Role of Response Behavior Theory in Survey Research: A Cross-National Study
Section snippets
Alternative Theoretical Frameworks
At the outset, it is useful to draw a distinction between a theoretical explanation for survey participation and/or nonparticipation and the techniques used to induce people to respond. Although they appear to be the same, there is a real difference because theory can help explain the extent to which inducement techniques work. Concentrating only on inducement techniques without theory guidance creates a risk of respondents providing bad data. It has been increasingly recognized that some
Exchange
Using (mail) survey techniques to obtain truthful information from potential respondents is viewed by Dillman (1978) as a special case of “social exchange.” Very simply, social exchange theory asserts that the actions of individuals (i.e., answering a questionnaire) are motivated by the return (or rewards) these actions are expected to, or usually do, bring from others. Whether a given behavior occurs is a function of the perceived costs of engaging in that activity and the rewards (not
Cognitive Dissonance
According to Furse and Stewart (1984), cognitive dissonance theory provides a mechanism for integrating, within a single model, much of the empirical research that has been done on inducement techniques for survey response. Cognitive dissonance theory is well known (Festinger, 1957) and need not be repeated here. As used for explaining survey response, the theory postulates that reducing dissonance is an important component of the “respond/not respond” decision of potential survey respondents.
Self-Perception
Self-perception theory asserts that persons infer attitudes and knowledge of themselves through interpretations made about the causes of their behavior (Bem, 1972). Interpretations are made on the basis of self-observation. To the extent that a person’s behavior is attributed to internal causes and is not perceived as due to circumstantial pressures, a positive attitude toward the behavior develops. These attitudes (i.e., self-perception) then affect subsequent behavior.
Allen (1982) extended
Commitment/Involvement
Closely related to the theories presented above is the theory of commitment or involvement (Becker, 1960). The relationship of this theory to that of cognitive dissonance and self-perception can be seen through the foot-in-the-door effects. For example, there is some evidence that the magnitudes of the first request in the foot technique may have a significant effect upon subsequent compliance Hansen and Robinson 1980, Seligman et al. 1976. The range of magnitude of request can be visualized as
The Present Study
This study includes samples from Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, the Philippines, the United States, and nine Western European countries (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom). A smaller sample of 25 American firms was used for pretesting the questionnaire. A mail survey using one follow-up was used to obtain the data from all sample groups, although a second follow-up was sent to firms in Canada, Europe, and Japan. For Hong
Findings
The main thrust of this study, as mentioned earlier, is to assess the research practitioners’ awareness and use of the four major theories of survey response behavior. Because some potential respondents may not have been familiar with the “name” of the theory, a form of aided recall was provided by giving the following brief descriptions:
Exchange Theory: Actions of individuals are motivated by the return or rewards they expect from others. They will respond to surveys only when the benefits
Conclusions
As stated at the outset, the objective of this article was to report on a study that examined theoretical frameworks for explaining survey response behavior. The theories of social exchange, cognitive dissonance, and self-perception were presented as examples of those theoretical frameworks most widely accepted by marketing researchers. In addition, another theory—the theory of involvement/commitment—was presented as an alternative to the existing frameworks.
Commitment is not widely accepted
References (44)
- et al.
Increasing Response Rates Using an Inducement Question in Mail Surveys
Journal of Direct Marketing
(1988) - et al.
How Enduring Is Enduring Involvement? A Seasonal Examination of Three Recreational Activities
Journal of Consumer Psychology
(1995) Do Source and Anonymity Affect Mail Survey Results?
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
(1987)- et al.
Empirical Research in International Marketing, 1976–1982
Journal of International Business Studies
(1994) - Allen, C. T.: Perspectives on Mail Survey Response Rates: The Self-Perception Paradigm and Beyond, Paper presented at...
- et al.
More on Self-Perception Theory’s Foot Technique in the Pre-Call/Mail Survey Setting
Journal of Marketing Research
(1980) - et al.
An Assessment of Theoretical and Methodological Development in International Marketing1980–1990
Journal of International Marketing
(1993) Notes of the Concept of Commitment
American Journal of Sociology
(1960)Self-Perception Theory
- et al.
Response Rates in Postal Surveys
Public Opinion Quarterly
(1974)