Research note: The impact of incentives and three forms of postage on mail survey response rates

1993 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 321-327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Gitelson ◽  
Deborah Kerstetter ◽  
Frank Guadagnolo
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 821-831
Author(s):  
Matthew Debell ◽  
Natalya Maisel ◽  
Brad Edwards ◽  
Michelle Amsbary ◽  
Vanessa Meldener

Abstract In mail surveys and in advance letters for surveys in other modes, it is common to include a prepaid incentive of a small amount such as $5. However, when letters are addressed generically (such as to “Resident”), advance letters may be thrown away without being opened, so the enclosed cash is wasted and the invitation or advance letter is ineffective. This research note describes results of an experiment using a nationally representative sample of 4,725 residential addresses to test a new way of letting mail recipients know their letter contains cash and is therefore worth opening: an envelope with a window revealing $5, so the cash is clearly visible from outside the sealed envelope. We also tested the USPS for evidence of theft, and we compared First Class and Priority Mail postage. We found no evidence of theft. We found no difference in response rates between Priority Mail and First Class, making First Class much more cost-effective, and we found that visible money increased the response rate to a mail survey from 42.6 to 46.9 percent, at no significant cost.


1979 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 429-431 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terry L. Childers ◽  
O. C. Ferrell

A 2 × 2 factorial experiment was designed to test the impact on mail survey response rate resulting from variations in paper trim size and number of printed pages in the questionnaire. ANOVA findings suggest 8½ × 11″ paper trim size produces a better response rate than an 8½ × 14″ paper trim size. Use of a one-sheet (front and back) versus a two-sheet (front only) questionnaire did not cause a significant difference in response rate; a hypothesized interaction effect was not found to be statistically significant.


2000 ◽  
Vol 86 (3) ◽  
pp. 1273 ◽  
Author(s):  
JEREMY H. LIPSCHULTZ

1980 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 498-502 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris T. Allen ◽  
Charles D. Schewe ◽  
Gösta Wijk

A field experiment conducted in Sweden compared the effectiveness of two types of telephone pre-calls in influencing response rates in a mail survey. Response rates for a questioning foot-in-the-door manipulation were evaluated against responses produced by a simple solicitation call and a blind mailing control. The results demonstrate that pre-calling in general enhances response rate. However, the results furnish, at best, qualified support for a self-perception theory prediction. Alternative explanations for the lack of the self-perception foot effect are offered. Conclusions are drawn for the practitioner and academic researcher.


2008 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 94-103
Author(s):  
Leslie A. McCallister ◽  
Bobette Otto

What techniques effectively and consistently impact response rates to a mail survey? No clear answer to this question exists, largely because variability in response rates occurs depending on the population of interest, questionnaire type, and procedures used by researchers. This article examines the impact of e-mail and postcard prenotification on response rates to a mail survey by using a population of university full-time faculty and staff. Comparisons were made among respondents who received a postcard prenotification, those who received an e-mail prenotification, and those who received no prenotification prior to the initial mailing of a questionnaire. Data show that e-mail prenotification had the largest impact on response rate, while postcard prenotification had the least impact. In addition, the use of e-mail prenotification reduced overall project costs (both time and money). We suggest that the uses and applicability of e-mail prenotification be further explored to examine both its initial and overall impact on response rate in populations utilizing an electronic environment.


2009 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 368-378 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Brennan ◽  
Jan Charbonneau

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document