Effects of researcher presence and appeal on response quality in hand-delivered, self-administered surveys

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(96)00028-8Get rights and content

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of researcher presence (the researcher remaining with the respondent during survey completion versus a dropoff/callback approach) and type of appeal (social utility, help-the-sponsor, egoistic, and a no-appeal control) on response quality in hand-delivered, self-administered surveys. The criterion, response quality, is defined as response, item completion, item distortion, and item omission rates. Based on the theories of relational communication, reasoned action, and self-perception, this study hypothesizes that both appeal type and researcher presence will have a significant effect on response quality. Although nondirectional hypotheses are advanced due to the conflicting results of previous research, the theoretical orientations lead to hypothesizing that the researcher present condition, compared with the callback approach, will result in significantly higher response quality. To test the hypotheses, questionnaires were hand-delivered to a probability sample of 680 eligible households, representing the eight researcher presence/appeal type treatments. Results of the experiment discussed here suggest that each of the four components of response quality is significantly affected by either a main or an interaction effect. Specifically, the altruistic appeals and the researcher present condition lead to the lowest item omission rate. Although appeal type does not have a significant effect on the item distortion rate, the callback condition results in a significantly lower item distortion rate than the research present condition. With respect to response and item completion rates, a significant interaction effect exists between appeal type and researcher presence. For example, when the egoistic appeal is used, the callback approach yields a significantly greater response rate than the researcher present treatment. On the other hand, when the help-the-sponsor appeal is used, the researcher present treatment elicits a significantly higher response rate than the callback approach. Further, when the help-the-sponsor appeal is used, the researcher present treatment results in a higher completion rate than the callback treatment, whereas when the egoistic appeal is used, the researcher present treatment results in a lower completion rate than the callback treatment. Theoretical and managerial implications of the findings are discussed.

References (38)

  • Daryl J. Bem

    Self-Perception Theory

  • Herbert H. Clark et al.

    Understanding What Is Meant from What Is Said: A Study in Conversational Conveyed Requests

    Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior

    (1975)
  • Roger A. Kerin et al.

    Methodological Considerations in Corporate Mail Surveys: A Research Note

    Journal of Business Research

    (August 1976)
  • Icek Ajzen et al.

    Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior

    (1980)
  • Chris T. Allen et al.

    More on Self-Perception Theory's Foot Technique in the Pre-Call/Mail Survey Setting

    Journal of Marketing Research

    (November 1980)
  • Edward Blair et al.

    How to Ask Questions about Drinking and Sex: Response Effects in Measuring Consumer Behavior

    Journal of Marketing Research

    (August 1977)
  • Charles Bond et al.

    Social Facilitation: A Meta-Analysis of 241 Studies

    Psychological Bulletin

    (September 1983)
  • Alan J. Bush et al.

    An Assessment of the Mall Intercept as a Data Collection Method

    Journal of Marketing Research

    (May 1985)
  • Dean J. Champion et al.

    Questionnaire Response Rates: A Methodological Analysis

    Social forces

    (March 1969)
  • Jean-Charles Chebat et al.

    Does Prenotification Increase Response Rates in Mail Surveys?

    A Self-Perception Approach

    Journal of Social Psychology

    (1990)
  • Terry L. Childers et al.

    A Reassessment of the Effects of Appeals on Response to Mail Surveys

    Journal of Marketing Research

    (August 1980)
  • Terry L. Childers et al.

    Gaining Respondent Cooperation in Mail Surveys through Prior Commitment

    Public Opinion Quarterly

    (1979)
  • William D. Crano et al.

    Social Reinforcement, Self-Attribution, and the Foot-in-the-Door Phenomenon

    Social Cognition

    (1982)
  • James Price Dillard

    Self-Inference and the Foot-in-the-Door Technique

    Human Communication Research

    (Spring 1990)
  • Don A. Dillman et al.

    Reducing Refusal Rates for Telephone Interviews

    Public Opinion Quarterly

    (1976)
  • Allen L. Edwards

    Experimental Design in Psychological Research

    (1972)
  • David H. Furse et al.

    Monetary Incentives versus Promised Contribution to Charity: New Evidence on Mail Survey Response

    Journal of Marketing Research

    (August 1982)
  • Morton Goldman et al.

    Social Labeling and the Foot-in-the-Door Effect

    Journal of Social Psychology

    (June 1982)
  • Robert M. Groves et al.

    Understanding the Decision to Participate in a Survey

    Public Opinion Quarterly

    (Winter 1992)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text