Mail survey response behavior

European Journal of Marketing Mail survey response behavior: A conceptualization of motivating factors and an empirical study S. Tamer Cavusgil Lisa A. Elvey-Kirk

Article information: To cite this document: S. Tamer Cavusgil Lisa A. Elvey-Kirk, (1998),"Mail survey response behavior", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Iss 11/12 pp. 1165 - 1192 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090569810243776 Downloaded on: 08 June 2016, At: 07:08 (PT) References: this document contains references to 87 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2929 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Downloaded by Georgia State University At 07:08 08 June 2016 (PT)

(1997),"What motivates employees according to over 40 years of motivation surveys", International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 18 Iss 3 pp. 263-280 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437729710169373 (2005),"Measure and control of non-response in a mail survey", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 Iss 1/2 pp. 16-32 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560510571990 (2012),"Enabling a motivated workforce: exploring the sources of motivation", Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, Vol. 26 Iss 2 pp. 7-10

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Emerald Subscribers

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Mail survey response behavior A conceptualization of motivating factors and an empirical study S. Tamer Cavusgil Center for International Business Education and Research, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA and

Downloaded by Georgia State University At 07:08 08 June 2016 (PT)

Lisa A. Elvey-Kirk

Mail survey response behavior 1165 Received February 1996 Revised May 1997 Revised August 1998

The Eli Broad Graduate School of Management, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA Introduction Mail survey is popular as a data collection technique because of the advantages offered to the market researcher. These advantages include wider distribution, less distribution bias, better likelihood of thoughtful reply, no interviewer bias, central control, time, savings, and, most importantly, cost savings (Erdos, 1974). Past research efforts comprise isolated studies consisting of a multitude of variable manipulations with precious few links to theory and no conceptual framework to build on. This article offers a conceptualization of mail survey response behavior for the purpose of integrating the literature in a manner which enhances a deeper understanding of this phenomenon. In addition, the potential of source and appeal variations on mail survey response are examined – specifically response rate, speed and completeness. The findings of an empirical study are presented and analyzed, followed by a comparison to a similar study conducted by Houston and Nevin (1977) for the purpose of examining source and appeal effects on response behavior. The findings of the present study are used to validate the relevance of the conceptual framework. Conceptualizing mail survey response behavior Researchers have experimented with various aspects of mail surveys in order to increase mail survey efficiency. Past research consists of isolated studies utilizing a multitude of manipulated variables to improve survey response without developing a comprehensive conceptual framework. With only a few exceptions (Albaum, 1987; Childers and Skinner, 1985; Hansen, 1980; Hornik, 1981; Jobber and Saunders, 1988; Skinner et al., 1986), the majority of studies have made no attempt at building theory or explaining response behavior using a theoretical model. Previous research attempts to increase response rates included providing advance notice to respondents, sending follow-up mailings to nonrespondents, utilizing different forms of postage, and a variety of monetary and

European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 11/12, 1998, pp. 1165-1192, © MCB University Press, 0309-0566

European Journal of Marketing 32,11/12

Downloaded by Georgia State University At 07:08 08 June 2016 (PT)

1166

nonmonetary premiums, just to mention a few. (Extensive literature reviews include: Goyder (1985); Houston and Ford (1976); Kanuk and Berenson (1975); and Yu and Cooper (1983), which contain numerous additional citations of individual methodological articles.) However, the use of these techniques to overcome high nonresponse rates often increases the cost of mail surveys, thus diluting the primary benefit of this data collection method. In contrast, variations in survey design which do not increase the cost of data collection have received little empirical attention. Most studies on mail survey methodology examine costly additions/modifications to survey packages. Figure 1 provides a classification of the treatments used by different researchers for the purpose of increasing response rates. A further limitation of mail survey research is the fact that researchers measure the effectiveness of alternative variations primarily through increases in response rates (Houston and Nevin, 1977). Researchers ought to be concerned about the speed and completeness of responses as well (Craig and McCann, 1978; Goetz et al., 1984; Huxley, 1980; McDaniel and Rao, 1981). With some exceptions, these important response variables have been neglected in past mail survey research. Source

Personalization

Appeal

Incentive: -amount of cash -non-cash items -enclosed vs. promised

Promised Anonymity

Follow-up Contact -timing -number -form

Response Behavior: -response rate -response speed -response quality -response completeness

Cover Letter Form

Cutoff Date Notification

Questionnaire -type -color -length -format

Postage: -type of outgoing postage -type of return postage

Figure 1. A classification of alternative methods for increasing mail survey response rates

Home vs. work address

Prenotification Identify the “informed” population

Envelope Type

Downloaded by Georgia State University At 07:08 08 June 2016 (PT)

It seems that further work is needed in two areas: (1) modifications to mail survey instruments which do not increase the cost of data collection; and (2) a more complete measure of survey effectiveness by examining the speed and completeness of response in conjunction with response rates. More importantly, however, a conceptual framework is needed in order to link together the isolated literature. Such a conceptual explanation can help facilitate a thorough understanding of mail survey response behavior.

Mail survey response behavior 1167

A proposed conceptual framework Mail survey response behavior is really a form or subfield of human behavior – cooperative behavior in particular. The link between cooperative behavior and mail survey response behavior has been suggested in prior studies (Childers and Skinner, 1985). Therefore, it can be argued that inherent motivators of human behavior are also applicable to explain survey behavior. Various motivators thought to affect response behavior include: net individual benefit, societal outcome, commitment, novelty, convenience, and expertise. These are highlighted in Figure 2. The proposed conceptual framework also includes the effect of general attitudes toward market research. Although uncontrollable in the shortrun,

Study-Specific Motivators (Controllable by the Researcher)

Net Individual Benefit

Societal Outcome

Commitment

Novelty

Convenience

Expertise

Mail Survey Response Behavior

General Attitudes toward Market Research (Uncontrollable)

Figure 2. A conceptualization of the factors affecting mail survey response behavior

European Journal of Marketing 32,11/12

Downloaded by Georgia State University At 07:08 08 June 2016 (PT)

1168

attitudes toward market research do have an impact on how individuals respond when they receive a questionnaire. The importance of the effect of attitude on behavior is clearly evident on examination of the rich attitude research stream within the consumer behavior discipline. Unfortunately, recent evidence suggests a trend of less positive attitudes towards participation in market research. Since general attitudes toward market research are uncontrollable in the short run, i.e. not “manipulatable” variables, attention shall focus in this article on the study-specific motivators which can be experimentally manipulated. An elaboration of the six motivators is provided below. 1. Net individual benefit This motivator can be conceived as the difference between the perceived “total gross benefits” and the associated “costs” of completing and returning a questionnaire. Examples of benefits to responding to a questionnaire include: enhanced self-image through participation in important studies; gaining a feeling of importance that one’s opinions are significant; the possibility of contributing to the development of improved products, and so on. The “costs” of completing a mail survey include time, energy and even money if return postage is not provided. An exchange paradigm can be utilized to justify the “net individual benefit” motivator of mail survey response behavior. Childers and Skinner (1985) have also employed exchange paradigm to conceptualize response behavior stating that survey responses can be broadly examined within the dyadic exchange context since two parties are involved – the sponsor of the research and the survey recipient. Another dimension is added by Skinner et al. (1986) who contend that response behavior is dependent on the recipient’s perception that the exchange will be equitable. Further justification of an exchange relationship in mail survey response behavior has been suggested. Utilizing the concept of social exchange as the theoretical base in that model development suggests “... individuals engage in behavior that reinforces, maintains, enhances and extends their self-images. For some people, there is an implicit social contract that if you help someone with something they feel is important ...” Thus, two types of benefit can be derived from this logic, the benefit of enhancing your ego and the implicit future “promise” of someone helping you with something you consider important. The theory of cognitive dissonance is also relevant in justifying the “net individual benefit” motivation of mail survey response behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance was first introduced by Leon Festinger in 1957. It has since received much attention in marketing and consumer behavior literature. Cognitive dissonance theory has also been used to help conceptualize response behavior by Jobber and Saunders (1988) and Furse and Stewart (1982). However, these studies use the cognitive dissonance theory link to survey response only when monetary incentives are employed.

