Participation willingness in web surveys: Exploring effect of sponsoring corporation's and survey provider's reputation

Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking

Volumn 15, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 195-199

  Fang, Jiaming ^a   Wen, Chao ^b   Pavur, Robert ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ELECTRONIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF CHINA   (China)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNET; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE;

ADULT; DATA COLLECTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84860171191     PISSN: 21522715     EISSN: 21522723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2011.0411     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Hoerger M. Participant dropout as a function of survey length in Internet-mediated university studies: implications for study design and voluntary participation in psychological research. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2010; 13:697-700.
2. Ho SC, Ting PH, Bau DY, et al. Knowledge-Sharing intention in a virtual community: a study of participants in the Chinese Wikipedia. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2011; 14:541-545.
3. Dillman, DA. (2000) Mail and Internet surveys: total design method. New York: John Wiley.
4. Manfreda KL, Batagelj Z, Vehovar V. Design of Web Survey Questionnaires: three basic experiments. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2002; 7, DOI: 10.1111/ j.1083-6101.2002.tb00149.x.
5. Bosnjak M, Tuten TL, Wittmann WW. Unit (non) response in Web-based access panel surveys: an extended plannedbehavior approach. Psychology&Marketing 2005; 22:489-505.
6. Christian LM, Dillman DA, Smyth JD. Helping respondents get it right the first time: the influence of words, symbols, and graphics in Web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 2007; 71:113-125.
7. Deutskens E, Ruyter KD, Wetzels M, et al. Response rate and response quality of Internet-based surveys: an experimental study. Marketing Letters 2004; 15:21-36.
8. Fang J, Shao P, Lan G. Effects of innovativeness and trust on Web survey participation. Computers in Human Behavior 2009; 25:144-152.
9. Göritz AS. Incentives in Web studies: methodological issues and a review. International Journal of Internet Science 2006; 21:58-70.
10. Heerwegh D. An investigation of the effect of lotteries on Web survey response rates. Field Methods 2006; 18:205-220.
11. Hoyer WD, MacInnis DJ. (2010) Consumer Behavior. 5th ed. Kentucky: South-Western/Cengage Learning.
12. Marcus B, Bosnjak M, Lindner S, et al. Compensating for low topic interest and long surveys: a field experiment in nonresponse in Web surveys. Social Science Computer Review 2007; 25:372-383.
13. Guéguen N, Jacob C. Solicitation by e-mail and solicitor's status: a field study of social influence on the Web. Cyberpsychology & Behavior 2002; 5:377-383.
14. Heerwegh D, Loosveldt G. An experimental study on the effects of personalization, survey length statements, progress indicators, and survey sponsor logos in Web surveys. Journal of Official Statistics 2006; 22:191-210.
15. Fan W, Yan Z. Factors affecting response rates of the Web survey: a systematic review. Computers in Human Behaviour 2010; 26:132-139.
16. Lee BC, Ang L, Dubelaar C. Lemons on the Web: a signalling approach to the problem of trust in Internet commerce. Journal of Economic Psychology 2005; 26:607-623.
17. Purohit D, Srivastava J. Effect of manufacturer reputation, retailer reputation, and product warranty on consumer judgments of product quality: a cue diagnosticity framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2001; 10:123-134.
18. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. (1994) Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
19. Kim D, Ferrin D, Rao HR. A trust-based consumer decisionmaking model in electronic commerce: the role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents. Decision Support Systems 2008; 44:544-564.