Cover letters with and without pictures of the researcher were included with questionnaires to test the effects of this type of personalization on responses to a mail survey. In addition, the researcher's attire, title, and affiliation were varied across different forms of the cover letter to evaluate the effects of status, role-clothing consistency, and similarity to the perceiver on perceiver's willingness to return the survey form. The questionnaires were mailed to a sample of 384 university alumni. The total number of returned questionnaires, after the initial mailing and two personalized follow-ups, were lower in the researcher-pictured cover letter conditions than in the control conditions. This finding offers some support for the hypothesis that repeated use of personalized mailings may have a negative effect on response rate. Response latencies suggest that within the researcher-pictured conditions, inconsistency of cues may also inhibit questionnaire returns.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abelson, R. P. , Aronson, E., McGuire, W. J., Newcomb, T. M., Rosenberg, M. J., and Tannenbaum, P. H. (1968). Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook. Chicago: Rand McNally.
2.
Allen, C. T. , Schewe, C. D., and Wijk, G. (1980). More on self-perception theory's foot technique in the pre-call/mail survey setting. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 498-502.
3.
Andreasen, A. R. (1970). Personalizing mail questionnaire correspondence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34, 271-277.
4.
Belk, R. W. (1980). Effects of consistency of visible consumption patterns on impression formation. In. J. Olson (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, 7, 365-371.
5.
Bryant, N. J. (1975). Petitioning: Dress congruence versus belief congruence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5, 144-149.
6.
Byrne, D. (1969). Attitudes and attraction. In L. Berkovitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: Vol. 4 (pp. 35-89). New York: Academic Press.
7.
Chaikin, A. L. , Derlega, V. J., Yoder, J., and Phillips, D. (1974). The effects of appearance on compliance. Journal of Social Psychology, 92, 199-200.
8.
Childers, T. L. , Pride, W. M., and Ferrell, O. C. (1980). A reassessment of the effects of appeals on response to mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 365-370.
9.
Childers, T. L. and Skinner, S. J. (1979). Gaining respondent cooperation in mail surveys through prior commitment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 43, 558-561.
10.
Clausen, J. A. and Ford, R. N. (1947). Controlling bias in mail questionnaires. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 42, 497-511.
11.
Cohen, A. R. (1958). Upward communication in experimentally created hierarchies. Human Relations, 11, 41-53.
12.
Cox, E. P. , Anderson, W. T., Jr., and Fulcher, D. G. (1974). Reappraising mail survey response rates. Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 413-417.
13.
Crassweller, P. , Gordon, M. A., and Tedford, W. H., Jr. (1972). An experimental investigation of hitchhiking. Journal of Psychology, 82, 43-47.
14.
Darley, J. M. and Cooper, J. (1972). The "Clean for Gene" phenomenon: The effect of students' appearance on political campaigning. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2, 24-33.
15.
Dillman, D. A. and Frey, J. H. (1974). Contribution of personalization to mail questionnaire response as an element of a previously tested method. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 297-301.
16.
Emswiller, T. , Deaux, K., and Willits, J. E. (1971). Similarity, sex, and requests for small favors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1, 284-291.
17.
Forsythe, J. B. (1977). Obtaining cooperation in a survey of business executives. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 370-373.
18.
Frazier, G. and Bird, K. (1958). Increasing the response of a mail questionnaire. Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 186-187.
19.
Giles, H. and Chavasse, W. (1975). Communication length as a function of dress style and social status. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 40, 961-962.
20.
Hansen, R. A. and Robinson, L. M. (1980). Testing the effectiveness of alternative foot-in-the-door manipulations. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 359-364.
21.
Heaton, E. E., Jr. (1965). Increasing mail questionnaire returns with a preliminary letter. Journal of Advertising Research, 5, 35-39.
22.
Hensley, W. E. (1981). The effects of attire, location, and sex on aiding behavior: A similarity explanation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 6, 3-11.
23.
Hoppe, D. (1952). Certain factors found to improve mail survey returns. Iowa Academy of Science, 59, 374-376.
24.
Houston, M. J. and Jefferson, R. W. (1975). The negative effects of personalization on response patterns in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 12, 114-117.
25.
Hurwitz, J. I. , Zander, A., and Hymovitch, B. (1968). Some effects of power on the relations among group members. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed.) (pp. 291-297). New York: Harper & Row.
26.
Kahle, L. R. and Sales, B. D. (1978). Personalization of the outside envelope in mail surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 547-550.
27.
Kawash, M. B. and Aleamoni, L. M. (1971). Effect of personal signature on the initial rate of return of a mail questionnaire. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 582-592.
28.
Kerin, R. A. and Peterson, R. A. (1977). Personalization, respondent anonymity, and response distortion in mail surveys. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 86-89.
29.
Kerr, B. A. and Dell, D. M. (1976). Perceived interviewer expertness and attractiveness: Effects of interviewer behavior and attire and interview setting. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 23, 553-556.
30.
Knox, L. A. and Mancuso, J. C. (1981). Incongruities in self-presentations and judgements about people. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 52, 843-852.
31.
Labrecque, D. P. (1978). A response rate experiment using mail questionnaires. Journal of Marketing, 42, 82-83.
32.
Linsky, A. S. (1965). A factorial experiment in inducing responses to a mail questionnaire. Sociology and Social Research, 49, 183-189.
33.
Linsky, A. S. (1975). Stimulating responses to mailed questionnaires: A review. Public Opinion Quarterly, 39, 82-101.
34.
Longworth, D. S. (1953). Use of a mail questionnaire. American Sociological Review, 18, 310-313.
35.
Parsons, R. J. and Medford, T. S. (1972). The effect of advance notice in mail surveys of homogeneous groups. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 253-259.
36.
Raymond, B. J. and Unger, R. K. (1972). "The apparel oft proclaims the man": Cooperation with deviant and conventional youths. Journal of Social Psychology, 87, 75-82.
37.
Roeher, G. A. (1963). Effective techniques in increasing response to mailed questionnaires. Public Opinion Quarterly, 27, 299-302.
38.
Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
39.
Rucker, M. , Hughes, R., Utts, J., and Bruno, N. (1982). Clothing stereotypes on the college campus: The jeaning of America [Summary]. Proceedings of the Association of College Professors of Textiles and Clothing, 291-292.
40.
Samuel, W. (1972). Response to bill of rights paraphrases as influenced by the hip or straight attire of the opinion solicitor. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2, 47-62.
41.
Simon, R. (1967). Responses to personal and form letters in mail surveys. Journal of Advertising Research, 7, 28-30.
42.
Stafford, J. E. (1966). Influence of preliminary contact on mail returns. Journal of Marketing Research, 3, 410-411.
43.
Suedfeld, P. , Bochner, S., and Matas, C. (1971). Petitioner's attire and petition signing by peace demonstrators: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1, 278-283.
44.
Thomas, L. E. (1973). Clothing and counterculture: An empirical study. Adolescence, 8, 93-112.
45.
Walker, B. J. and Burdick, R. K. (1977). Advance correspondence and error in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 379-382.
46.
Weilbacher, W. M. and Walsh, H. R. (1951). Mail questionnaires and the personalized letter of transmittal. Journal of Marketing, 14, 331-336.
47.
Yu, J. and Cooper, H. (1983). A quantitative review of research design effects on response rates to questionnaires. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 36-40.
