Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Nonresponse in Employee Attitude Surveys: A Group-Level Analysis

  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Given the common practice of using employee attitude surveys as a group-level intervention, this study used a group-level approach to examine the relationship between group satisfaction and group nonresponse.

Design/Methodology/Approach

Samples from four large organizations enabled job satisfaction scores to be aggregated to the work group level and correlated with group-level response rates. Additional regression analysis was conducted to control for a number of confounding variables at the group level.

Findings

Aggregate job satisfaction showed significant associations with group-level response rates across each of the samples examined. Work groups with higher aggregate job satisfaction had significantly higher response rates. Regression analyses showed that, in addition to job satisfaction, work group size, heterogeneity in tenure, and heterogeneity in gender composition all had significant effects on response rates.

Implications

Social influence processes may operate at the group level to increase homogeneity of job-relevant attitudes and similarity in survey response behavior. Future research should be designed to investigate the effects of group-level variables on nonresponse.

Originality/Value

The current study adds to the literature by demonstrating that work group variables may play an important role in explaining nonresponse in employee attitude surveys. Because the processes underlying survey response are likely to be different at different levels of analysis, the investigation of nonresponse as a group-level phenomenon creates new opportunities for research and practice.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We conducted hierarchical MGCFA for heterogeneous groups to evaluate the psychometric equivalence of the measure across companies, allowing for different items in the different companies (Hattrup et al. 2007). In a first step, each item was allowed to load on its respective factor in each group. In a second step, we constrained the loadings of the shared items to equality across companies. The overall model across all four samples showed adequate fit with the data (CFI = 0.912, IFI = 0.912, RMSEA = 0.036), and the restriction on item loadings did not result in a significant decrease in model fit (ΔCFI = 0.003) in accordance with Cheung and Rensvold (2002). Thus, results of the MGCFA analyses support the overall equivalence of scales across companies.

  2. We chose to compute heterogeneity indices as indicators for group composition instead of group mean levels, given the potential theoretical importance of group heterogeneity. We also, however, repeated the analysis with the group mean descriptors (mean levels for age and tenure and proportions for gender and employment status) instead of the heterogeneity indexes. That is, we conducted a two-step hierarchical linear regression analysis for sample 4, using aggregate job satisfaction, group function and the group means as independent variables. In a first step we entered the means for gender, age, tenure, employment status, and group size. Again, all variables were centered at their grand means. Group size and tenure were found to be significantly related to group response rates. Entering aggregate job satisfaction in a second step resulted in a significant increase in R 2 (ΔR 2 = 0.02, ΔF = 4.41, p = 0.04). Once aggregate job satisfaction was entered in the regression, however, the only significant covariate was group size.

