Role of Response Behavior Theory in Survey Research: A Cross-National Study

Abstract This study examines four theoretical frameworks for explaining survey response behavior and their role in survey research. The results of a survey of 282 research practitioners in Asia-Pacific, North America, and Western Europe show that research practitioners in general are aware and do make use of the theories of cognitive dissonance, commitment and involvement, social exchange, and self-perception. Although the literature indicates that commitment and involvement have been used very little to explain methodological effects, the present study provides evidence to the contrary. A comparison of the results obtained from the three sample groups reveals some significant differences in the research practitioners’ perceptions of why people participate in surveys as well as in the survey design strategies they adopt. There also is evidence that survey design practices are associated with, and perhaps influenced by, the research practitioners’ beliefs about why people participate in surveys.

[1]  Jerome B. Kernan,et al.  More Evidence on Interpersonal Yielding , 1979 .

[2]  Alice M. Tybout,et al.  The Effect of Experience: A Matter of Salience? , 1980 .

[3]  H. Cooper,et al.  A Quantitative Review of Research Design Effects on Response Rates to Questionnaires , 1983 .

[4]  Jerome B. Kernan,et al.  Compliance with an Interview Request: A Foot-in-the-Door, Self-Perception Interpretation , 1977 .

[5]  A. S. Linsky.  STIMULATING RESPONSES TO MAILED QUESTIONNAIRES: A REVIEW , 1975 .

[6]  T. Heberlein,et al.  Factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires: A quantitative analysis of the published literature. , 1978 .

[7]  M. Crask,et al.  MAIL SURVEY RESPONSE RATE A META-ANALYSIS OF SELECTED TECHNIQUES FOR INDUCING RESPONSE , 1988 .

[8]  Clive Seligman,et al.  Relationship between compliance in the foot-in-the-door paradigm and size of first request. , 1976 .

[9]  Robert M. Groves,et al.  UNDERSTANDING THE DECISION TO PARTICIPATE IN A SURVEY , 1992 .

[10]  John Saunders,et al.  An Experimental Investigation into Cross-National Mail Survey Response Rates , 1988 .

[11]  D. Bem.  Self-Perception Theory , 1972 .

[12]  Preet S. Aulakh,et al.  An Assessment of Theoretical and Methodological Development in International Marketing: 1980-1990 , 1993 .

[13]  H. Becker.  Notes on the Concept of Commitment , 1960, American Journal of Sociology.

[14]  Robert A. Hansen,et al.  Testing the Effectiveness of Alternative Foot-in-the-Door Manipulations , 1980 .

[15]  K. Hornback.  TOWARD A THEORY OF INVOLVEMENT PROPENSITY FOR COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOR , 1971 .

[16]  W. DeJong.  An examination of self-perception mediation of the foot-in-the-door effect. , 1979 .

[17]  Gerald Albaum,et al.  Do source and anonymity affect mail survey results , 1987 .

[18]  D. A. Ford.  Commitment: A mathematical model , 1973 .

[19]  Neil M. Ford,et al.  Broadening the Scope of Methodological Research on Mail Surveys , 1976 .

[20]  L. Kanuk,et al.  Mail Surveys and Response Rates: A , 1975 .

[21]  C. Scott.  Research on Mail Surveys , 1961 .

[22]  David L. Rados,et al.  Effects of Foot-in-the-Door, Cash Incentives, and Followups on Survey Response , 1981 .

[23]  M. Havitz,et al.  How Enduring Is Enduring Involvement? A Seasonal Examination of Three Recreational Activities , 1995 .

[24]  Terry L. Childers,et al.  Understanding mail survey response behavior: A meta-analysis. , 1991 .

[25]  A. Hare,et al.  Response Rates in Postal Surveys , 1974 .

[26]  Robert A. Peterson,et al.  Empirical Research in International Marketing: 1976–1982 , 1984 .

[27]  W. Jack Duncan,et al.  Mail Questionnaires in Survey Research: A Review of Response Inducement Techniques , 1979 .

[28]  J. Freedman,et al.  Compliance without pressure: the foot-in-the-door technique. , 1966, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[29]  D. H. Furse,et al.  Manipulating dissonance to improve mail survey response , 1984 .

[30]  C. Allen,et al.  More on Self-Perception Theory's Foot Technique in the Pre-Call/Mail Survey Setting , 1980 .

[31]  A. H. Church.  ESTIMATING THE EFFECT OF INCENTIVES ON MAIL SURVEY RESPONSE RATES: A META-ANALYSIS , 1993 .

[32]  J. Hackler,et al.  DOLLARS, DISSONANCE, AND SURVEY RETURNS , 1973 .

[33]  L. Kanuk,et al.  Mail Surveys and Response Rates: A Literature Review , 1975 .

[34]  J. Hoek,et al.  THE BEHAVIOR OF RESPONDENTS, NONRESPONDENTS, AND REFUSERS ACROSS MAIL SURVEYS , 1992 .

[35]  Michael D. Geurts,et al.  Increasing response rates using an inducement question in mail surveys , 1988 .