Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Crafting Survey Research: A Systematic Process for Conducting Survey Research

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Market Research

Abstract

Surveys represent flexible and powerful ways for practitioners to gain insights into customers and markets and for researchers to develop, test, and generalize theories. However, conducting effective survey research is challenging. Survey researchers must induce participation by “over-surveyed” respondents, choose appropriately from among numerous design alternatives, and need to account for the respondents’ complex psychological processes when answering the survey. The aim of this chapter is to guide investigators in effective design of their surveys. We discuss state-of-the-art research findings on measurement biases (i.e., common method bias, key informant bias, social desirability bias, and response patterns) and representation biases (i.e., non-sampling bias and non-response bias) and outline when those biases are likely to occur and how investigators can best avoid them. In addition, we offer a systematic approach for crafting surveys. We discuss key steps and decisions in the survey design process, with a particular focus on standardized questionnaires, and we emphasize how those choices can help alleviate potential biases. Finally, we discuss how investigators can address potential endogeneity concerns in surveys.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 649.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 699.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alwin, D. F., & Krosnick, J. A. (1991). The reliability of survey attitude measurement: The influence of question and respondent attributes. Sociological Methods & Research, 20(1), 139–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreß, H. J., Golsch, K., & Schmidt, A. W. (2013). Applied panel data analysis for economic and social surveys. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

    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(3), 335–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora, R. (1982). Validation of an SOR model for situation, enduring, and response components of involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 505–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assael, H., & Keon, J. (1982). Nonsampling vs. sampling errors in survey research. Journal of Marketing, 46, 114–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baruch, Y. (1999). Response rate in academic studies – A comparative analysis. Human Relations, 52(4), 421–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, H., & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(2), 139–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, H., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. (2001). Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, H., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. (2006). Response biases in marketing research. In R. Grover & M. Vriens (Eds.), The handbook of marketing research. Uses, misuses, and future advances (pp. 95–109). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, H., & Weijters, B. (2017). Measurement models for marketing constructs. In B. Wierenga & R. Van der Lans (Eds.), Handbook of marketing decision models (International series in operations research & management science) (Vol. 254). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, H., Weijters, B., & Pieters, R. (2018). Misresponse to survey questions: A conceptual framework and empirical test of the effects of reversals, negations, and polar opposite core concepts. Journal of Marketing Research, 55(6), 869–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bearden, W. O., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1999). Handbook of marketing scales: Multi-item measures for marketing and consumer behavior research. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 175–184.

    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 

  • Böckenholt, U. (2012). Modeling multiple response processes in judgment and choice. Psychological Methods, 17(4), 665–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böckenholt, U. (2017). Measuring response styles in Likert items. Psychological Methods, 22(1), 69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, M. J., & Dunlap, W. P. (2002). Estimating interrater agreement with the average deviation index: A user’s guide. Organizational Research Methods, 5(2), 159–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabooter, E., Millet, K., Pandelaere, M., & Weijters, B. (2012). The ‘I’ in extreme responding. Paper presented at the European Marketing Academy Conference, Lisbon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Microeconometrics – Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, S. J., & Ghosh, M. (2019). An integrated power and efficiency model of contractual channel governance: Theory and empirical evidence. Journal of Marketing, 83(4), 101–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castelo, N., Bos, M. W., & Lehmann, D. R. (2019). Task-dependent algorithm aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(5), 809–825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Certo, S. T., Busenbark, J. R., Woo, H. S., & Semadeni, M. (2016). Sample selection bias and Heckman models in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, 37(13), 2639–2657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, J. J., & Paolacci, G. (2017). Lie for a dime: When most prescreening responses are honest but most study participants are impostors. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(5), 500–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, S. J., Van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the editors: Common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 178–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Church, A. H. (1993). Estimating the effect of incentives on mail survey response rates: A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57(1), 62–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, G. A., & Iacobucci, D. (2005). Marketing research. Methodological foundations (9th ed.). Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning.