Downloaded by Georgia State University At 07:08 08 June 2016 (PT)

The proposed conceptualization assumes a much broader influence of cognitive dissonance theory, not limiting the theory to only incentive-based survey manipulations like Furse and Stewart (1982). The theory of cognitive dissonance can be applicable to both incentive-based and non-incentive-based mail survey research. Dissonance can be created in an individual on receipt of a request to complete and return a questionnaire. Borrowing Furse and Stewart’s (1982) logic, throwing away the questionnaire would seem wasteful, to accept the questionnaire without completing it would seem larcenous (because time, money and effort was invested in sending the questionnaire), and to return the questionnaire uncompleted to the sender would involve fruitless effort. Thus, the simplest way to eliminate dissonance would seem to be compliance. The creation of cognitive dissonance on the receipt of a questionnaire can be considered a “cost” with respect to the net individual benefit motivator since negative psychological feelings reside within the recipient until the survey is completed and returned. This “cost” is negated once the recipient completes and returns the questionnaire. Thus, the elimination of the dissonance by complying with the researchers request is considered a “net individual benefit” to the survey recipient. 2. Societal outcome This motivator is the survey recipient’s belief about the societal consequences which may result from the information provided on a returned questionnaire. It is the belief that an individual can make a difference (to society at large) on returning a questionnaire. The societal outcome motivator also includes an individual’s conformance with the expectation of others in order to attain or avoid particular outcomes. Social norms seem to be the underlying factor behind the societal outcome motivator. The importance of norms with respect to their effect on behavior is evident in the rich “behavioral-intention model” and “theory of reasoned action” research streams, with the concept’s normative beliefs and subjective norms which were first conceptualized. It is believed that subjective norms play a significant role in determining behavioral intentions. According to this perspective, consumer intentions are determined by attitudes and perceptions of whether important others think one should or should not expend the effort to perform some activity (for example, completing and returning a mail survey). Behavior is then determined by intentions. The application of social norms theory has been applied to studies of toothpaste, altruistic behavior, blood donating, exercise, studying, and dating behavior, a hypothetical purchase of a clothing item and coupon usage. The concepts seem equally useful in explaining mail survey response behavior. Normative compliance and the norm of reciprocity theory are closely related concepts utilized in consumer behavior literature and textbooks. Normative compliance can be defined as conforming with the expectations of others in order to attain or avoid particular outcomes, both tangible and intangible. The norm of reciprocity has previously been applied to response behavior when a

Mail survey response behavior 1169

European Journal of Marketing 32,11/12

Downloaded by Georgia State University At 07:08 08 June 2016 (PT)

1170

monetary incentive is included (Jobber and Saunders, 1988). Jobber and Saunders (1988, p. 365) explain that “the norm of reciprocity states that people are more likely to help those who provide favors for them. The act of providing favors (assistance, gifts, etc.) builds a psychological obligation to reciprocate. Within the context of mail surveys, a recipient of a questionnaire may feel an obligation to reciprocate by completing and returning a questionnaire if that person has received a gift (albeit a token) from the research”. The conceptual framework suggested in this article assumes a broader influence of the theory of reciprocity, not limiting its applicability to only incentive-based research. The felt obligation to reciprocate and comply with the expectations of others by completing and returning the questionnaire may originate on the receipt of the questionnaire since the recipient recognizes that time, effort and resources were invested by the researcher. Returning the completed questionnaire is the only way to reciprocate the time, effort and resources, and behave in a consistent manner with societal expectations. 3. Commitment The concept of commitment has been utilized in two prior studies to help explain mail survey response behavior (Albaum, 1987; Childers and Skinner, 1985). Childers and Skinner (1985, p. 42) state that “gaining a commitment to a mail survey represents a behavioral intention to respond in a prescribed manner”. Commitment has been closely associated with the involvement literature. The concept of involvement has received substantial attention in the social psychology and marketing literature during the past 40 years. Consumer involvement clearly has implications relative to the consumer decision-making process and marketing strategies developed based on this process. Involvement is concern about, interest in, or commitment to a particular position on an issue. It is argued that the commitment component advances the concept of involvement, and a number of authors have linked the concept of commitment to involvement. Thus, gaining a commitment from a survey recipient to comply with the research request is hypothesized to influence mail survey response behavior. 4. Novelty Novelty can be considered to be unusual or unexpected stimuli which attract attention. Novelty seeking behavior, or the desire for change, is a frequently overlooked factor in the marketing discipline. Studies suggest that approximately one third of the individuals purchasing a new brand do so simply because they desire a change. Thus, the importance of including a novelty motivator in the conceptual framework is evident. Interestingly, support can be found for novelty-seeking behavior in the mail survey literature. However, these authors never made the link between their hypotheses and novelty-seeking behavior theory. It is hypothesized that prenotification and follow-up manipulations would have significant effects on response rates since they were “not universally used” and “easily seen”.

Downloaded by Georgia State University At 07:08 08 June 2016 (PT)

Personalization and return postage were hypothesized to not exert significant influence on response rates because the manipulations were considered “increasingly common” and “commonly used” respectively. Thus, indirect justification for the inclusion of a novelty motivator in the conceptual framework is provided by this prior study.

Mail survey response behavior

5. Convenience The concept of convenience is encountered in discussions of convenience goods and convenience stores. Survey recipients often make judgements about the convenience or amount of effort necessary to complete and return the questionnaire. The more convenient the recipient perceives the completion of the questionnaire to be, the more likely the questionnaire will be completed and returned. Convenience often emerges as an evaluative criterion in marketing surveys, thus providing further justification for the inclusion of convenience as a motivator in the conceptual framework.

1171

6. Expertise Expertise can be defined as the ability to perform product-related tasks successfully. In the context of survey to response behavior, “product-related tasks” include supplying of information that would be relevant for successful completion of a questionnaire. In the conceptual framework, expertise relates to the ability to supply information that would be relevant for survey topic. Stated differently, it is the degree of fit between the respondent’s knowledge and the objectives of the researcher. The importance of expertise in explaining certain aspects of behavior can be found in the consumer behavior literature. Relating the motivating constructs to response behavior The six underlying motivators of mail survey response behavior can be linked to prior research operationalizations as displayed in Figure 3. Each motivator construct can be identified with more than one form of operationalization. For example, the “net individual benefit” motivator has three associated operationalizations – appeal, personalization and incentive. It is important to note that the categorization of each construct is not mutually exclusive. Some interaction is hypothesized within the six categories of motivators. The operationalization of postage in the form of return postage prepaid by the researcher may affect response because of the convenience offered to the recipient in returning the completed survey. Or the pre-paid postage may be considered novel in the sense that it utilizes a unique stamp or form of postage. This interrelationship among the motivators is delineated in Figure 3 by the dashed lines between the motivators and their operationalization. Figure 3 does not attempt to illustrate all of the possible interactions. How motivating factors are operationalized Table I ties the information in Figure 3 to specific studies in the literature. The following discussion elaborates on the relationship between each motivator and their primary operationalizations in the literature.

European Journal of Marketing 32,11/12

Downloaded by Georgia State University At 07:08 08 June 2016 (PT)

1172

Figure 3. Motivators of mail survey response behavior and their operationalization

Underlying Motivators of Mail Survey Response Behavior

Operationalization

1. Net Individual Benefit

Appeal Personalization Incentive

2. Societal Outcome

Source Promised Anonymity

3. Commitment

Prenotification Cutoff Date Notification Follow-up

4. Novelty

Envelope Type Cover Letter Form or postscript Questionnaire (format, color...)

