Role of Response Behavior Theory in Survey Research: A Cross-National Study

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(97)00108-2Get rights and content

Abstract

This study examines four theoretical frameworks for explaining survey response behavior and their role in survey research. The results of a survey of 282 research practitioners in Asia-Pacific, North America, and Western Europe show that research practitioners in general are aware and do make use of the theories of cognitive dissonance, commitment and involvement, social exchange, and self-perception. Although the literature indicates that commitment and involvement have been used very little to explain methodological effects, the present study provides evidence to the contrary. A comparison of the results obtained from the three sample groups reveals some significant differences in the research practitioners’ perceptions of why people participate in surveys as well as in the survey design strategies they adopt. There also is evidence that survey design practices are associated with, and perhaps influenced by, the research practitioners’ beliefs about why people participate in surveys.

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)

  • M Geurts et al.

    Increasing Response Rates Using an Inducement Question in Mail Surveys

    Journal of Direct Marketing

    (1988)
  • M.E Havitz et al.

    How Enduring Is Enduring Involvement? A Seasonal Examination of Three Recreational Activities

    Journal of Consumer Psychology

    (1995)
  • G Albaum

    Do Source and Anonymity Affect Mail Survey Results?

    Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

    (1987)
  • G Albaum 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...
  • C.T Allen et al.

    More on Self-Perception Theory’s Foot Technique in the Pre-Call/Mail Survey Setting

    Journal of Marketing Research

    (1980)
  • P.S Aulakh et al.

    An Assessment of Theoretical and Methodological Development in International Marketing1980–1990

    Journal of International Marketing

    (1993)
  • H.S Becker

    Notes of the Concept of Commitment

    American Journal of Sociology

    (1960)
  • D.J Bem

    Self-Perception Theory

  • H Blumberg et al.

    Response Rates in Postal Surveys

    Public Opinion Quarterly

    (1974)
  • M Brennan et al.

    The Behavior of Respondents, Nonrespondents, and Refusers across Mail Surveys

    Public Opinion Quarterly

    (1992)
  • A.H Church

    Estimating the Effect of Incentives on Mail Survey Response RatesA Meta-Analysis

    Public Opinion Quarterly

    (1993)
  • W DeJong

    An Examination of Self-Perception Mediation of the Foot-in-the-Door Effect

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1979)
  • D Dillman

    Mail and Telephone SurveysThe Total Design Method

    (1978)
  • W Duncan

    Mail Questionnaires in Survey ResearchA Review of Response Inducement Techniques

    Journal of Management

    (1979)
  • L Festinger

    A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance

    (1957)
  • D Ford

    CommitmentA Mathematical Model

    Quality and Quantity

    (1973)
  • R.J Fox et al.

    Mail Survey Response RateA Meta-Analysis of Selected Techniques for Inducing Response

    Public Opinion Quarterly

    (1988)
  • J.L Freedman et al.

    Compliance without PressureThe Foot-in-the-Door Technique

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1966)
  • D.H Furse et al.

    Manipulating Dissonance to Improve Mail Survey Response

    Psychology & Marketing

    (1984)
  • D.H Furse et al.

    Effects of Foot-in-the-Door Cash Incentives, and Follow-Ups on Survey Response

    Journal of Marketing Research

    (1981)
  • P.E Green et al.

    Research for Marketing Decisions

    (1988)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text