    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(6), 821–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1987). Estimating trait, method, and error variance: Generalizing across 70 construct validation studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 315–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1988). Measurement error and theory testing in consumer research: An illustration of the importance of construct validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(4), 579–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crampton, S. M., & Wagner, J. A., III. (1994). Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1), 67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Heer, W., & De Leeuw, E. (2002). Trends in household survey nonresponse: A longitudinal and international comparison. In Survey nonresponse (p. 41). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, M. G., Steenkamp, J. B. E., Fox, J. P., & Baumgartner, H. (2008). Using item response theory to measure extreme response style in marketing research: A global investigation. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(1), 104–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, M. G., Pieters, R., & Fox, J. P. (2010). Reducing social desirability bias through item randomized response: An application to measure underreported desires. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(1), 14–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, M. G., Fox, J. P., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. (2015). Quantifying under-and overreporting in surveys through a dual-questioning-technique design. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(6), 737–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Langhe, B., Puntoni, S., Fernandes, D., & Van Osselaer, S. M. J. (2011). The anchor contraction effect in international marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(2), 366–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A., Sarstedt, M., Fuchs, C., Wilczynski, P., & Kaiser, S. (2012). Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: a predictive validity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 434–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87(3), 215–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(3), 305–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, J. M., & Lynch, J. G. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 303–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3):382–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313

  • Fornell, C., Johnson, M. D., Anderson, E. W., Cha, J., & Bryant, B. E. (1996). The American customer satisfaction index: nature, purpose, and findings. Journal of Marketing, 60, 7–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gal, D., & Rucker, D. D. (2011). Answering the unasked question: Response substitution in consumer surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(February), 185–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gannon, M. J., Nothern, J. C., & Carroll, S. J. (1971). Characteristics of nonrespondents among workers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(6), 586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh, M., & John, G. (2005). Strategic fit in industrial alliances: An empirical test of governance value analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(3), 346–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, J. K., & Paolacci, G. (2017). Crowdsourcing consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1), 196–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(3), 213–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grayson, K. (2007). Friendship versus business in marketing relationships. Journal of Marketing, 71(4), 121–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenleaf, E. A. (1992). Measuring extreme response style. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56(3), 328–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grewal, R., Kumar, A., Mallapragada, G., & Saini, A. (2013). Marketing channels in foreign markets: Control mechanisms and the moderating role of multinational corporation headquarters–subsidiary relationship. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(3), 378–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M. (2006). Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5), 646–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M., Presser, S., & Dipko, S. (2004). The role of topic interest in survey participation decisions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 2–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruner, R. L., Vomberg, A., Homburg, C., & Lukas, B. A. (2019). Supporting new product launches with social media communication and online advertising: Sales volume and profit implications. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(2), 172–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, N., Shaw, J. D., & Delery, J. E. (2000). Correlates of response outcomes among organizational key informants. Organizational Research Methods, 3(4), 323–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, L. (2020). Pretty healthy food: How and when aesthetics enhance perceived healthiness. Journal of Marketing, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D. L. (1968). Personality attributes associated with extreme response style. Psychological Bulletin, 69(3), 192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heide, J. B., Wathne, K. H., & Rokkan, A. I. (2007). Interfirm monitoring, social contracts, and relationship outcomes. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3), 425–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heide, J. B., Kumar, A., & Wathne, K. H. (2014). Concurrent sourcing, governance mechanisms, and performance outcomes in industrial value chains. Strategic Management Journal, 35(8), 1164–1185.

