member'
(Hornback 1971, p. 65). Characteristics of this so-called consistent
behaviour are that it (1) persists over some period of time, (2) leads
to pursuit of at least one common goal, and (3) rejects other acts of
behaviour (Becker 1960). Consequently, the major elements of
commitment are viewed as including:
* The individual is in a position in which her/his decision regarding
a particular behaviour has consequences for other interests and
activities not necessarily related to it.
* * The person is in that position by her/his own prior behaviour
* * The committed person must recognise the interest created by
one's prior action; even though one has such an interest, she/he will
not act to implement it unless it is realised as being necessary.
A person who is highly committed to some activity is less likely to
terminate the activity than one who is uncommitted (Ford 1973).
This concept of commitment involvement is consistent with what
consumer behaviourists have called enduring involvement contrasted to situational involvement (Houston & Rothschild 1978;
Havitz & Howard 1995). Enduring
involvement reflects a sustained level of concern with an issue,
product, or activity and, as such, remains stable over long periods
of time. In contrast, situational involvement is situation specific.
The theory of commitment (or involvement) can be extended to
explain survey response behaviour in that commitment can be
attached to many different aspects of a survey, such as the source
or the sponsor, the researcher, the topic and issues being studied
and/or the research process itself. The study by Brennan & Hoek
(1992) seems to suggest that enduring commitment would seem to
exist. But, situational commitment is not precluded. Potential
respondents may have varying feelings of commitment to the
various aspects attached to a survey. To a large extent, commitment
is manifested by interest in what is being asked of the potential
respondent. Borrowing from Hornback (1972):
* The less favourable the attitude toward a survey's sponsor, topic,
etc., the less involvement with, and thus the commitment to
anything related to that study.
* The less the extent of involvement, the more behaviour
productive of disorder (e.g., non response, deliberate reporting of
false information, etc.) is perceived as legitimate.
* The more behaviour productive of disorder is perceived as
legitimate, the less favourable the attitude towards the survey.
It is postulated that this theory may help explain survey response
behaviour, in terms both of the respond/not respond decision and
the quality of data when it is judged to be less than desirable. The
theory of commitment does not suggest
that always there will be consistent behaviour regarding response to
surveys in general, although this is not precluded. Rather, the
theory suggests that there would be consistent response behaviour
for people facing the same type of survey
under the same situation and conditions.
The theory of commitment has been used very little to explain
methodological effects. For example, the effects of different subunits (from a broader organisation) as survey sources for a mail
survey were found to not differ even though the sample had an
affinity with one sub-unit, but not the other and one of the topics
was related to the mission of only one sub-unit (Peterson &
Albaum 1984). Other attempts to apply this theory have involved
studies of (1) the effects of inducement questions i.e., an initial
question to arouse respondent interest (Geurts, O'Neill, Lawrence
& Albaum 1988), and (2) the effects of survey source and coding in
mail surveys (Albaum 1987). In the most recent study, Albaum,
Evangelista & Medina (1998) report that marketing research
practitioners reported a relatively high level of awareness of the
theory and its major aspects and a relatively high use of techniques
derived from the theory compared with other better known
theories.
The present study
The present study was conducted in Australia and Hong Kong.
Four different appeals for survey participation, one for each theory,
were developed. Each appeal was presented to a sample of
consumers together with a test questionnaire
in three formats (mail, telephone and personal interview), as
follows:
`Suppose you receive this letter and questionnaire in the mail',
`Suppose you receive a telephone call from a marketing research
agency and the caller says.'
`Suppose a market research interviewer approaches you in a
shopping mall and says ...'
The study can be viewed as an experiment using a simplified 4 x 3
factorial design in each of the countries. The cover letter and the
statements used to invite or induce participation emphasised the
following appeals:
Exchange theory: Incentive of a $2.00 scratch lottery ticket
(Australia).
McDonald's coupon worth HK$17.90
Self-Perception: `responsible and concerned householders like
yourself would like their opinions to be heard' `Being a helpful
person. ..'
Commitment/Involvement: `topic of survey is very important'
Cognitive Dissonance: `non-participation will cause us great
difficulties'
The cover letter and introductory statements were uniform in all
cases except for the appeals. A series of questions about whether
they would or would not agree to participate in the test survey,
reasons for participating or not participating, perceived reasons of
why people participate in surveys in general, attitude towards
surveys and demographic characteristics were then asked.