5. Convenience

Postage Home vs. work address

6. Expertise

Identify the “Informed Population”

Key Primary Motivator Secondary Motivator

1. Net individual benefit Appeal: net individual benefit has been operationalized by utilizing different types of appeals hypothesized to influence mail survey response behavior. For example, a “help-the-sponsor” appeal may result in the questionnaire recipient perceiving the benefits of a good feeling obtained from helping others or improved products/services if the information requested was utilized for new product development. The potential benefits will then be compared to the “costs” of time and effort necessary to complete the questionnaire. Personalization: when an individual receives a personalized cover letter, greater importance may be placed on that response. The respondent may believe that his or her opinions are important since the name had been specifically utilized in the request for information. This would enhance one’s self-image and influence mail survey response behavior. Incentive: the association between incentive and net individual benefit seems quite direct as recipients of questionnaires including incentives (monetary and non-monetary items) have more “material possessions” than before the questionnaire was received. It is felt that incentives influence response because individuals feel they must “reciprocate” by returning a completed questionnaire. The literature on use of incentives to influence mail survey

5. Convenience

4. Novelty

3. Commitment

2. Societal outcome

1. Net individual benefit

Motivators

Home vs. work address

Postage

Armstrong and Lusk (1987); Brook (1978); Guffey et al. (1980); Harris and Guffey (1978); Kernan (1971); Labrecque (1978); McCrohan and Lowe (1981) McGinnis and Hollon (1977)

Berdie (1973); Blumenfeld (1973); Childers and Ferrell (1979); Dommeyer (1985); Field (1975); Ford (1968); Friedman and Augustine (1979); Friedman and Goldstein (1975); Jones and Lang (1980); Pucel et al. (1971); Roscoe et al. (1975)

Little and Pressley (1980) Childers et al. (1980); Labrecque (1978); Simon (1967); Vocino (1977)

Envelope type Cover letter form or postscript Questionnaire

Follow-up

Futrell and Hise (1982); Henley (1976); Hornik (1981); Roberts et al. (1978); Vocino (1977) Allen et al (1987); Etzel and Walker (1974); Ford (1967); Furse et al. (1981); Hansen and Robinson (1980); Hinrichs (1975); Jolson (1977); Jones and Lang (1980); Myers and Haug (1969); Parsons and Medford (1972); Stafford (1966); Walker and Burdik (1977); Wynn and McDaniel (1985) Cox et al. (1974); Furse et al. (1981); Goulet (1977); Hinrichs (1975); Pucel et al. (1971); Roscoe et al. (1975)

Albaum (1987); Childers et al. (1980); Doob and Carlsmith (1973); Hawkins (1979); Houston and Nevin (1977); Jones and Lang (1980); Jones and Linda (1978) Albaum (1987); Downs and Kerr (1986); Fuller (1974); Futrell and Hise (1982); Futrell and Swan (1977); McDaniel and Rao (1981); Rotondi (1989); Tyagi (1989); Wildman (1977)

Childers et al. (1980); Houston and Nevin (1977); Jones and Lang (1980); Jones and Linda (1978); Tyagi (1989) Andreasen (1970); Carpenter (1975); Cox et al. (1974); Dillman and Frey (1974); Houston and Jefferson (1975); Kawash and Aleamoni (1971); Labrecque (1978) Armstrong (1975); Doob and Carlsmith (1973); Files (1984); Friedman and Augustine (1979); Furse and Stewart (1982); Furse et al. (1981); Goetz et al. (1984); Goodstadt et al. (1977); Groeneman (1986); Hansen (1980); Huck and Gleason (1974); Hubbard and Little (1988); Jobber and Saunders (1988); McDaniel and Rao (1980); Nederhof (1983); Skinner et al. (1984); Whitmore (1976); Wotruba (1966)

Relevant literature

Cutoff date notification Prenotification

Promised anonymity

Source

Incentitive

Personalization

Appeal

Primary operationalization

Downloaded by Georgia State University At 07:08 08 June 2016 (PT)

Mail survey response behavior 1173

Table I. Motivators of mail survey response behavior, their primary operationalization, and relevant literature

European Journal of Marketing 32,11/12

Downloaded by Georgia State University At 07:08 08 June 2016 (PT)

1174

response behavior is quite voluminous. A review article by Armstrong appeared in 1975, and numerous studies have been published since. 2. Societal outcome Source: societal outcome can be operationalized by utilizing different sources believed to have varying effects on mail survey response behavior. Source is directly related to how the survey recipient believes the information from returned questionnaires will be utilized. For example, surveys with the public university sponsorship are believed to be perceived by recipients as attempts to “better society as a whole” with little direct “self-serving” implications. Promised anonymity: when anonymity is promised, it reinforces a request for information intended to be utilized to benefit society as a whole. Promised anonymity also helps diminish the expectations some individuals may have that the survey information may later be utilized as a sales ploy – a negative perceived outcome of survey requests. 3. Commitment Prenotification: the purpose of prenotification is to obtain a commitment from a potential respondent before the actual survey instrument is delivered. It is believed that individuals are therefore more willing to return the questionnaire completed. Prenotification studies have a large representation in the mail survey literature. Cutoff-date notification: the use of cutoff-date notification is believed to strengthen commitment by giving recipients the impression that the survey information is needed urgently to assist in making important decisions. The literature contains many studies utilizing different lengths of time between questionnaire receipt and cutoff-date to examine the effects on response behavior. Follow-up: commitment is believed to increase when follow-up procedures are utilized. If an individual receives a survey and does not respond, follow-up measures may cause that individual to feel that his or her response is more important than previously believed. This, in turn, may increase respondent commitment to complete and return the survey. Prior literature on follow-up contact includes studies examining the effect of the number and timing of follow-up contacts on response behavior. 4. Novelty Envelope type: variations in the envelopes used to mail questionnaires have been designed to capture the attention of the receiver, thereby drawing the attention to the “novelty” of the envelope in hopes of affecting the resultant mail survey response. Envelope variations manipulated in past studies range from the size and color of the envelope to the manner in which the envelope had been addressed. Cover letter form or postscript: the form of the cover letter and/or the addition of a postscript have been manipulated for the purpose of making the recipient

Downloaded by Georgia State University At 07:08 08 June 2016 (PT)

feel that the questionnaire is different, special, or “novel” in some respect. Literature in this area is varied, ranging from variations in the signatory of the cover letter (Labrecque, 1978; Vocino, 1977) to personal vs. form letters (Simon, 1967) to whether or not a postscript was included (Childers et al., 1980). Questionnaire: mail questionnaires have been varied according to topic, length, color and format in order to capture the attention and interest of potential respondents. Most prior research efforts in this category have focused on the effect of questionnaire length on response rate. However, a few studies have focused on the color of the questionnaire. 5. Convenience Postage: postage has been varied according to the type of outgoing postage, or the inclusion, absence and type of return postage. It is the inclusion or absence of return postage which is of interest with respect to the convenience motivator. If return postage is included with a mailed survey, the return of the completed questionnaire is more convenient for the respondent. If return postage is not included, the respondent may not return the questionnaire to the researcher if, for example, he or she is out of stamps. The type of outgoing postage is considered to be a novelty variation, thus a secondary motivator with respect to the conceptual framework. Home vs. work address: it may be more convenient to receive a mail survey at home where the recipient may be more relaxed and able to spend more time for thoughtful reply. With respect to past studies, McGinnis and Hollon (1977) seem to be the only researchers analyzing the effect of home vs. work address on response behavior. 6. Expertise Identify the “informed population”: this construct deals primarily with increasing mail survey response by identifying the “informed population” or persons possessing expertise on the particular topic of study. It is argued that targeting of respondents with relevant expertise will result in higher response rates since “uninformed recipients” of the questionnaire are less likely to respond owing to their lack of qualifications. In addition, a higher quality of response is also believed to result when the informed population is identified and subsequently surveyed. Design of present study The conceptual framework proposed in Figure 2 and discussed above is useful in integrating the voluminous literature on mail survey response behavior. The framework postulates that motivating factors can be considered under six key constructs and that these constructs have been operationalized in a variety of ways. The present empirical study does not attempt to address all six motivator constructs and their operationalizations. Rather, it focuses on two which have been particularly neglected in previous empirical works. These are: net