    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 & Marketing, 19(3), 303–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466(7302), 29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Himmelfarb, S., & Lickteig, C. (1982). Social desirability and the randomized response technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 710–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, A. L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2010). Measuring voter turnout by using the randomized response technique: Evidence calling into question the method’s validity. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(2), 328–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C. (2020). Marketingmanagement: Strategie – Instrumente – Umsetzung – Unternehmensführung (7th ed.). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., & Klarmann, M. (2009). Multi informant-designs in der empirischen betriebswirtschaftlichen Forschung. Die Betriebswirtschaft, 69(2), 147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., & Krohmer, H. (2008). Der Prozess der Marktforschung: Festlegung der Datenerhebungsmethode, Stichprobenbildung und Fragebogengestaltung. In A. Herrmann, C. Homburg, & M. Klarmann (Eds.), Handbuch Marktforschung. Heidelberg: Springer Gabler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Jensen, O., & Klarmann, M. (2005). Die Zusammenarbeit zwischen Marketing und Vertrieb-eine vernachlässigte Schnittstelle (Vol. 86). Mannheim: Inst. für Marktorientierte Unternehmensführung, Univ. Mannheim.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Grozdanovic, M., & Klarmann, M. (2007). Responsiveness to customers and competitors: The role of affective and cognitive organizational systems. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 18–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Klarmann, M., & Schmitt, J. (2010). Brand awareness in business markets: When is it related to firm performance? International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3), 201–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Müller, M., & Klarmann, M. (2011). When should the customer really be king? On the optimum level of salesperson customer orientation in sales encounters. Journal of Marketing, 75(2), 55–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Artz, M., & Wieseke, J. (2012a). Marketing performance measurement systems: Does comprehensiveness really improve performance? Journal of Marketing, 76(3), 56–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Jensen, O., & Hahn, A. (2012b). How to organize pricing? Vertical delegation and horizontal dispersion of pricing authority. Journal of Marketing, 76(5), 49–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Klarmann, M., Reimann, M., & Schilke, O. (2012c). What drives key informant accuracy? Journal of Marketing Research, 49(August), 594–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Schwemmle, M., & Kuehnl, C. (2015a). New product design: Concept, measurement, and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 79(3), 41–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Vomberg, A., Enke, M., & Grimm, P. H. (2015b). The loss of the marketing department’s influence: Is it really happening? And why worry? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Gwinner, O., & Vomberg, A. (2019a). Customer reacquisition in business-to-business contexts. Working paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Lauer, K., & Vomberg, A. (2019b). The multichannel pricing dilemma: Do consumers accept higher offline than online prices? International Journal of Research in Marketing, 36(4), 597–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Vomberg, A., & Muehlhaeuser, S. (2020). Design and governance of multichannel sales systems: Financial performance consequences in business-to-business markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 57(6), 1113–1134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, G., & Sudhir, K. (2021). The Causal Effect of Service Satisfaction on Customer Loyalty. Management Science, 67(1), 317–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulland, J. (2019). In through the out door. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(1), 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulland, J., & Miller, J. (2018). Keep on Turkin? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(5), 789–794. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1007/s11747-018-0587-4

  • Hulland, J., Baumgartner, H., & Smith, K. M. (2018). Marketing survey research best practices: Evidence and recommendations from a review of JAMS articles. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(1), 92–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iacobucci, D. (2013). Marketing models: Multivariate statistics and marketing analytics (International Edition). South-Western: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iacobucci, D., & Churchill, G. A. (2010). Marketing research. Methodological foundations (10th ed.). Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter? Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 999–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management science, 52(11), 1661–1674.

    Google Scholar 

  • John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., Acquisti, A., & Vosgerau, J. (2018). When and why randomized response techniques (fail to) elicit the truth. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 148, 101–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. A. (2004). The impact of item characteristics on item and scale validity. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 273–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Djurdjevic, E. (2011). Assessing the impact of common method variance on higher order multidimensional constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, P. (2008). A guide to econometrics (6th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klarmann, M. (2008). Methodische Problemfelder der Erfolgsfaktorenforschung: Bestandsaufnahme und empirische Analysen (Doctoral dissertation).

    Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, E. S., & Condon, C. A. (1999). Why people say “yes”: A dual-process theory of acquiescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(2), 379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kothandapani, V. (1971). Validation of feeling, belief, and intention to act as three components of attitude and their contribution to prediction of contraceptive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19(3), 321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 537–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick, J. A., Li, F., & Lehman, D. R. (1990). Conversational conventions, order of information acquisition, and the effect of base rates and individuating information on social judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, N., Stern, L. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1993). Conducting interorganizational research using key informants. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1633–1651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, N., Scheer, L. K., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. (1995). The effects of supplier fairness on vulnerable resellers. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 54–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, A., Heide, J. B., & Wathne, K. H. (2011). Performance implications of mismatched governance regimes across external and internal relationships. Journal of Marketing, 75(2), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levay, K. E., Freese, J., & Druckman, J. N. (2016). The demographic and political composition of mechanical Turk samples. SAGE Open, 6(1), 2158244016636433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litman, L., Robinson, J., & Abberbock, T. (2017). TurkPrime. com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 49(2), 433–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, T. D., Lindenberger, U., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1999). On selecting indicators for multivariate measurement and modeling with latent variables: When “good” indicators are bad and “bad” indicators are good. Psychological Methods, 4(2), 192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2012). Common method bias in marketing: Causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies. Journal of Retailing, 88(4), 542–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McElheran, K. (2015). Do market leaders lead in business process innovation? The case (s) of e-business adoption. Management Science, 61(6), 1197–1216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey, B. (1975). Guidelines for the empirical classification of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 509–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (2012). Psychology and methodology of response styles. In R. E. Snow & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), Improving inquiry in social science: A volume in honor of Lee J. Cronbach (pp. 161–200). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mick, D. G. (1996). Are studies of dark side variables confounded by socially desirable responding? The case of materialism. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(2), 106–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mizik, N., & Jacobson, R. (2008). The financial value impact of perceptual brand attributes. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(1), 15–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moosbrugger, H. (2008). Klassische Testtheorie (KTT). In Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion (pp. 99–112). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Naemi, B. D., Beal, D. J., & Payne, S. C. (2009). Personality predictors of extreme response style. Journal of Personality, 77(1), 261–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15(3), 263–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Clark, M. A. (2002). Substantive and operational issues of response bias across levels of analysis: An example of climate-satisfaction relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmatier, R. W. (2016). Improving and publishing at JAMS: Contribution and positioning. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(6), 655–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In H. Brand, D. N. Jackson, D. E. Wiley, & S. Messick (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 49–69). Mahwah: L. Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D. L., & John, O. P. (1998). Egoistic and moralistic biases in self-perception: The interplay of self-deceptive styles with basic traits and motives. Journal of Personality, 66(6), 1025–1060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., & Acquisti, A. (2017). Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 153–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, R. A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 450–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, L. W. (1981). Assessing measurement error in key informant reports: A methodological note on organizational analysis in marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 395–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142.