The statement used in the cognitive dissonance appeal could raise
ethical questions because it induces a sense of guilt within a
potential respondent. Such guilt may, however, be no greater than
that arising from requests for survey participation based on the
other theories included in this study e.g. social exchange and selfperception. For this reason, the ethical issues which could arise
from the use of these appeals are not explored further in this paper.
The obtained sample for this study consisted of 217 and 186
respondents in Australia and Hong Kong respectively. The
breakdown of respondents according to theory and the survey
format asked about is shown below:
Data collection in Australia was undertaken through mall
intercepts. In Hong Kong, mature age, mostly working (i.e., parttime) students were asked to fill out the questionnaire in class. The
characteristics of the respondents are presented in table 1. The two
sample groups were similar in gender distribution with slightly
more than one half being female. The Hong Kong sample was, not
surprisingly, younger and had a higher percentage of respondents
with at least university/tertiary education than did the Australian
sample. This, of course, reflects part-time student compared with a
more general population sample.
Although the two populations are not the same, there is no
empirical evidence that we have been able to uncover suggesting
that the response behaviour to the different theories within each
group would differ. Thus these results are not affected by having
different populations.
[Table]
Caption:
Respondents were asked about previous participation in other types
of surveys.
Much higher percentages of each sample group reported
participating in telephone and personal interview surveys than in
mail surveys, as follows:
Findings
THEORY AND SURVEY PARTICIPATION
The results of the present survey show that there is a relationship
between survey response theory and survey participation (see table
2). The significance is greater in Australia (p < .01) than in Hong
Kong (p < .11). In Australia, commitment/involvement generated
the highest response rate followed by exchange, self-perception and
cognitive dissonance in a descending order. In Hong Kong,
exchange theory appears to be the more dominant appeal followed
by
commitment/involvement, cognitive dissonance and selfperception.
[Table]
Caption:
[Table]
Caption: Table 1
The mode by which the appeals were presented to the respondent
(i.e., mail, telephone or personal interview) were found to have no
effect on the selfpredicted response rate of the Australian sample
(see table 3). This finding however was not supported by the survey
results from Hong Kong which showed a higher response rate for
personal interview, followed by telephone and then by mail
surveys. Although the statistical test results obtained from the two
samples differ, the ranking of the three modes in terms of selfpredicted response rates is similar i.e. in both samples, personal
interview showed a higher response rate followed by telephone
interview and lastly, mail survey.
This rank ordering reflects the general experience of researchers as
indicated in marketing research textbooks (e.g. Malhotra 1999) and
what one would expect based on the advantages and disadvantages
of each mode particularly between telephone and personal
interviews (Groves & Couper 1998). The consistency in the rank
ordering of these three modes in both samples and with respect to
general experience strengthens the external validity of the
experiment.
REASONS FOR PARTICIPATING/NOT PARTICIPATING
When the different appeals were presented to the respondents, a
test survey questionnaire was shown to them. For the telephone and
personal interview modes, the topic of the survey, `attitudes toward
Australian (Chinese for Hong Kong respondents) made products',
were mentioned. It was then in this context that respondents were
asked whether they would or would not participate in the test
survey.
[Table]
Caption: Table 2
After indicating whether they would or would not participate in the
test survey, the respondents were asked the reasons for their selfpredicted behaviour. In addition, the respondents were also asked
to rank these reasons from the most to the least important. The
percentage of respondents that ranked these different reasons as
first, second or third in importance is shown in tables 4 and 5.
The two most important reasons for self-predicted participation
(table 4) are those associated with commitment/involvement and
exchange while cognitive dissonance was rated as important by
only a small percentage of respondents in both countries. For those
who would not participate in the test survey (table 5), the most
frequently reported most important reason in both samples is
`questionnaire will/might take long to complete' (exchange).
From these answers, it appears that exchange and commitment are
the two more compelling reasons for participation and nonparticipation.
PERCEPTIONS OF SURVEY RESPONSE BEHAVIOUR
Respondents were asked to identify their beliefs regarding why
people typically respond to surveys. A set of nine statements
representing the four theories of survey response behaviour were
presented to the respondents in a five-category Likert scale format.
