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

Abstract

Two mail surveys were conducted to test experimentally the effect of using appeals and postscripts to stimulate response to mail surveys. The results indicate that use of appeals presented as postscripts does not improve survey response. In one study, differences in response rates between treatment groups were observed, but in comparison with a control group the overall effect was to depress survey response. In the second study, treatment effects were equivalent to control group response. In both studies, response bias was unaffected and the completeness of survey response was not improved. The potential negative impact of these survey techniques supports the authors’ recommendation that control groups be more widely integrated into mail survey research designs if both the magnitude and direction of inducement effects are to be fully assessed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andreasen

Alan R.

(1970), “Personalizing Mail Questionnaire Correspondence,” Public Opinion Quarterly (Summer), 273–7.

Carmer

S. G.

and Swanson

R. M.

(1973), “An Evaluation of Ten Pairwise Multiple Comparison Procedures by Monte Carlo Method,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 68 (March), 66–74.

Champion

Dean J.

and Sear

Alan M.

(1969), “Questionnaire Response Rates: A Methodological Analysis,” Social Forces, 47 (March), 335–9.

Cochran

William G.

(1950), “The Comparison of Percentages in Matched Samples,” Biometrika, 37 (December), 256–65.

Collier

Raymond O.

(1965), “Randomization Procedures for the Analysis of Educational Experiments,” University of Minnesota Cooperative Research Project No. 2593.

Edwards

Allen L.

(1972), Experimental Design in Psychological Research, 4th ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.

Frazier

and Bird

(1958), “Increasing the Response to a Mail Questionnaire,” Journal of Marketing, 23, 186–7.

Hoppe

A. D.

(1952), “Certain Factors Found to Improve Mail Survey Returns,” Proceedings Iowa Academy of Science, 59, 374–6.

Houston

Michael J.

and Ford

Neil M.

(1976), “Broadening the Scope of Methodological Research on Mail Surveys,” Journal of Marketing Research, 13 (November), 397–403.

10.

Houston

Michael J.

and Jefferson

Robert W.

(1975), “The Negative Effects of Personalization on Response Patterns in Mail Surveys,” Journal of Marketing Research, 12 (February), 114–17.

11.

Houston

Michael J.

and Nevin

John R.

(1977), “The Effects of Source and Appeal on Mail Survey Response Patterns,” Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (August), 374–78.

12.

Jones

Wesley H.

and Linda

Gerald

(1978), “Multiple Criteria Effects in a Mail Survey Experiment,” Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (May), 280–4.

13.

Kawash

Mary B.

and Aleamoni

Lawrence M.

(1971), “Effect of Personal Signature on the Initial Rate of Return of a Mailed Questionnaire,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 589–92.

14.

Kerin

Roger A.

and Harvey

Michael G.

(1976), “Methodological Considerations in Corporate Mail Surveys: A Research Note,” Journal of Business Research (August), 277–81.

15.

Kerin

Roger A.

and Peterson

Robert A.

(1977), “Personalization, Respondent Anonymity, Response Distortion in Mail Surveys,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 86–9.

16.

Linsky

Arnold S.

(1965), “A Factorial Experiment in Inducing Response to a Mail Questionnaire,” Sociology and Social Research, 49 (January), 183–9.

17.

Peterson

Robert A.

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

18.

Pressley

Milton M.

(1978), “Care Needed When Selecting Response Inducements in Mail Surveys of Commercial Populations,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 6 (Fall), 336–43.

19.

Pressley

Milton M.

and Tullar

William L.

(1977), “A Factor Interactive Investigation on Mail Survey Response Rates from a Commercial Population,” Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (February), 108–11.

20.

Winer

B. J.

(1971), Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.