This study examined the effectiveness of four techniques for reducing pseudovolunteering: signing-up for research participation and not showing up. 117 undergraduate students participated in a reminder tab, reminder telephone call, immediate additional credit, personal solicitation, or control condition as part of their research participation. Chi-squared analyses indicated that, compared to the control group, only phone calls were effective in improving rate of showing up. Implications for obtaining a desired sample size are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsJ. S. (1963) Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 67, 422–436.
2.
BeerJ. (1986) Effects of sex and reminder notes on compliance by volunteer subjects. Psychological Reports, 58, 401–402.
3.
DienerE. (1980) Deindividuation: the absence of self-awareness and self-regulation in group members In PaulusP. B. (Ed.), Psychology of group influence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 209–242.
4.
KinderB. N. (1976) Locus of control and “pseudovolunteering.”Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 251–252.
5.
LevittE. E.LubinB.BradyJ. P. (1962) The effects of the pseudovolunteer on studies of volunteers for psychological experiments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46, 72–75.
6.
RosenthalR.RosnowR. L. (1975) The volunteer subject. New YorkWiley.
7.
SiegelS.CastellanN. J.Jr. (1988) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.
8.
SkinnerB. F. (1938) The behavior of organisms: an experimental analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
