Mail+Surveys

**Manipulating Dissonance to Improve Mail Survey Response**  David H. Furse, David W. Stewart

 There has already been much extensive research on mail surveys, however, there has been very little learned about what techniques consistently increase mail response rates. The problem typically associated with mail surveys is low return rates, which causes concern for two reasons. One being that it decreases the accuracy with which the sample can be considered representative of the total population, and the second being that nonrespondents will differ in nonrandom ways from those who do respond. Mail questionnaires have the advantage of being less expensive than other methods, they allow privacy to the respondent, and avoid biases.They also avoid biases that can are frequently found between respondents and interviewers. Respondents also have the luxury of being able to consult their records. Were we able to solve these problems, mail questionnaires would clearly reign supreme over all other forms of surveys. There is an emphasized need for a theory or model of the decision process possible respondents use when determining whether or not they will participate in the particular survey, and sadly, very few efforts have been put forth in determining such theory. One of the theories that have been suggested as the framework for understanding mail is cognitive dissonance (the article also discusses reference-group theory, exchange theory, and socialization and balance theory). Cognitive dissonance theory was developed by Festinger and is a tension reduction model. In this model dissonance is known as an unpleasant drive state. Therefore when two or more elements are dissonant, there is ultimately pressure to reduce the dissonance. The article seeks to develop further a cognitive dissonance model of respondent decision making. In the paper researchers sought to examine individual differences with respect to cognitive dissonance, those being:  While dissonance may have motivational or drive properties, people will differ with respect to how much dissonance is required to produce a dissonance-reducing response, what events will induce dissonance, and the dissonance-reducing behavior they employ.  Research studies have been conducted to examine the relationship between incentives and cognitive dissonance. While this particular study was concerned with attitude change rather than the desire to comply, they can be applied to the theory of mail mail questionnaire response since they examined whether dissonance or a monetary incentive was a more important determinant of behavior and attitude change. Results of the study showed that with freedom of choice, a small incentive creates dissonance while a large incentive appears to have reinforcing properties. This study attempts to prove that a small incentive will produce compliance via dissonance, instead of being viewed as compensation for services, whereas larger incentives and rewards are much more likely to be viewed as compensation for the said behavior.  An experiment was done with cognitive dissonance and survey response in which mail respondents also received a dollar bill with their questionnaire. The study suggested that response rates may increase if you create a feeling of dissonance among the participants, one that could easily be resolved by returning the questionnaire. They mailed a dollar bill to potential respondents, hoping that these would use the money and feel obligated to return the questionnaire, he or she could return the dollar (which took effort). On the other hand, keeping the dollar and not completing the questionnaire would create a state of dissonance in the respondent. The survey showed that those who received the dollar bill incentive were much more likely to complete the survey and send it in. In the study 218 residents of a lower-middle-class neighborhood of Canada were selected, where half received a dollar and the other half received no incentive. Then, after 7 days both of the recipients were sent a follow-up postcard. When calculated, by the eleventh day 83% of the dollar group had returned the questionnaire while only 53% of the no-dollar group had. Then again after eleven days the no-dollar group received a dollar and another copy of the questionnaire, and not surprisingly, after they received the dollar incentive, their response rate jumped. Finally, by day 15, the response rate for the two groups were at 90% and 80%. While, some may explain this improvement of response rate is due to rewards as incentives, not because a created state of dissonance, research has shown that a monetary reward as small as 25 cents or less makes a questionnaire makes a questionnaire more effective.
 * 1) People differ in their ability to tolerate dissonance. It may take a greater amount of dissonance to bring about dissonance-reducing behavior in some people than others.
 * 2) What is dissonant for one person may not be dissonant for someone else. People may differ in what events they regard as dissonant
 * 3) People differ in their preferred mode of dissonance reduction. People will use different means for reducing dissonance.

[]