    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(5), 879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Presser, S., Couper, M. P., Lessler, J. T., Martin, E., Martin, J., Rothgeb, J. M., & Singer, E. (2004). Methods for testing and evaluating survey questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 109–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurements. Marshfield: Pittman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raval, D. (2020). Whose voice do we hear in the marketplace? Evidence from consumer complaining behavior. Marketing Science, 39(1), 168–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rindfleisch, A., & Heide, J. B. (1997). Transaction cost analysis: Past, present, and future applications. Journal of marketing, 61(4), 30–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rindfleisch, A., Malter, A. J., Ganesan, S., & Moorman, C. (2008). Cross-sectional versus longitudinal survey research: Concepts, findings, and guidelines. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(3), 261–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogelberg, S. G., & Stanton, J. M. (2007). Introduction: Understanding and Dealing With Organizational Survey Nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 10(2):195–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106294693

  • 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(1), 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P. E. (2014). Even the rich can make themselves poor: A critical examination of IV methods in marketing applications. Marketing Science, 33(5), 655–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sa Vinhas, A., & Heide, J. B. (2015). Forms of competition and outcomes in dual distribution channels: The distributor’s perspective. Marketing Science, 34(1), 160–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sande, J. B., & Ghosh, M. (2018). Endogeneity in survey research. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 35(2), 185–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J., & Bijmolt, T. H. (2019). Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: A meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(3), 499–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1979). The open and closed question. American Sociological Review, 44, 692–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1981). The attitude-action connection and the issue of gun control. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 455(1), 40–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1996). Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording, and context. New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuman, H., Kalton, G., & Ludwig, J. (1983). Context and contiguity in survey questionnaires. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 112–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54(2), 93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N. (2003). Self-reports in consumer research: The challenge of comparing cohorts and cultures. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 588–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N., & Scheuring, B. (1992). Selbstberichtete Verhaltens-und Symptomhäufigkeiten: Was Befragte aus Antwortvorgaben des Fragebogens lernen. Zeitschrift für klinische Psychologie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N., Knäuper, B., Hippler, H. J., Noelle-Neumann, E., & Clark, L. (1991a). Rating scales numeric values may change the meaning of scale labels. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55(4), 570–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N., Strack, F., & Mai, H. P. (1991b). Assimilation and contrast effects in part-whole question sequences: A conversational logic analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55(1), 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidler, J. (1974). On using informants: A technique for collecting quantitative data and controlling measurement error in organization analysis. American Sociological Review, 39, 816–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Short, J. C., Ketchen, D. J., Jr., & Palmer, T. B. (2002). The role of sampling in strategic management research on performance: A two-study analysis. Journal of Management, 28(3), 363–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 456–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, J. B. E., De Jong, M. G., & Baumgartner, H. (2010). Socially desirable response tendencies in survey research. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(2), 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sudman, S., & Blair, E. (1999). Sampling in the twenty-first century. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(2), 269–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tellis, G. J., & Chandrasekaran, D. (2010). Extent and impact of response biases in cross-national survey research. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(4), 329–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2016). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys (9th ed.). AAPOR. https://www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Main/media/publications/Standard-Definitions20169theditionfinal.pdf