Mail survey response behavior 1175

European Journal of Marketing 32,11/12

Downloaded by Georgia State University At 07:08 08 June 2016 (PT)

1176

individual benefit (operationalized by type of appeal) and societal outcome (operationalized by source or sponsor of the study). There are several additional reasons for focusing on these two survey variations. First, the economical benefits of cost-free survey modifications designed to increase response behavior are of great importance to both academic and practitioner researchers. Second, limited previous research on source and appeal suggests the possibility of an interaction effect between the two variables. There is both empirical and theoretical evidence for the possibility of interaction between source and appeal. Houston and Nevin (1977) provide the empirical justification with the statistically significant interaction effects of source and appeal while Jobber and Saunders (1988) suggest the theoretical link. Thus, by manipulating both source and appeal, the effect on mail survey response may be greater than if source and appeal were varied independently. In the present study, the independent variables, source and appeal, are manipulated in an identical manner and the dependent variables are measured consistent with the study conducted by Houston and Nevin (1977). Both studies also utilize consumers as the population of study. The present study, however, can only be considered to be a partial replication since different geographical coverage and situational contexts exist. While Houston and Nevin covered only a local area (Madison, Wisconsin), the present study has a national scope allowing for the generalizability of findings to a larger scale. With respect to situational context, Houston and Nevin examined shopping-center patronage motives and behavior, while the present investigation focuses on attitudes and behavioral intentions of automobile owners toward do-it-yourself maintenance activities. The present study included a monetary incentive, while Houston and Nevin did not include any type of monetary incentive. The incentive was identical for all respondents in the present investigation, hence not a manipulated variable. Table II provides a concise summary, highlighting the similarities and differences between these two related studies. Independent variables Appeal: three appeals – “social utility,” “help the sponsor,” and “egoistic” are utilized in the cover letters. These three types of appeals are also integrated into a fourth “combined” appeal (see Appendix). Source: the two sources manipulated in this study are: (1) a major public university in the Midwest; and (2) a private market research firm. Dependent variables Response rate: response rate was measured as the proportion of the sample returning the questionnaire, calculated by dividing the number of returned questionnaires by the total number of questionnaires mailed.

Appeal

Independent variables Source

Response behavior

Dependent variables

Motor Yes vehicle owner’s attitudes and behavioral intentions toward doit-yourself car maintenance

Consumers National

Present study

No

Shopping center patronage motives

Consumers Local

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Population Geographic Situational Social Help the Private Response Response Response of study coverage context Incentive utility sponsor Egoistic Combined University firm rate speed completeness

Houston and Nevin (1977)

Study

Scope of study

Downloaded by Georgia State University At 07:08 08 June 2016 (PT)

Mail survey response behavior 1177

Table II. Comparison of the two studies on source and appeal effects

European Journal of Marketing 32,11/12

Downloaded by Georgia State University At 07:08 08 June 2016 (PT)

