This study examines the extent to which the theories of exchange, cognitive dissonance, self-perception and commitment/involvement, when used to design surveys, can influence potential respondents to participate in a survey. The results from an experiment involving a total of 403 subjects in Hong Kong and Australia expands what is known about the role played by theory by examining consumer responses to participation requests made on the basis of each theoretical framework. Specific results support the relatively high positive impact of two of the frameworks that has been reported in a study of research practitioners.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbaumG.. (1987). Do source and anonymity affect mail survey results?Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science15, 3: 74–81.
2.
AlbaumG., EvangelistaF., & MedinaN.. (1988). The role of response behaviour theory in survey research: a cross-national study.Journal of Business Research42, June: 115–25.
3.
AlbaumG., & PetersonR. A.. (1984). Empirical research in international marketing 1976-1982.Journal of International Business Studies, 15, Spring/Summer: 161–73.
4.
AllenC. T.. (1982) Perspectives on mail survey response rates: the self-perception paradigm and beyond. Paper presented at the American Marketing Association Conference on Marketing Theory.
5.
AllenC. T., ScheweC., & WijkG.. (1980). More on self-perception theory's foot technique in the pre-call/mail survey setting.Journal of Marketing Research, 17, November: 498–502.
6.
AulakhP. S., & KotabeM.. (1993). An assessment of theoretical and methodological development in international marketing: 1980 1990.Journal of International Marketing, 2: 528.
7.
BeckerH. S.. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment.American Journal of Sociology, 66, July: 32–40.
8.
BemD. J.. (1972) Self-Perception Theory. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6.BerkowitzL.. (Ed.) New York: Academic Press.
9.
BlumbergH., FullerC., & HareA. P.. (1974). Response rates in postal surveys.Public Opinion Quarterly, 38, Spring: 113–23.
10.
BrennanM., & HoekJ.. (1992). The behaviour of respondents, non-respondents and refusers across mail surveys.Public Opinion Quarterly, 56: 5305.
11.
ChurchA. H.. (1993). Estimating the effect of incentives on mail survey response rates: a meta-analysis.Public Opinion Quarterly, 57: 62–79.
12.
de JongW.. (1979). An examination of self-perception mediation of the foot-in-the-door effect.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37: 2221–39.
13.
DillmanD.. (1978). Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method.New York: Wiley-Interscience.
14.
DuncanW.. (1972). Mail questionnaires in survey research: a review of response inducement techniques.Journal of Management, 5: 39–55.
15.
FestingerL.. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance.Stanford: Stanford University Press.
16.
FordD.. (1973). Commitment: a mathematical model.Quality and Quantity, 7: 140.
17.
FoxR. J., CraskM. R., & KimJ.. (1988). Mail survey response rate: a meta-analysis of selected techniques for inducing response.Public Opinion Quarterly, 52: 467–91.
18.
FreedmanJ. L., & FraserS.. (1966). Compliance without pressure: the foot-in-the-door technique.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4: 195–202.
19.
FurseD. H., & StewartD.. (1984). Manipulating dissonance to improve mail survey response.Psychology & Marketing, 1, Summer: 79–94.
20.
FurseD. H., StewartD., & RadosD.. (1981). Effects of foot-in-the-door cash incentives and follow-ups on survey response.Journal of Marketing Research, 19, November: 473–78.
21.
GeurtsM., O'NeillM., LawrenceK., & AlbaumG.. (1988). Increasing response rates using an inducement question in mail survey.Journal of Direct Marketing, 2, Winter: 35–42.
22.
GrovesR. M., CialdiniR. B., & CouperM. P.. (1992). Understanding the decision to participate in a survey.Public Opinion Quarterly, 56: 475–95.
23.
GrovesR.M., & CouperM.P. (1988). Non-Response in Household Interview Surveys.New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
HansenR. A., & RobinsonL.. (1980). Testing the effectiveness of alternative foot-in-the-door manipulations.Journal of Marketing Research, 17, August: 359–64.
26.
HavitzM. E., & HowardD. R.. (1995). How enduring is enduring involvement? A seasonal examination of three recreational activities.Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4, 3: 255–76.
27.
HeberleinT. A., & BaumgartnerR.. (1978). Factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires: a quantitative analysis of the published literature.American Sociological Review, 43 August: 447–62.
28.
HornbackK.. (1971). Toward a theory of involvement propensity for collective behaviour.Sociological Forces, 4, Summer: 61–77.
29.
HoustonM., & FordN.. (1976). Broadening the scope of methodological research on mail surveys.Journal of Marketing Research, 13, November: 397–403.
30.
HoustonM. L., & RothschildM. L.. (1978) Conceptual and Methodological Perspectives on Involvement. InResearch Frontiers in Marketing: Dialogues and Directions.JamS.C. (Ed.). Chicago: American Marketing Association: 1847.
31.
JobberD., & SaundersJ.. (1988). An experimental investigation into cross-national mail survey response rates.Journal of International Business Studies, 19, Fall: 483–89.
32.
KanukL., & BerensonC.. (1975). Mail surveys and response rates: a literature review.Journal of Marketing Research, 12, November: 440–53.
33.
LinskyA. S.. (1975). Stimulating responses of mailed questionnaires: a review.Public Opinion Quarterly, 39, Spring: 82–101.
34.
MalhotraN.K. (1999). Marketing Research: An Applied OrientationNew Jersey: Prentice Hall.
35.
PetersonR. A., & AlbaumG.. (1984) Response effects of sub-units within a research source.Proceedings of the Annual Meetings of Western AIDS.
36.
PetersonR. A., & KerinR.. (1981) The quality of self-report data: review and synthesis. In:Annual Review of MarketingEnisB., & RoeringK.. (Eds.) Chicago: American Marketing Association: 520.
37.
ReingenP., & KernanJ.. (1977). Compliance with an interview request: a foot-in-the-door self-perception interpretation.Journal of Marketing Research, 14, August: 356–69.
38.
ReingenP., & KernanJ.. (1979). More evidence on interpersonal yielding.Journal of Marketing Research, 16, November: 588–93.
39.
ScottC.. (1961). Research on mail surveys.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society124: 143–205.
40.
SeligmanC., BushM., & KirschK.. (1976). Relationship between compliance in the foot in-the-door paradigm and size of first request.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, May: 517–20.
41.
SudmanS., & BradburnN. M.. (1974). Response Effects in Surveys.Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
42.
SwanJ., & MartinW.. (1982) Foot-in-the-door for increasing mail questionnaire returns: a critical review.An Assessment of Marketing Thought and Practice. Proceedings of the 1982 AMA Educators’ Conference: 41417.
43.
TullarW., PressleyM., & GentryD.. (1979) Toward a theoretical framework for mail survey response. Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Academy of Marketing Science: 243–47.
44.
TyboutA., & YalchR.. (1980) The effect of experience: a matter of salience?Journal of Consumer Research, March: 406–13.
45.
YammarinoF. J., SkinnerS. J., & ChildersT. L.. (1991). Understanding mail survey response behaviour: a meta-analysis.Public Opinion Quarterly, 55: 613–39.
46.
YuJ., & CooperH.. (1983). A quantitative review of research design effects on response rates to questionnaires.Journal of Marketing Research, 20, February: 36–44.
