Self-perception theory is applied to explain mail survey respondent behavior when incentives to respond are used. The results support the hypothesis that when external cues are present (i.e., incentives are used) the level of compliance, as measured by response quality, is reduced. A monetary and a comparable value nonmonetary incentive are used. The psychological value of money explanation is supported as the monetary incentive group yields a significantly higher response rate and faster response.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BernDaryl J. (1972), “Self Perception Theory,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, BerkowitzLeonard, ed. New York: Academic Press, 1–62.
2.
ChampionD. J. and SearA. (1969), “Questionnaire Response Rate: A Methodological Analysis,” Social Forces, 47, 335–9.
3.
ErdosP. L. (1951), “Mail Surveys are Valid and Inexpensive,” Advertising Agency, 44, 68–9.
4.
HansenRobert A. and ScottCarol A. (1978), “Alternative Approaches for Assessing the Quality of Self Report Data,” Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 5, HuntKeith, ed. Chicago: Association for Consumer Research, 99–102.
5.
HoustonMichael J. and FordNeil M. (1976), “Broadening the Scope of Methodological Research on Mail Surveys,” Journal of Marketing Research, 13 (November), 397–403.
6.
HoustonMichael J. and NevinJohn R. (1977), “The Effects of Source and Appeal on Mail Survey Response Patterns,” Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (August), 374–8.
7.
KanukLeslie and BerensonConrad (1975), “Mail Surveys and Response Rates: A Literature Review,” Journal of Marketing Research, 12 (November), 440–53.
8.
KelleyH. H. (1973), “The Processes of Causal Attribution,” American Psychologist, 38 (February), 107–28.
9.
KerinRoger A. (1974), “Personalization Strategies, Response Rate and Response Quality in a Mail Survey,” Social Science Quarterly, 55 (June), 175–81.
10.
KerinRoger A. and PetersonRobert A. (1977), “Personalization, Respondent Anonymity and Response Distortion in a Mail Survey,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 (February), 86–9.
11.
LinskyArnold S. (1975), “Stimulating Responses to Mailed Questionnaires: A Review,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 39 (Spring), 82–101.
12.
PetersonRobert A. (1975), “An Experimental Investigation of Mail Survey Responses,” Journal of Business Research, 3 (July), 199–210.
13.
PressleyMilton M. (1976), Mail Survey Response: A Critically Annotated Bibliography. Greensboro, North Carolina: Faber and Company.
14.
ReingenPeter H. and KernanJerome B. (1977), “Compliance with an Interview Request: A Foot-in-the-Door, Self-Perception Interpretation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (August), 365–9.
15.
SawyerAlan G., (1975), “Demand Artifacts in Laboratory Experiments in Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 4 (March), 20–30.
16.
ScottCarol A., (1978), “Self-Perception Processes in Consumer Behavior: Interpreting One's Own Experiences,” Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 5, HuntH. Keith, ed. Chicago: Association for Consumer Research, 714–20.
17.
SudmanSeymour (1976), Applied Sampling. New York: Academic Press, Inc.
18.
WalkerBruce J. and BurdickRichard K. (1977), “Advance Correspondence and Error in Mail Surveys,” Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (August), 379–82.
19.
WisemanFrederick, (1972), “Methodological Bias in Public Opinion Surveys,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 36 (Spring), 105–108.
20.
WotrubaThomas R. (1966), “Monetary Inducements and Mail Questionnaire Response,” Journal of Marketing Research, 3 (November), 398–400.