References

  • Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 235–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anseel, F., Lievens, F., Schollaert, E., & Choragwicka, B. (2010). Response rates in organizational science, 1995–2008: A meta-analytic review and guidelines for survey researchers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 335–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J. S., & Lusk, E. J. (1987). Return postage in mail surveys: A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 233–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barr, C., Spitzmueller, C., & Stuebing, K. (2008). Too stressed out to participate? Examining the relation between stressors and survey response behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 232–243.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bartko, J. J. (1976). On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 762–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Björklund, C., Grahn, A., Jensen, I., & Bergstrom, G. (2007). Does survey feedback enhance the psychosocial work environment and decrease sick leave? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16, 76–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliese, P. D. (1998). Group size, ICC values, and group-level correlations: A simulation. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 355–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliese, P. D., & Halverson, R. R. (1996). Individual and nomothetic models of job stress: An examination of work hours, cohesion, and well-being. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1171–1189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bliese, P. D., & Halverson, R. R. (1998). Group size and measures of group-level properties: An examination of eta-squared and ICC values. Journal of Management, 24, 157–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Born, D. H., & Mathieu, J. E. (1996). Differential effects of survey-guided feedback. Group & Organization Management, 21, 388–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosnjak, M., & Batinic, B. (2002). Understanding the willingness to participate in online surveys—The case of e-mail questionnaires. In B. Batinic, U. Reips, & M. Bosnjak (Eds.), Online social sciences (pp. 81–92). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosnjak, M., Tuten, T. L., & Wittmann, W. W. (2005). Unit (non)response in web-based access panel surveys: An extended planned-behavior approach. Psychology and Marketing, 22, 489–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, W. W. (2006). Organizational survey as leverage for organization development and change. In A. I. Kraut (Ed.), Organizational surveys: Tools for assessment and change (pp. 131–149). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, W. W., Coruzzi, C. A., & Church, A. H. (1996). The organizational survey as an intervention for change. In A. I. Kraut (Ed.), Organizational surveys: Tools for assessment and change (pp. 41–66). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, M. J., Finkelstein, L. M., & Dusig, M. S. (1999). On average deviation indices for estimating interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 49–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1082–1103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Church, A. H. (1993). Estimating the effect of incentives on mail survey response rates: A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 62–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Church, A. H., & Oliver, D. H. (2006). The importance of taking action, not just sharing survey feedback. In A. I. Kraut (Ed.), Getting action from organizational surveys: New concepts, technologies, and applications (pp. 33–52). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Church, A. H., & Waclawski, J. (1998). Designing and using organizational surveys. Aldershot: Gower.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 151–192). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clausen, J. A., & Ford, R. N. (1947). Controlling bias in mail questionnaires. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 42, 497–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 325–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 821–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., & Mitchel, S. M. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. E., Thomas, M. D., Rosenfeld, O., & Booth-Kewley, S. (1997). How to conduct organizational surveys. A step-by-step guide. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57, 61–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrhart, M. G., & Naumann, S. E. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: A group norms approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 960–974.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Falletta, S. V., & Combs, W. (2002). Surveys as a tool for organization development and change. In J. Waclawski & A. H. Church (Eds.), Organization development: A data-driven approach to organizational change (pp. 78–102). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L., & Thibaut, J. (1951). Interpersonal communication in small groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 92–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folkman, J. (1998). Employee surveys that make a difference. Provo, UT: Executive Excellence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, R. J., Crask, M. R., & Kim, J. (1988). Mail survey response rate: A meta-analysis of selected techniques for inducing response. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 467–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French, W., & Bell, C. (1999). Organization development: Behavioural science interventions for organization improvement. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review, 10, 601–616.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, J., & Blum, T. (1996). Assessing the non-random sampling effects of subject attrition in longitudinal research. Journal of Management, 22, 627–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, K. E. (1996). Sociodemographic factors and mail survey response. Psychology and Marketing, 13, 171–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harter, J. K., & Schmidt, F. L. (2006). Connecting employee satisfaction to business unit performance. In A. I. Kraut (Ed.), Getting action from organizational surveys: New concepts, technologies, and applications (pp. 102–130). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartman, R. L., & Johnson, J. D. (1989). Social contagion and multiplexity communication networks as predictors of commitment and role ambiguity. Human Communication Research, 15, 523–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattrup, K., Mueller, K., & Joens, I. (2007). The effects of nations and organizations on work value importance: A cross-cultural investigation. Applied psychology: An International Review, 56(3), 479–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heberlein, T. A., & Baumgartner, R. (1978). Factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires: A quantitative analysis of the published literature. American Sociological Review, 43, 447–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helgeson, J. G., Voss, K. E., & Terpening, W. D. (2002). Determinants of mail-survey response: Survey design factors and respondent factors. Psychology and Marketing, 19, 303–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinrichs, J. R. (1996). Feedback, action planning, and follow-through. In A. I. Kraut (Ed.), Organizational surveys: Tools for assessment and change (pp. 255–278). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, M. A., & Grieve, P. (1999). Social identity theory and the crisis of confidence in social psychology: A commentary, and some research on uncertainty reduction. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 79–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchison, J., Tollefson, N., & Wigington, H. (1987). Response bias in college freshmen’s responses to mail surveys. Research in Higher Education, 26, 99–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. E. (1992). Team composition in organizational settings: Issues in managing an increasingly diverse work force. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Group process and productivity (pp. 138–173). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S., Brett, J., Sessa, V., Cooper, D., Julin, J., & Peyronnin, K. (1991). Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 675–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, J. M., & Bolstein, R. (1990). The effect of material incentives and follow-up mailings on the response rate and response quality in mail surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54, 346–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L. C., Beaton, R., Murphy, S., & Pike, K. (2000). Sampling bias and other methodological threats to the validity of health survey research. International Journal of Stress Management, 7, 247–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kantor, J. (1991). The effects of computer administration and identification on the Job Descriptive Index. Journal of Business and Psychology, 75, 309–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. I. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 195–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 211–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Hattrup, K. (1992). A disagreement about within-group agreement: Disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 161–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraut, A. (2006). Getting action from organizational surveys: New concepts, technologies and applications. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeBreton, J. M., Burgess, J. R. D., Kaiser, R. B., Atchley, E. K., & James, L. R. (2003). The restriction of variance hypothesis and interrater reliability and agreement: Are ratings from multiple sources really dissimilar? Organizational Research Methods, 6, 80–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubin, B., Levitt, E., & Zukerman, M. S. (1962). Some personality differences between respondents and nonrespondents to a survey questionnaire. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 26, 192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, C. M., & Griffin, M. A. (2002). Group task satisfaction: Applying the construct of job satisfaction to groups. Small Group Research, 33, 271–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, C. M., & Griffin, M. A. (2003a). Identifying group task satisfaction at work. Small Group Research, 34, 413–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, C. M., & Griffin, M. A. (2003b). Group absenteeism and positive affective tone: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 667–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, C., & Pratt, R. (1966). A note on nonresponse in a mail survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 30, 646–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McConnell, J. H. (2003). How to design, implement, and interpret an employee survey. New York: Amacom.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, S., Madden, C. S., & Verille, P. (1987). Do topic differences affect survey nonresponse? Journal of the Market Research Society, 29, 55–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moliner, C., Martinez-Tur, V., Peiro, J. M., Ramos, J., & Cropanzano, R. (2005). Relationships between organizational justice and burnout at the work-unit level. International Journal of Stress Management, 12, 99–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, S. (1999). Understanding and managing diversity among groups at work: Key issues for organizational training and development. Journal of. European Industrial Training, 23(4/5), 208–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, K., Liebig, C., & Hattrup, K. (2007). Computerizing organizational attitudes surveys: An investigation of the measurement equivalence of a multifaceted job satisfaction measure. Journal of Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 658–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, K., Hattrup, K., & Straatmann, T. (2011). Globally surveying in English: Investigation of the measurement equivalence of a job satisfaction measure across bilingual and native English speakers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 618–624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadler, D. A. (1977). Feedback and organization development: Using data-based methods in organization development. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nesterkin, D. A., & Ganster, D. C. (2012). The effects of nonresponse rates on group-level correlations. Journal of Management. doi:10.1177/0149206311433853.

