This article investigates the effect of e-mail subject lines on survey viewing and survey response. Using two samples of students (low involvement with the survey sponsor and high involvement with the survey sponsor), the authors tested a variety of combinations of subject lines: the reason for the e-mail contact (survey), the sponsor of the e-mail (Liberal Arts University), a plea for help (request for assistance), and a blank subject line. The authors found a modest effect of subject line for the low-involvement sample, with blank subject lines yielding the highest response.
Carini, R. M., Hayek, J. C., Kuh, G. D., Kennedy, J. M., & Ouimet, J. A. (2003). College student responses to web and paper surveys: Does mode matter?Research in Higher Education, 44(1), 1-19.
2.
Cobanoglu, C., Warde, B., & Moreo, P. J. (2001). A comparison of mail, fax and web-based survey methods. International Journal of Market Research, 43, 441-452.
3.
Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web-or Internet-basedsurveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 821-836.
4.
Couper, M. P. (2000). Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 464-494.
5.
Couper, M. P., Traugott, M. W., & Lamias, M. J. (2001). Web survey design and administration. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 250-253.
6.
Crawford, S. D., Couper, M. P., & Lamias, M. J. (2001). Web surveys: perceptions of burden. Social Science Computer Review, 19(2), 146-162.
7.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: John Wiley.
8.
Dillman, D. A., Tortora, R. D., Conradt, J., & Bowker, D. K. (1998, August). Influence of plain vs. fancy design on response rates for web surveys. Paper presented at the Joint Statistical Meetings, Dallas, TX.
9.
Dommeyer, C. J., & Moriarty, E. (2000). Comparing two forms of an email survey: Embedded vs. attached. International Journal of Market Research, 42(1), 39-50.
10.
Fox, R. J.,Crask, M. R., & Kim, J. (1988). Mail survey response rate: A meta-analysis of selected techniques for inducing response. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 467-491.
11.
Goyder, J. C. (1982). Further evidence on factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires. American Sociological Review, 47, 550-553.
12.
Groves, R. M., Singer, E., & Corning, A. (2000). Leverage-saliency theory of survey participation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 299-308.
13.
Heberlein, T. A., & Baumgartner, R. (1978). Factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires: A quantitative analysis of the published literature. American Sociological Review, 43, 447-462.
14.
Heerwegh, D., & Loosveldt, G. (2002). Web surveys: The effect of controlling access using PIN numbers. Social Science Computer Review, 20(1), 10-21.
15.
Kaplowitz, M. D., Hadlock, T. D., & Levine, R. (2004). A comparison of web and mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 94-101.
16.
Kent, R., & Brandal, H. (2003). Improving email response in a permission marketing context. International Journal of Market Research, 45, 489-506.
17.
Kwak, N., & Radler, B. (2002). A comparison between mail and web surveys: Response pattern, respondent profile, and data quality. Journal of Official Statistics, 18, 257-273.
18.
Mehta, R., & Sivadas, E. (1995). Comparing response rates and response content in mail versus electronic mail surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society, 37, 429-439.
19.
Mowen, J. C., & Cialdini, R. B. (1980). On implementing the door-in-the-face compliance technique in a business context. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 253-258.
20.
Pealer, L. N., Weiler, R. M., Pigg, R. M., Jr., Miller, D., & Dorman, S. M. (2001). The feasibility of a web-based surveillance system to collec the alth risk data from college students. Health Education& Behavior, 28, 547-559.
21.
Porter, S. R., & Whitcomb, M. E. (2003a). The impact of contact type on web survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 579-588.
22.
Porter, S. R., & Whitcomb, M. E. (2003b). The impact of lottery incentives on student survey response rates. Research in Higher Education, 44, 389-407.
23.
Sax, L. J., Gilmartin, S. K., & Bryant, A. N. (2003). Assessing response rates and nonresponsebias in web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education, 44, 409-432.
24.
Schaefer, D. R., & Dillman, D. A. (1998). Developmentofa standarde-mailmethodology:Results ofan experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 378-397.
25.
Shannon, D. M., & Bradshaw, C. C. (2002). A comparison of response rate, response time, and costs of mail and electronic surveys. Journal of Experimental Education, 70(2), 179-192.
26.
Smith, R. M., & Kiniorski, K. (2003, May). Participation in online surveys: Results from a series of experiments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Opinion Research, Nashville, TN.
27.
Smith, T. W. (1995). Trends in nonresponse rates. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 7, 157-171.
28.
Steeh, C. G. (1981). Trends in nonresponse rates, 1952-1979. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59, 66-77.
29.
Trouteaud, A. R. (2004). How youask counts:A test of Internet-related components of responserates to a web-based survey. Social Science Computer Review, 22, 385-392.
30.
Tuten, T. L. (1997). Getting a foot in the electronic door: Understanding why people read or delete electronic mail (Rep. No. 97/08). Mannheim, Germany: Zentrum fuer Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen.
31.
Whitcomb, M. E., & Porter, S. R. (2004). Email contacts: A test of complex graphical designs. Social Science Computer Review, 22, 370-376.
32.
Yun, G. W., & Trumbo, C. W. (2000). Comparative response to a survey executed by post, email and web form. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6(1), 1-25.
