Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Do source and anonymity affect mail survey results?

  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines the effects of the methodological characteristics of research source and anonymity of response upon mail survey response behavior. Unique features of the study were that the survey sponsor was identified, and the population sampled was one that should have a certain amount of commitment to both the sponsor and the topic because of membership in the sponsoring organization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albaum, G., J. Hanson, and D. Tull. 1982. “The Effect of Questionnaire Format and Coding on Responses From Commercial Population Mail Surveys.” Paper presented at the National Meetings of American Institute for Decision Sciences.

  • Allen, C. T. 1982. “Perspectives on Mail Survey Response Rates.” Paper presented at the American Marketing Association Conference on Marketing Theory.

  • Becker, H. S. 1960. “Notes on the Concept of Commitment”.American Journal of Sociology 66 (July) 32–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumberg, H., C. Fuller, and A. P. Hare. 1974. “Response Rates in Postal Surveys”.Public Opinion Ouarterly 38 (Spring) 113–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, R. 1973. “Effects of Signed and Unsigned Questionnaires for Both Sensitive and Nonsensitive Items”.Journal of Applied Psychology 57 348–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Childers, T. L., and S. J. Skinner. 1985. “Theoretical and Empirical Issues in the Identification of Survey Respondents”.Journal of Marketing Research Society 27 (January) 39–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. 1978Mail and Teleohone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: Wiley-Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doob, A., J. Freedman, and J. Carlsmith. 1973. “Effects of Sponsor and Prepayment on Compliance with a Mailed Request”.Journal of Applied Psychologyv 57 346–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs, P. E., and J. R. Kerr. 1986. “Recent Evidence on the Relationship Between Anonymity and Response Variables for Mail Surveys”.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 14 (Spring) 72–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, W. 1979. “Mail Questionnaires in Survey Research: A Review of Response Inducement Techniques”.Journal of Management 5, 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdos, P. and J. Regier. 1977. “Visible vs. Disguised Keying on Questionnaires”.Journal of Advertising Research 17 13–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furse, D. H., and D. W. Stewart 1984. “Manipulating Dissonance to Improve Mail Survey Response”.Psychology and Marketing 1 (Summer) 79–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Futrell, C. 1981. “Effects of Signed Versus Unsigned Attitude Questionnaires.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 9 (Spring) 93–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Futrell, C., and J. Swan. 1977. “Anonymity and Response by Salespeople to a Mail Questionnaire”.Journal of Marketing Research 14 (November) 611–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Futrell, C., D. Stem, Jr, and B. Fortune. 1978. “Effects of Signed Versus Unsigned Internally Administered Questionnaires for Managers”.Journal of Business Research 6 91–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackler, J. and P. Bourgette. 1973. “Dollars, Dissonance and Survey Returns.”Public Opinion Quarterly 37 (Summer) 276–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, D. I. 1979. “The Impact of Sponsor Identification and Direct Disclosure of Respondents Rights on the Quantity and Quality of Mail Survey Data”.Journal of Business 52 577–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heberlein, T. A. and R. Baumgartner. 1978. “Factors Affecting Response Rates to Mailed Questionnaires: A Quantitative Analysis of the Published Literature.”American Sociological Review 43 (August) 447–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hise, R. T. and M. A. McGinnis. 1976. “Evaluating the Effects of Anonymous Respondents on Mail Survey Results.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 4 (Summer) 592–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornback, R. 1971. “Toward a Theory of Involvement Propensity for Collective Behavior.”Sociological Forces 4 (Summer) 61–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houston, M. and N. Ford. 1976. “Broadening the Scope of Methodological Research on Mail Surveys.”Journal of Marketing Research 13 (November) 397–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston, M. and R. Jefferson. 1975. “The Negative Effects of Personalization on Response Patterns in Mail Surveys.”Journal of Marketing Research 12 (February) 114–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston, M. and J. Nevin. 1977. “The Effects of Source and Appeal on Mail Survey Response Patterns.”Journal of Marketing Research 14 (August) 374–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, W. and J. Lang. 1980. “Sample Composition Bias and Response Bias in a Mail Survey: A Comparison of Inducement Methods.”Journal of Marketing Research 17 (February) 69–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, W. and G. Linda. 1978. “Multiple Criteria Effects in a Mail Survey Experiment.”Journal of Marketing Research 15 (May) 280–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanuk, L. and C. Berenson. 1975. “Mail Surveys and Response Rates: A Literature Review.”Journal of Marketing Research 12 (November) 440–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linsky, A. S. 1975. “Stimulating Responses to Mailed Questionnaires: A Review.”Public Opinion Quarterly 39 (Spring) 82–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, W., R. Dressel and R. Bain. 1961. “An Experimental Study of Factors Affecting Response to a Mail Survey of Beginning Teachers.”Public Opinion Quarterly 25 296–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, S. W. and C. P. Rao. 1980. “The Effects of Anonymity on Respondent Effort in Mailed Questionnaire Surveys.” Paper presented at the annual conference of the Academy of Marketing Science.

  • Nitecki, D. 1975. “Effects of Sponsorship and Nonmonetary Incentive on Response Rate.”Journalism Quarterly 55 581–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, P. J., G. Sullivan and W. Jones. 1981. “An Evaluation of the Characteristics of Response Quality Induced by Follow-up Survey Methods.” Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Association for Consumer Research.

  • Peterson, R. A. 1975. “An Experimental Investigation of Mail Survey Responses.”Journal of Business Research 3 (July) 199–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, R. A. and R. Kerin. 1981. “The Quality of Self-Report Data: Review and Synthesis.”Annual Review of Marketing, B. Enis and K. Roering, (eds.), Chicago: American Marketing Association 5–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, C. 1961. “Research on Mail Surveys.”Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 124 143–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tybout, A. and R. Yalch. 1980. “The Effect of Experiences as a Matter of Salience?”Journal of Consumer Research 6 (March) 406–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildman, R. C. 1977. “Effects of Anonymity and Social Setting on Survey Responses.”Public Opinion Quarterly 41 (Spring) 74–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, J. and H. Cooper. 1983. “A Quantitative Review of Research Design Effects on Response Rates to Questionnaires.”Journal of Marketing Research 20 (February) 36–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaichkowsky, J. L. 1985. “Measuring the Involvement Construct.”Journal of Consumer Research 12 (December) 341–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Oregon, Oregon, USA

    Gerald Albaum

Authors
  1. Gerald Albaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Albaum, G. Do source and anonymity affect mail survey results?. JAMS 15, 74–81 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02722173

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02722173

Keywords

Search

Navigation