1178

Response speed: response speed was determined by the number of days between the date of mailing the questionnaire and the date of its return to the researcher. Response completeness: response completeness was operationalized as the extent of nonresponse to specific items on returned questionnaires. The present study did not exhibit statistically significant variations in response completeness, thus is excluded from further analysis. The present investigation can be considered a partial replication of the Houston and Nevin study since source and appeal are manipulated in an identical manner; response rate and speed are the dependent variables of interest; and consumers comprise the population of study. At the same time, the present inquiry extends the work of Houston and Nevin in several ways. First, a national rather than a local population has been sampled. Second, a different dimension of consumer behavior is investigated. Third, a different time frame is in place. Method Sample The data used in this study are drawn from a national mail survey of motor vehicle owners. Sponsored by a national trade association, the investigation aimed at delineation of attitudes toward and actual involvement in do-ityourself maintenance/repair activity. A random sample of 2,000 names was systematically selected from lists of all motor vehicle registrations in each of the 50 states. Each state was represented in the sample in proportion to the magnitude of its motor vehicle population. To maintain maximum comparability between the present study and the Houston and Nevin study, only responses from the first mailing of the present study are utilized. A second mailing was conducted for the present study, producing additional responses not reported here. Measures The first experimental variable of interest is the source, or sponsor, of the mail survey. The two most common sponsors of consumer surveys are universities and commercial research firms (Houston and Nevin, 1977). The sponsor treatments are operationalized by using a major midwestern public university and a marketing research agency with only local awareness. The type of appeal used to gain respondent cooperation constitutes the second experimental variable. Three separate types of appeals are examined – “social utility,” “help-the-sponsor”, and “egoistic.” Social utility appeal emphasizes the benefits the respondent could provide to consumers or society as a whole. Help-the-sponsor appeal highlights the importance of the response for successful completion of the study. Egoistic appeal stresses the opportunity for the respondent to express opinions as an individual consumer. A fourth “combined” appeal integrates all three appeals. The statements used to represent the four appeals are presented in the Appendix.

Downloaded by Georgia State University At 07:08 08 June 2016 (PT)

Procedure Measurement and data analysis in the present study were handled in a similar manner with Houston and Nevin for maximum comparability. Consistent with Houston and Nevin, response rate was examined first by the traditional percentage of respondents returning the questionnaire for each treatment group; and second by treating response rate as a dichotomous dependent variable (1 = return, 0 = nonresponse). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the dichotomous variable in order to investigate the main and interaction effects of source and appeal. As noted by Houston and Nevin, ANOVA is designed for dependent variables measured at either the interval or ratio level of measurement. However several researchers (e.g. Cochran, 1950; Edwards, 1972; Hsu and Feldt, 1969; Peterson, 1975) support its use on a dichotomized dependent variable if certain conditions are met. ANOVA was applied in the stated manner to detect significant main or interaction effects since the conditions of large (n > 50) and equal random samples for each treatment were satisfied. This procedure was followed by t-tests on the differences in response rate percentages in appropriate cells to provide further insight. Unlike Houston and Nevin (1977), this study utilized arc sine transformation procedure on response rates. Response rate measures are considered to be proportions (P j ) when treated in a traditional manner as percentage of respondents returning questionnaires. When the treatment proportions (Pj ) differ, the variances of the error terms will not be stable (Neter and Wasserman, 1974). In order to stabilize the variance of the error terms, the response rate percentage (or proportion) in each cell must be adjusted using the arc sine transformation. With this procedure, the intervening effect of unstable error terms is omitted, eliminating the impact of this extraneous factor on the results. Standard ANOVA procedures were performed on response speed. Results Overall effects The results of this study with respect to response rate and response speed are summarized and compared with the results from Houston and Nevin in Table III, which reports F-values associated with main and interaction effects for each dependent variable analyzed. Response rates are graphically illustrated and contrasted to Houston and Nevin in Figure 4. As far as the response rate is concerned, Houston and Nevin found a significant interaction between source and appeal, which is suggested by the intersecting lines in Figure 4. However, no significant interaction effect was found in the present study. Although the lines in Figure 4 cross, no statistically significant interaction effect is detected. A significant main effect of appeal was found in the present study, which was not evident in the Houston and Nevin (1977) study. A significant main effect of sponsor was not found in either study. Response rate In the present study, 2,000 questionnaires were mailed, which resulted in 637 returns in the first mailing. However, 332 questionnaires were undeliverable,

Mail survey response behavior 1179

European Journal of Marketing 32,11/12 1180

Source of variation Main effect: Sponsor Appeal

Downloaded by Georgia State University At 07:08 08 June 2016 (PT)

Interaction effect: Sponsor × appeal

Dependent variables Response rate Response speed Houston Present Houston Present and Nevin (1977) study and Nevin (1977) study