  • Thompson, L. F., & Surface, E. A. (2007). Employee surveys administered online: Attitudes toward the medium, nonresponse, and data representativeness. Organizational Research Methods, 10(2), 241–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomaskovic-Devey, D., Leiter, J., & Thompson, S. (1994). Organizational survey nonresponse. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 439–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tortolani, R. (1965). Introducing bias intentionally into survey techniques. Journal of Marketing Research, 2, 51–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Rosmalen, J., Van Herk, H., & Groenen, P. J. (2010). Identifying response styles: A latent-class bilinear multinomial logit model. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(1), 157–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visser, P. S., Krosnick, J. A., Marquette, J., & Curtin, M. (1996). Mail surveys for election forecasting? An evaluation of the Columbus Dispatch poll. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60(2), 181–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vomberg, A., Homburg, C., & Bornemann, T. (2015). Talented people and strong brands: The contribution of human capital and brand equity to firm value. Strategic Management Journal, 36(13), 2122–2131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vomberg, A., Homburg, C., & Gwinner, O. (2020). Tolerating and managing failure: An organizational perspective on customer reacquisition management. Journal of Marketing, 84(5), 117–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, S. L. (1965). Randomized response: A survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 60, 63–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wathne, K. H., Heide, J. B., Mooi, E. A., & Kumar, A. (2018). Relationship governance dynamics: The roles of partner selection efforts and mutual investments. Journal of Marketing Research, 55(5), 704–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weijters, B., & Baumgartner, H. (2012). Misresponse to reversed and negated items in surveys: A review. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(5), 737–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weijters, B., Schillewaert, N., & Geuens, M. (2008). Assessing response styles across modes of data collection. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(3), 409–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weijters, B., Geuens, M., & Schillewaert, N. (2009). The proximity effect: The role of inter-item distance on reverse-item bias. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(1), 2–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weijters, B., Cabooter, E., & Schillewaert, N. (2010a). The effect of rating scale format on response styles: The number of response categories and response category labels. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3), 236–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weijters, B., Geuens, M., & Schillewaert, N. (2010b). The individual consistency of acquiescence and extreme response style in self-report questionnaires. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34(2), 105–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weijters, B., Geuens, M., & Baumgartner, H. (2013). The effect of familiarity with the response category labels on item response to Likert scales. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 368–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weijters, B., Millet, K., & Cabooter, E. (2020). Extremity in horizontal and vertical Likert scale format responses. Some evidence on how visual distance between response categories influences extreme responding. International Journal of Research in Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2020.04.002.

  • Wessling, K. S., Huber, J., & Netzer, O. (2017). MTurk character misrepresentation: Assessment and solutions. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1), 211–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, L. J., & Brown, B. K. (1994). Method variance in organizational behavior and human resources research: Effects on correlations, path coefficients, and hypothesis testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57(2), 185–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, J. D., Kanouse, D. E., & Ware, J. E. (1982). Controlling for acquiescence response set in scale development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(5), 555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, N., Rindfleisch, A., & Burroughs, J. E. (2003). Do reverse-worded items confound measures in cross-cultural consumer research? The case of the material values scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(1), 72–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yammarino, F. J., Skinner, S. J., & Childers, T. L. (1991). Understanding mail survey response behavior a meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55(4), 613–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, J., & Cooper, H. (1983). A quantitative review of research design effects on response rates to questionnaires. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 36–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zettler, I., Lang, J. W., Hülsheger, U. R., & Hilbig, B. E. (2015). Dissociating indifferent, directional, and extreme responding in personality data: Applying the three-process model to self-and observer reports. Journal of Personality, 84(4), 461–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Marketing Department, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Arnd Vomberg

  2. Department of Marketing & Sales Research Group, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany

    Martin Klarmann

Authors
  1. Arnd Vomberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin Klarmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arnd Vomberg .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business-to-Business Marketing, Sales, and Pricing, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany

    Christian Homburg

  2. Department of Marketing & Sales Research Group, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany

    Martin Klarmann

  3. Marketing & Sales Department, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany

    Arnd Vomberg

Section Editor information

  1. University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany

    Christian Homburg

  2. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Martin Klarmann

  3. University of Groningen, Groningen, Niederlande

    Arnd Vomberg

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Vomberg, A., Klarmann, M. (2022). Crafting Survey Research: A Systematic Process for Conducting Survey Research. In: Homburg, C., Klarmann, M., Vomberg, A. (eds) Handbook of Market Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57413-4_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation