E-mail survey response rates: A review

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2001, Pages

  Sheehan, Kim ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CYBERNETICS; DATA ACQUISITION; SAMPLING; STANDARDIZATION; TECHNICAL WRITING; WORLD WIDE WEB;

SATURATION SAMPLING; SCIENCE WRITERS;

ELECTRONIC MAIL;

EID: 0012850586     PISSN: 10836101     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00117.x     Document Type: Review

References (64)

1. Anderson, S., & Harris, J. (1995). Educators' use of electronic networks. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California.
2. Anderson, S. E., & Gansneder, B. M. (1995). Using electronic mail surveys and computer monitored data for studying computer mediated communication systems. Social Science Computer Review, 13 (1), 33-46.
3. Bachmann, D., Elfrink, J. & Vazzana, G. (1996). Tracking the progress of e-mail versus snail mail. Marketing Research, 8 (2), 31-35.
4. Bachmann, D., Elfrink, J. & Vazzana, G. (1999). E-mail and snail mail face off in rematch. Marketing Research, 11 (4), 11-15.
5. Bean, A. G.. & Roszkowski, M. J. (1995). The long and short of it. Marketing Research, 7 (1), 20-26.
6. Bickart, B., & Schmittlein, D. (1999). The distribution of survey contact and participation in the United States: constructing a survey-based estimate. Journal of Marketing Research, Spring, 286-294.
7. Bradley, N. (1999). Sampling for Internet surveys. An examination of respondent selection for Internet research. Journal of the Market Research Society, 41 (4), 387-395.
8. Brown, M. (1965). Use of a postcard query in mail surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter, 635-637.
9. Bruvold, N. T., & Corner, J. M. (1988). A model for estimating the response rate to a mailed survey. Journal of Business Research, 16(2), 101-116.
10. Claycomb, C., Porter S. S., & Martin, C. L. (2000). Riding the wave: response rates and the effects of time intervals between successive mail survey follow-up efforts. Journal of Business Research, 48 (2), 157-162.
11. Comer, J., & Kelly, J. (1982). Follow-up techniques, the effect of method and source appeal. American Marketing Association Educators Conference Proceedings, Chicago.
12. Comley, P. (1997). The use of the Internet as a data collection tool. Paper presented at the ESOMAR Annual Conference, Edinburgh, September 1997.
13. Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in Web-or Internet-based surveys. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 60 (6), 821-36.
14. Couper, M. P., Blair J., & Triplett, T. (1997). A comparison of mail and e-mail for a survey of employees in federal statistical agencies. Paper presented at the American Association for Public opinion Research, Norfolk, VA.
15. Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd Edition). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
16. Dommeyer, C. J.. & Moriarity, E. (1999). Comparing two forms of an e-mail survey: Embedded vs. attached. International Journal of Market Research, 42 (1), 39-45.
17. Eicherner, K., & Habermehl, W. (1981). Predicting the response rates to mailed questionnaires (comment on Herberlien & Baumgartner). American Sociological Review, 46, 1-3.
18. Flaherty, T. B., Honeycutt, E. D., Jr., & Powers, D. (1998). Exploring text-based electronic mail surveys as means of primary data collection. The 1998 Academy of Marketing Science National Conference Proceedings, 260-64.
19. Fox, R., Crask, M. R., & Kim, J. (1988). Mail survey response rates: A meta-analysis of selected techniques for inducing response. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 467-491.
20. Futrell, C., & Lamb, C. Jr. (1981). Effect on mail survey return rates of including surveys with follow-up letters. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 51, 11-15.
21. Groves, R. M., Cialdini, R. B., & Courier, M. P. (1992). Understanding the decision to participate in a survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 475-95.
22. Haggett, S., & Mitchell, V. (1994). Effects of industrial pre-notification on response rate, speed, quality, bias and cost. Industrial Marketing Management, 23, 101-110.
23. Heberlein, T. A., & Baumgartner, R. (1978). Factors affecting response rates to mailed surveys: A quantitative analysis of the published literature. American Sociological Review, 43, 447-462.
24. Jobber, D. (1986). Improving response rates in industrial mail surveys. Industrial Marketing Management, 15, 183-95.
25. Jobber, D., & Sanderson, S. (1983). The effects of prior letter and coloured survey paper on mail survey response rates. Journal of the Market Research Society, 25 (4), 339-349.
26. Jobber, D., & Saunders, J. (1993). A note on the applicability of the Brurold-Comer model of mail survey response rates to commercial populations. Journal of Business Research, 26, 223-236.
27. Kanuk, L., & Berenson, C. (1973). Mail surveys and response rates: A literature review. Journal of Marketing Research, 12, 44-53.
28. Kent, R., & Lee, M. (1999). Using the Internet for market research: A study of private trading on the Internet. Journal of the Market Research Society, 41 (4), 377-381.
29. Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. S. (1986). Response effects in the electronic survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 402-413.
30. Kittleson, M. J. (1995). An assessment of the response rate via the Postal Service and email. Health Values, 18 (2), 27-29.
31. Komsky, S. H. (1991). A profile of users of electronic mail in a university. Management Communication Quarterly, 4, 310-340.
32. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.
33. Martin, C. L. (1994). The impact of topic interest on mail survey response behavior. Journal of the Market Research Society, 36 (4), 327-337.
34. Mason, W., Dressel, R., & Bain, R. (1961). An experimental study of factors affecting response to a mail survey of beginning teachers. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25 (Summer), 296-299.
35. Mehta, R., & Sivadas, E. (1995). Comparing response rates and response content in mail versus electronic surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society, 4 (37), 429-440.
36. Messaging Online (2000). Microsoft finally owns up to outlook security issues [Online Newsletter]. Available: http://www.messagingonline.com/mt/html/ mt051700.html
37. Murphy, P. R., Daley, J., & Dalenberg, D. R. (1990). Improving survey responses with postcards. Industrial Marketing Management, 19, 349-355.
38. Murphy, P. R., Daley, J., & Dalenberg, D. R..(1991). Exploring the effects of postcard prenotification on industrial firms' response to mail surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society, 33 (4), 335-345.
39. NUA Internet Surveys (2000a). E-mail driving growth of office workload [Online]. Available: www.nua.ie/surveys/?f=VS&art_id=905355873&rel-= true.
40. NUA Internet Surveys (2000b). How Many Online? [online]. Available: http://www.nua.ie/surveys/how_many_online/index.html.
41. Opperman, M. (1995). E-mail surveys, potentials and pitfalls. Marketing Research. 7(3), 29-33.
42. Paolo, A. M., Bonaminio, G. A., Gibson, C., Patridge, T., & Kallail, K. (2000). Response rate comparisons of e-mail and mail distributed student evaluations. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 12 (2), 81-84.
43. Parker, L. (1992). Collecting data the e-mail way. Training and Development, 52-54.
44. Roberson, M. T., & Sundstrom, E. (1990). Survey design, return rates, and response favorableness in an employee attitude survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 354-357.
45. Schaefer, D. R., & Dillman, D. A. (1998). Development of a standard e-mail methodology: Results of an experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 3 (62), 378-390.
46. Schuldt, B. A., & Totten, J. W. (1994). Electronic mail vs. mail survey response rates. Marketing Research, 6 (1), 36-39.
47. Sheehan, K. B., & Gleason, T. (2000). Online privacy: Internet advertising practitioners' knowledge and practices. Paper presented at the Regulating the Internet: EU and US Perspectives Conference, in Seattle, Washington.
48. Sheehan, K. B., & Hoy, M. G. (1997). E-mail surveys: response patterns, process and potential. Proceedings of the 1997 Conference of the American Academy of Advertisers.
49. Sheehan, K. B., & Hoy, M. G. (1999). Using e-mail to survey internet users in the United States: Methodology and assessment. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 4 (3). [Online]. Available: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/ vol4/issue3/sheehan.html.
50. Sheehan, K. B., & McMillan, S. J. (1999). Response variation in e-mail surveys: An exploration. Journal of Advertising Research, 39 (4), 45-54.
51. Smith, C. B. (1997). Casting the net: Surveying an Internet population. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3 (1). [Online] Available: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue1/smith.html.
52. Stanton, J. M. (1998). An empirical assessment of data collection using the Internet. Personnel Psychology, 51 (3), 709-726.
53. Steele, T. J., Schwendig, W. L., & Kilpatrick, J. A. (1992). Duplicate responses to multiple survey mailings: A problem? Journal of Advertising Research, 37 (March/April), 26-34.
54. Swoboda, S. J., Muehlberger, N., Weitkunat, R., & Schneeweiss, S. (1997). Internet surveys by direct mailing: An innovative way of collecting data. Social Science Computer Review, 15 (3), 242-255.
55. Taylor, S., & Lynn, P. (1998). The effect of a preliminary notification letter on response to a postal survey of young people. Journal of the Market Research Society, 2, 40, 165-178.
56. Tomaskovic-Devey, D., Leiter, J., & Thompson, S. (1994). Organisational survey non-response. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 439-457.
57. Totten, J. W. (1999). Use of e-mail and Internet Surveys by research companies. Presented at the 1999 MAPOR Conference.
58. Tse, A. C. B., Tse, K. C., Yin, C. H., Ting, C. B., Yi, K. W., Yee, K. P., & Hong, W. C. (1995). Comparing two methods of sending out questionnaires: E-mail versus mail. Journal of the Market Research Society, 37 (4), 441-46.
59. Tse, A. (1998). Comparing the response rate, response speed & response quality of two methods of sending questionnaires: E-mail vs. mail. Journal of the Market Research Society, 40 (4), 353-361.
60. Walsh, J. P., Kiesler, S., Sproull, L. S., & Hesse, B. W. (1992). Self-selected and randomly selected respondents in a computer network survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 241-244.
61. Watt, J. H. (1999). Internet systems for evaluation research. In G. Gay & T. Bennington (eds), Information technologies in evaluation: social, moral, epistemological and practical implications (pp. 23-44). San Francisco: Josey-Bass, no. 84.
62. Weible, R., & Wallace, J. (1998). The impact of the Internet on data collection. Marketing Research, 10 (3), 19-23.
63. Yammarino, F. J., Skinner, S., & Childers, T. L. (1991). Understanding mail survey response behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 613-639.
64. Yun, G. W., & Trumbo, C.W. (2000). Comparative response to a survey executed by post, e-mail and web form. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6 (1). [Online]. Available: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/ issue1/yun.html.