Comparisons of the mean extent of agreement between the two
sample groups are shown in table 6.
The two reasons that received the highest level of agreement from
the combined sample are: `People respond when the task required
from them is relatively easy to carry out' and `they respond if they
think the topic is important'. These statements represent exchange
and involvement/commitment theories, respectively.
The reasons that received the lowest rating and therefore are the
least popular overall are `people respond to eliminate the feeling of
anxiety' (cognitive dissonance) and `they respond because they feel
they have an obligation to do so' (self-perception).
[Table]
Caption: Table 4:
Table 5
[Table]
Caption: Table 6
The survey results from Australia and Hong Kong show a similar
pattern. Significant differences in the mean value of agreement
were found in only three statements, one each for exchange,
cognitive dissonance and involvement/commitment. In terms of the
four theories being examined, these results indicate moderate to
strong support for the involvement/commitment and exchange
theories. Of the four theories, cognitive dissonance was perceived
as the least likely reason for people to participate in surveys. The
perceptions of those respondents who said they would participate in
the test survey were compared with those who said they would not
participate. While the results from Hong Kong sample indicated no
significant difference in the perceptions of these two sub-groups,
the results from Australia yielded some interesting differences.
From table 7 it can be noted that those who would participate in the
test survey have a higher rating of agreement on three reasons
namely, `people respond if rewarded for their efforts', `they
respond in order to eliminate the feeling of anxiety', and `they
respond because they feel they have an obligation to do so'. Both
groups gave similar ratings to all the other reasons although,
relative to the other theories, those pertaining to commitment/
involvement yielded higher mean values of agreement.
CONSUMERS' AND RESEARCHER'S PERCEPTIONS OF
SURVEY RESPONSE BEHAVIOUR
One intriguing question that emerges from this analysis is whether
the perceptions of research practitioners and consumers are similar
or not? Do marketing researchers 'read' the minds of their subjects
correctly or not? In order to gain some insights to this question,
perceptions of consumers and those of research practitioners are
compared. The data for the research practitioners are from Albaum,
Evangelista & Medina (1998). The analysis of variance results
shown in table 8 indicate that although both researchers and
consumers in both countries gave similar relative ratings of
agreement to the various theories, the degree of agreement or
disagreement differed significantly for some of the perceived
reasons for survey participation. In Australia, researchers were
found to agree more strongly than the consumers on two statements
- that `people respond to surveys if rewarded for their efforts' and
`if they are interested in the topic'.The consumers, on the other
hand, expressed less disagreement to the statement '...that they
respond to eliminate the uneasiness created by the receipt of the
questionnaire and the request to participate'. In Hong Kong, the
difference in the perceptions of researchers and consumers lie in
both reasons pertaining to cognitive dissonance and one reason
each for the other theories.
RESPONSE BEHAVIOUR THEORY AND SURVEY DESIGN
In the previous survey of research practitioners (Albaum,
Evangelista & Medina 1998), the respondents were asked about
whether they have used the four theories of survey response
behaviour in survey design. The results showed that some of the
theories were used more widely than others. Table 9 shows a
comparison of the extent to which the theories were used by
researchers and the percentage of consumers who indicated they
would participate in such a designed survey. In Australia, there
appears to be a consistent pattern in the theory used in designing
surveys on one hand and the response rate that each theory
generates from the consumers. However, the pattern is not as clear
cut in Hong Kong. While the response rate in Hong Kong is highest
with appeals relating to exchange, more researchers there tend to
use commitment/involvement to encourage survey participation.
Conclusion
It is generally accepted that surveys would be better planned and
implemented if we, the researchers, knew why people respond to
requests for survey participation as they do. The theories of social
exchange,
cognitive
dissonance,
self-perception,
and
commitment/involvement have been proposed as alternative
theoretical frameworks to provide an answer to the question. The
study reported in this paper expands what is known about the role
played by theory by examining self-predicted consumer responses
to participation requests made on the basis of each theoretical
framework.
[Table]
Caption: Table 7
[Table]
Caption: Table 8
[Table]
Caption: Table 9
On empirical grounds, the study supports the relatively high
positive impact of the theory of commitment/involvement that has
emerged from the previous studies examining this theoretical
framework. In addition, the positive effects of surveys based on
exchange also emerge from the present study. The external validity
of these findings is enhanced by two countries being studied. The
theory of commitment/involvement has an advantage of being
relatively easy to operationalise either a priori or by some form of
direct measurement, compared with the other theoretical
frameworks. There may be research questions raised, however, that
would not be conducive to the survey based on
commitment/involvement. When this occurs, the results of this
study suggest that exchange be used as the underlying framework
for survey design and implementation.
[Reference]
References
[Reference]
ALBAUM, G. (1987). Do source and anonymity affect mail survey
results? Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 15, 3, pp. 74-81. ALBAUM,
G., EVANGELISTA,
F. & MEDINA, N. (1998). The role of response behaviour theory
in survey
research: a cross-national study. Journal of Business Research, 42,
June, pp.
115-25.
ALBAUM, G. & PETERSON, R. A. (1984). Empirical research in
international
marketing, 1976-1982. Journal of International Business Studies,
15, Spring/
Summer, pp. 161-73.
[Reference]
ALLEN, C. T (1982). Perspectives on mail survey response rates:
the
selfperception paradigm and beyond. Paper presented at the
American Marketing
Association Conference on Marketing Theory.
ALLEN, C.T., SCHEWE, C. & WI,Ttt, G. (1980). More on selfperception theory's
foot technique in the pre-call/mail survey setting. Journal of
Marketing
Research, 17, November, pp. 498-502.
AULAKH, P. S. & KOTABE, M. (1993). An assessment of
theoretical and
methodological development in international marketing: 19801990. Journal of
International Marketing, 2, pp.5-28.
[Reference]
BECKER, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment.
American Journal of
Sociology, 66, July, pp. 32-40.
BEM, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In Advances in
Experimental Social
Psychology, 6. Berkowitz, L. (Ed.). New York: Academic Press.
BLUMBERG, H.,
FULLER, C. & HARE, A. P. (1974). Response rates in postal
surveys. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 38, Spring, pp. 113-23. BRENNAN, M. &
HOEK, J. (1992). The
behaviour of respondents, nonrespondents, and refusers across mail
surveys.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, pp. 530-5.
[Reference]
CHURCH, A. H. (1993). Estimating the effect of incentives on
mail survey
response rates: a meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, pp.
62-79.
DEJONG,W (1979). An examination of self-perception mediation
of the
foot-inthe-door effect. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 37, pp.
2221-39. DIL.MAN, D. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The
Total Design
Method. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
DUNCAN, W. (1979). Mail questionnaires in survey research: a
review of response
inducement techniques. Journal of Management, 5, pp. 39-55.
FESTINGER, L.
(1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
[Reference]
FoRD, D. (1973). Commitment: a mathematical model. Quality and
Quantity, 7, pp.
1-40.
Fox, R. J., CRAsK, M. R & KiM, J. (1988). Mail survey response
rate: a
metaanalysis of selected techniques for inducing response. Public
Opinion
Quarterly, 52, pp. 467-91.
FREEDMAN, J. L. & FRASER, S. (1966). Compliance without
pressure: the
foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 4, pp.
195-202.
[Reference]
FURSE, D. H. & STEWART, D. (1984). Manipulating dissonance
to improve mail
survey response. Psychology &if Marketing, 1, Summer, pp. 79-94.
FURSE, D. H.,
STEWART, D. & RADOS, D. (198 1). Effects of foot-in-the -door
cash incentives
and follow-ups on survey response. Journal of Marketing Research,
19, November,
pp. 473-78.
GEURTS, M., O'NEILL, M., LAWRENCE, K. & ALBAUM, G.
(1988). Increasing response
rates using an inducement question in mail surveys. Journal of
Direct Marketing,
2, Winter, pp.35- 42.
[Reference]
GROVES, R. M., CIALDINI, R. B. & COUPER, M. P. (1992).
Understanding the
decision to participate in a survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56,
pp. 475-95.
GRoVES, R.M. & COUPER, M.P. (1998). Non-response in
household interview surveys.
New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
HACKLER, J. & BOURGETTE, P. (1973). Dollars, dissonance
and survey returns.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 37, Summer, pp. 276-81. HANSEN, R.