  • Newman, J. E. (1975). Understanding the organizational structure—Job attitude relationship through perceptions of the work environment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 14, 371–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, D. A., & Sin, H.-P. (2009). How do missing data bias estimates of within-group agreement? Sensitivity of SD WG, CVWG, rWG(J), rWG(J) * and ICC to systematic nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 113–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An organizational level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 963–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122–141.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard, R. D., & Karasick, B. W. (1973). The effects of organizational climate on managerial job performance and job satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 126–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogelberg, S. G. (Ed.). (2002). Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational psychology. London: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogelberg, S. G. (2006). Understanding nonresponse and facilitating response to organizational surveys. In A. I. Kraut (Ed.), Getting action from organizational surveys: New concepts, technologies, and applications (pp. 312–325). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogelberg, S. G., Conway, J. M., Sederburg, M. E., Spitzmueller, C., Aziz, S., & Knight, W. E. (2003). Profiling active and passive-non-respondents to an organizational survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 1104–1114.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogelberg, S. G., Fisher, G. G., Maynard, D. C., Hakel, M. D., & Horvath, M. (2001). Attitudes toward surveys: Development of a measure and its relationship to respondent behavior. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogelberg, S. G., & Luong, A. (1998). Nonresponse to mailed surveys: A review and guide. Current Direction in Psychological Science, 7, 60–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogelberg, S. G., Luong, A., Sederburg, M. E., & Cristol, D. S. (2000). Employee attitude surveys: Examining the attitudes of noncompliant employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 284–293.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogelberg, S. G., Spitzmueller, C., Little, I. S., & Reeve, C. L. (2006). Understanding response behavior to an online special topics organizational satisfaction survey. Personnel Psychology, 59, 903–923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogelberg, S. G., & Stanton, J. M. (2007). Understanding and dealing with organizational survey nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 195–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M. (1978). Characteristics of departments, positions, and individuals: Contexts for attitudes and behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 521–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, A. M., Schmit, M. J., & Johnson, R. (1996). Attitudes and effectiveness: Examining relations at an organizational level. Personnel Psychology, 49, 853–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–253.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sax, L., Gilmartin, S., & Bryant, A. (2002). Assessing response rates and nonresponse bias in web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education, 44, 409–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiemann, W., & Morgan, B. (2006). Strategic surveys: Linking people to business strategy. In A. Kraut (Ed.), Getting action from organizational surveys: New concepts, technologies, and applications (pp. 76–100). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, B., Hanges, P. J., Smith, D. B., & Salvaggio, A. N. (2003). Which comes first: Employee attitudes or organizational financial and market performance? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 836–851.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schyns, B., Paul, T., Mohr, G., & Blank, H. (2005). Comparing antecedents and consequences of leader-member-exchange in a German working context to findings in the US. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. B. (2003). Meeting the challenge of cultural difference. In D. Tjosvold & K. Leung (Eds.), Cross-cultural management: Foundation and future (pp. 59–73). Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1985). The job descriptive index (rev. ed.). Bowling Green, OH: Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University.

