Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating the effects of anonymous respondents on mail survey results

  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Anonymity is frequently offered to recipients of mail questionnaires in order to secure their cooperation and thus increase the response rate obtained. Individuals desiring to remain anonymous may, however, choose to respond differently to the instrument than known respondents because their identities are secret. Thus, a potential source of bias is introduced whenever anonymity is made available. This article examines the responses of identified and anonymous respondents to a mail questionnaire in order to determine the extent to which such bias occurred.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, Irving L. and J. David Colfax. “Respondents' Attitudes Toward Legitimate Surveys in Four Cities,” Journal of Marketing Research, V (November, 1968), 431–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banks, Seymour. “Designing Marketing Research to Increase Validity,” Journal of Marketing, 28 (October, 1964), 32–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, Boris W. and John G. Myers. “Yeasaying Response Style,” Journal of Advertising Research, 10 (December, 1970), 31–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borus, Michael E. “Response Error and Questioning Technique in Surveys of Earnings Information,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 65 (June, 1970), 566–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunner, G. Allen and Stephen J. Carroll, Jr. “The Effect of Prior Notification on the Refusal Rate in Fixed Address Surveys,” Journal of Advertising Research, 9 (March, 1969), 42–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, William E. Jr. “Response Patterns to Mail Surveys,” Journal of Marketing Research, III (November, 1966), 392–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belkin, Marvin and Seymour Lieberman. “Effect of Question Wording on Response Distribution,” Journal of Marketing Research, IV (August, 1967), 312–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, Neil M. “Consistency of Responses in a Mail Survey,” Journal of Advertising Research, 9 (August, 1969), 31–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • — “Questionnaire Appearance and Response Rates in Mail Surveys,” Journal of Advertising Research, 8 (June, 1968), 43–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • — “The Advance Letter in Mail Surveys,” Journal of Marketing Research, IV (May, 1967), 202–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, George and Kermit Bird. “Increasing the Response of a Mail Questionnaire,” Journal of Marketing, 22 (October, 1958), 186–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochstim, Joseph R. “A Critical Comparison of Three Strategies of Collecting Data from Households,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 7 (September, 1967), 976–989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Indow, Tarow. “Models for Responses of Customers With a Constant Rate,” Journal of Marketing Research, VII (November, 1970), 498–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ito, Rikuma. “An Analysis of Response Errors: A Case Study,” Journal of Business, 36 (October, 1963), 440–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimball, Andrew E. “Increasing the Rate of Return in Mail Surveys,” Journal of Marketing, (October, 1961), 63–64.

  • Lansing, John B. and A. T. Eapen. “Dealing with Missing Information in Surveys,” Journal of Marketing, 24 (October, 1959), 21–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurent, Andre. “Effects of Question Length on Reporting Behavior in the Survey Interview,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 67, (June, 1972), 298–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurent, Charles D. and Aquileo Parra A. “Use of Mail Questionnaires in Columbia,” Journal of Marketing Research, V (February, 1968), 101–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuckols, Robert C. and Charles Mayer. “Can Independent Responses Be Obtained From Various Members in a Mail Panel Household?,” Journal of Marketing Research, VII (February, 1970), 90–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, James H. and Arne F. Haug. “How a Preliminary Letter Affects Mail Survey Returns and Costs,” Journal of Advertising Research, 9 (June, 1969), 37–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neidell, Lester A. “Procedures for Obtaining Similarities Data,” Journal of Marketing Research, IX (August. 1972), 335–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odesky, Stanford H.. “Handling the Neutral Vote in Paired Comparison Product Testing,” Journal of Marketing Research, IV (May, 1967), 199–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ognibene, Peter. “Correcting Nonresponse Bias In Mail Questionnaires,” Journal of Marketing Research, VIII (May, 1971), 233–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. “Traits Affecting Questionnaire Response,” Journal of Advertising Research, 10 (June, 1970), 18–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, Raymond. “Responses to Personal and Form Letters in Mail Surveys,” Journal of Advertising Research, 7 (March, 1967), 28–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Edward M. and Joseph Barry Mason. “The Influence of Instructions on Respondent Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, VII (May, 1970), 254–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stafford, James E.. “Influence of Preliminary Contact on Mail Returns,” Journal of Marketing Research, III (November, 1966), 410–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, William D. and Joel Dames. “Hidden Errors in Survey Data,” Journal of Marketing, 26, (October, 1962), 50–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wotruba, Thomas R. “Montary Inducements and Mail Questionnaire Response,” Journal of Marketing Research, III (November, 1966), 398–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Texas A & M University, Texas, USA

    Richard T. Hise D.B.A.

  2. Shippenburg State College, Shippenburg, Pennsylvania, USA

    Michael A. McGinnis

Authors
  1. Richard T. Hise D.B.A.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael A. McGinnis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hise, R.T., McGinnis, M.A. Evaluating the effects of anonymous respondents on mail survey results. JAMS 4, 592–598 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02729772

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02729772

Keywords

Search

Navigation