A. & ROBINSON, L.
(1980). Testing the effectiveness of alternative foot-in-the-door
manipulations.
Journal of Marketing Research, 17, August, pp. 359-64.
[Reference]
HAVITZ, M. E. & HOWARD, D. R. (1995). How enduring is
enduring involvement? A
seasonal examination of three recreational activities. Journal of
Consumer
Psychology, 4, 3, pp. 255-76.
HEBERLEIN, T. A. & BAUMGARTNER, R. (1978). Factors
affecting response rates to
mailed questionnaires: a quantitative analysis of the published
literature.
American Sociological Review, 43, August, pp. 447-62. Hornback,
K. (1971).
Toward a theory of involvement propensity for collective
behaviour. Sociological
Forces, 4, Summer, pp. 61-77. HOUSTON, M. & FORD, N.
(1976). Broadening the
scope of methodological research on mail surveys. Journal of
Marketing Research,
13, November, pp. 397-403.
[Reference]
HOUSTON, M. L. & ROTHSCHILD, M. L. (1978). Conceptual
and methodological
perspectives on involvement. In Research Frontiers in Marketing:
Dialogues and
Directions. Jain, S.C. (Ed.). Chicago: American Marketing
Association, pp.
184-7. JOBBER, D. & SAUNDERS, J. (1988). An experimental
investigation into
crossnational mail survey response rates. Journal of International
Business
Studies, 19, Fall, pp. 483-89.
[Reference]
KANUK, L. & BERENSON, C. (1975). Mail surveys and response
rates: a literature
review. Journal of Marketing Research, 12, November, pp. 440-53.
LINSKY, A. S.
(1975). Stimulating responses of mailed questionnaires: a review.
Public Opinion
Quarterly, 39, Spring, pp. 82-101. MALHOTRA, N.K. (1999).
Marketing research. An
applied orientation. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
[Reference]
PETERSON, R. A. & ALBAUM, G. (1984). Response effects of
sub-units within a
research source. Proceedings of the Annual Meetings of Western
AIDS. PETERSON,
R. A. & KERIN, R. (1981). The quality of self-report data: review
and synthesis.
In Annual Review of Marketing. Enis, B. & Roering, K. (Eds.).
Chicago: American
Marketing Association, pp. 5-20.
[Reference]
REINGEN, P., & KERNAN, J. (1977). Compliance with an
interview request: a
foot-the-door, self-perception interpretation. Journal of Marketing
Research,
14, August, pp. 356-69.
REIGEN, P. & KERNAN, J. (1979). More evidence on
interpersonal yielding. Journal
of Marketing Research, 16, November, pp. 588-93. Scot, C. (1961).
Research on
mail surveys. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 124, pp. 143205.
[Reference]
SELIGMAN, C., BUSH, M. & KIRSCH, K. (1976). Relationship
between compliance in
the foot in-the-door paradigm and size of first request. Journal of
Personality
and Social Psychology, 33, May, pp. 517-20. SUDMAN, S. &
BRADBURN, N. M. (1974).
Response effects in surveys. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
[Reference]
SWAN, J. & MARTIN, W. (1982). Foot-in-the-door for increasing
mail questionnaire
returns: a critical review. An assessment of marketing thought and
practice.
Proceedings of the 1982 AMA Educators' Conference, pp. 414-17.
TULLAR. W,
PREssLEY, M. & GENTRY, D. (1979). Toward a theoretical
framework for mail survey
response. Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the
Academy of Marketing
Science, pp. 243-47.
TYBOUT, A. & YA.cH, R. (1980). The effect of experience: a
matter of salience?
7ournal of Consumer Research, March, pp. 406-13.
[Reference]
YAMMARINO, F. J., SKINNER, S. J. & CHILDERS,T. L. (1991).
Understanding mail
survey response behaviour: a meta-analysis. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 55, pp.
613-39.
Yu, J. & COOPER, H. (1983). A quantitative review of research
design effects on
response rates to questionnaires. Journal of Marketing Research,
20, February,
pp. 36-44.
[Author note]
Felicitas Evangelista, University of Western Sydney, Nepean
Gerald Albaum, University of New Mexico and IC Institute,
University of Texas at
Austin
Patrick Poon, Lingnan College
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction or
distribution is prohibited without permission.