  • Song, L. J., Tsui, A. S., & Law, K. S. (2009). Unpacking employee responses to organizational exchange mechanisms: The role of social and economic exchange perceptions. Journal of Management, 35, 56–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sosdian, C. P., & Sharp, L. M. (1980). Nonresponse in mail surveys: Access failure or respondent resistance. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spitzmueller, C., Barr, C., Glenn, D., Rogelberg, S., & Daniel, P. (2006). “If you treat me right, I reciprocate”: Examining the role of exchange in organizational survey nonresponse. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 19–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spitzmueller, C., & Glenn, D. M. (2006). Nonresponse in employee surveys—A review and directions for future work. In M. Braun (Ed.), Survey methodology (pp. 139–162). Mannheim: ZUMA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spitzmueller, C., Glenn, D., Sutton, M. M., Barr, C. D., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2007). Are survey nonrespondents bad organizational citizens? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 449–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stinchcombe, A. L., Jones, C., & Sheatsley, P. (1981). Nonresponse bias for attitude questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45, 359–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taris, T. W., & Schreurs, P. J. (2007). How may nonresponse affect findings in organizational surveys? The tendency-to-the-positive-effect. International Journal of Stress Management, 14(3), 249–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, L. F., & Surface, E. A. (2007). Employee surveys administered online: Attitudes toward the medium, nonresponse, and data representativeness. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 241–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincent, C. (1964). Socioeconomic status and familial variables in mail questionnaire responses. American Journal of Sociology, 69, 647–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, D. (1954). A case for-and-against mail questionnaires. Public Opinion Quarterly, 18, 40–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whelan, T. J. (2008). Antecedents of anonymity perceptions in web-based surveys. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, CA.

  • Williams, R. (2007). Achieving leadership results through employee surveys. Delta, BC, Canada: TWI Surveys.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, T. R., Hattrup, K., & Mueller, K. (2011). A cross-national investigation of the measurement equivalence of computerized organizational attitude surveys: A two study design in multiple nations. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 21(3), 246–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yammarino, F. J., & Markham, S. E. (1992). On the application of within and between analysis: Are absence and affect really group-based phenomena? Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 168–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Mannheim, 68161, Mannheim, Germany

    Thorsten Fauth

  2. San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA

    Kate Hattrup

  3. Qualcomm Inc., San Diego, CA, USA

    Brandon Roberts

  4. University of Osnabrueck, 49069, Osnabrueck, Germany

    Karsten Mueller

Authors
  1. Thorsten Fauth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kate Hattrup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karsten Mueller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Brandon Roberts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thorsten Fauth.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fauth, T., Hattrup, K., Mueller, K. et al. Nonresponse in Employee Attitude Surveys: A Group-Level Analysis. J Bus Psychol 28, 1–16 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-012-9260-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-012-9260-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation