- Email: [email protected]
Effects of signed versus unsigned internally administered questionnaires for managers
Effects of Signed versus Unsigned Internally Administered Questionnaires for Managers Charles M. Futrell Donald E. Stem, Jr. Bill D. Fortune, Texas A&M University
An assessment was made of the effects of signed and unsigned questionnaires on return rates and response patterns to sensitive and nonsensitive items when respondent confidentiality was not promised. The subjects were 126 grocery store managers who responded to a job attitude questionnaire internally administered by their firm’s personnel office. Response patterns were found to be influenced by signing questionnaires. There were no differences in response rates between groups.
Survey research designs commonly require the identification of individual respondents. Examples include studies that require matching of data from subordinates with data from supervisors and longitudinal studies comparing the same individuals over time. Respondents can be identified by either of two basic methods. One method is to request that each respondent sign the questionnaire. The other method is indirect. It includes a range of techniques, from the use of openly numbered or coded questionnaires to disguised identification by such means as code numbers under stamps on return envelopes. Without the protection of anonymity, respondents may not return the questionnaire or may fail to answer certain questions. Even if response is unbiased, measurement error may be introduced by normative responses [ lo]. Some researchers have found that a lack of anonymity does not influence results [ 1, 3, 4, 9, 1 l131. However, opposite findings also have been reported [ 2, 8, 10, 14, 161 . Although many studies have involved college students in an educational setting [3, 4, 10, 151, no empirical study done in a managerial setting was found in an extensive review of the literature. Address correspondence to: Charles M. Futrell, College of Business Administration, Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas 77843. JOURNAL
OFBUSINESSRESEARCH
0 Elsevier North-Holland, Inc., 1978
6 (1978),
91
91-98 0148-2963/78/0006-0091$01.25
92
Charles M. Futrell,
Donald
E. Stem,
Jr., and Bill D. Fortune
The usual argument with respect to sensitivity is that some respondents may fear adverse consequences if certain questions are answered frankly. Fear of ridicule, mistrust, or other forms of punishment all act to influence response [ 161. Even if questions are sensitive, an explicit promise of confidentiality may make anonymity unnecessary from the respondent’s point of view. This argument has been used to explain the finding of no differences in response patterns between identified and unidentified respondents [ 3, 121. However, prior research on confidentiality is difficult to evaluate because many researchers do not state whether or not an explicit promise of confidentiality was made [ 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13- 151. Furthermore, the sensitivity of questions in prior research has been defined on a judgmental basis by the investigator [ 151 or by individuals considered to have expert knowledge of the respondents [3]. Sensitivity was not measured by use of members of the survey population. The validity of these alternate methods is unknown because the respondents’ perceptions of the questions may have been different from those of the researcher or expert observer. The main purpose of this study was to determine the effects of signed and unsigned questionnaires when confidentiality is not promised on a management attitude questionnaire administered by a firm’s personnel office. The hypothesis was that managers who were required to sign their questionnaires would have lower return rates than individuals who were allowed to remain anonymous and would have different response patterns. Method A self-administered questionnaire was designed to collect information on employee attitudes toward various facets of their job, for example, job satisfaction, effort expended on the job, job involvement, extent of looking for another job, and demographic information. The questionnaires were distributed by the firm’s personnel office to 130 managers in their retail grocery stores. The respondents were instructed to return the questionnaires to the personnel office. No mention was made of confidentiality. By computerized random number generation, one-half of the managers were chosen to return their questionnaires unsigned. Two follow-up letters from the personnel office were used to encourage participation. To strengthen the operational definition of sensitivity for this
Effects
of Signed
versus
Unsigned
Questionnaires
93
study, five managers from the population to be measured were selected randomly to rate each of the items on the questionnaires as to its degree of sensitivity from the viewpoint of the manager. They were then excluded from the sample. A 5-point scale was used with 0 equal to “not sensitive,” 1 equal to slightly sensitive,” 2 equal to “definitely sensitive,” 3 equal to “very sensitive,” and 4 The degree of sensitivity was sensitive.” equal to “critically defined as the extent to which an adverse effect (e.g., supervisor pressure) could potentially occur to the manager as a result of how he answered the question. To assess the reliability of this technique, the Spearman-Brown formula was applied to determine the extent of agreement among the five raters of 30 randomly selected questions 161. The resultant reliability coefficient of .72 indicates a fairly high degree of consistency among the raters. The five managers gave low sensitivity ratings (0 and 1) on most of the items. Eight questions received a value of “0” (not sensitive). Questions 1 through 4 (see Table 1) were from the Job Descriptive Index and used scale values of 0, 1, and 3 [ 191. Educational level was measured with a single multiple choice question using high school graduate, some college, college graduate, some graduate school, masters graduate, and other-specify as possible responses with values of 1 through 6, respectively. The length of employment question was an open-ended question in years. The respondents’ size of town in which raised was determined with a single multiple choice question using less than 10,000, 10,000 to 100,000, 100,000 to 1 ,OOO,OOO, and over 1 ,OOO,OOOas possible responses with values of 1 through 4, respectively. Seven questions were given a value of 4 (critically sensitive). Sensitive questions I through 4 (see Table 1) used 7-point scales ranging from “To No Extent” through “To A Very Great Extent.” Question 5 employed a single multiple choice question, with possible responses in increments of 10%. The 1 represented none and 8 being 6 1% and over. Sensitive question 6 had scales ranging from “Definitely Disagree” (1) through “Definitely Agree” (5). Question 7 used a single multiple choice scale ranging from “No Bias” (1) through “A Great Deal of Bias” (7). Analysis and Results If a respondent preferred anonymity but was in the identified group, he had the choice of either not returning the questionnaire,
94
Charles M. Futrell,
Donald E. Stem, Jr., and Bill D. Fortune
omitting questions, or giving answers that expressed more favorable behavior than he would choose under anonymity. Of the 130 managers, 126 (97%) responded. The anonymous group had 64 (99%) respondents and the identified group had 62 (95%) respondents. Thus, there was no significant difference in the response rates between identified and anonymous groups (p = .346) [ 181. Mann-Whitney U tests were completed between the patterns of response for the unsigned and the signed questionnaires [ 171. As shown in Table 1, the patterns of response did not vary significantly for the nonsensitive questions. Statistically significant differences occurred on six of the seven sensitive questions. The difference in responses between the groups for question 6 was not significant (c, = .066) [ 171. An examination of the direction of the sensitive question means shows that the managers who did not sign their questionnaires tended to answer sensitive questions that indicate they are (1) more intense in looking for another job, (2) expending less energy on the job, (3) practicing pilferage to a greater extent, (4) falsifying more reports, and (5) viewing minority employees less favorably than the managers who signed their questionnaires. The fact that all differences are in the predicted direction indicates a consistent measurement error due to forced identification of the respondents. A sign test indicates that the probability of this error being due to chance is ,016 [ 171. The anonymous group answered all of the questions, with the exception of one manager who omitted one sensitive question. Among the identified group, the number of omitted questions per respondent ranged from four to zero. The mean number of omitted sensitive questions for the identified group was .35, whereas the mean for the anonymous group was only .02. A t-test indicates that this difference is significant at p < ,005 (t = 3.272). Discussion As hypothesized, the managers who were identified had different response patterns on sensitive issues than managers who were allowed to remain anonymous. Significant differences were found in the number of sensitive items omitted, the identified group omitting a greater number of sensitive questions per respondent. Significant differences in mean ratings also were found for the sensitive questions, the identified group producing uniformly more
Effects
of Signed
versus Unsigned
95
Questionnaires
Table 1: Mean Scores and Results of U-Test for Significant Differences between Unsigned and Signed Groups for Nonsensitive and Sensitive Questions Mean Score Questions Nonsensitive
Signed
Z
2.68
2.70
0.19
2.26 2.59 2.08 33.00 2.50 4.10
2.15 2.56 2.16 33.00 2.56 4.15
0.72 0.10 0.59 0.00 0.09 0.47
2.00
2.10
0.41
1.78
1.10
1.6ja
3.25
2.27
1 .96a
3.38
1.98
2.40b
2.80
4.25
2.30b
3.10
I .lO
2.6jb
3.50
3.65
1.50
3.75
2.25
2.25a
questions
1. My co-workers are fast. 2. My co-workers are easy to make enemies. 3. My co-workers talk too much. 4. My work is hot. 5. Age 6. Level of education 7. Length of time of employment 8. Size of town raised during childhood Sensitive
Unsigned
questions
1. To what extent are you presently seeking to change jobs? 2. To what extent do you falsify reports to management to improve the way your work looks to your superior? 3. To what extent do you take merchandise from the store without paying for it? 4. To what extent do you put in a full working day? 5. Some persons claim American workers are not turning out as much work each day as they should. If you wanted to. how much more work could you accomplish each day? 6. In my job I feel that I have accomplished something worthwhile at the end of a working day. 7. What is your attitude toward minority employees? a Significant b Significant
at p G 0.05. at p G 0.01.
96
Charles M. Futrell,
Donald
E. Stem, Jr., and Bill D. Fortune
normative responses. However, overall response rates between groups were not different, most likely because of the pressure exerted by the personnal department to return the questionnaires. Other researchers [ 3, 151 who found no differences in response patterns due to anonymity did not use ratings by population members to classify questions on sensitivity. In addition, both identified and anonymous groups were promised confidentiality. Such promises would tend to nullify any differences in the degree of risk perceived by the identified and anonymous groups. The magnitude of this effect would logically depend on the credibility of the individual or organization promising the confidentiality. In this study respondent ratings were used and no actual or implied promise of confidentiality was made (e.g., “results will be reported as a group”). Because of this methodology, differences in the perceived risk of non-normative responses were not equalized between groups. The use of a sub-sample of population members to rate question sensitivity also may have helped by insuring the use of questions that were truly sensitive for the population being measured. Anonymity may not be necessary for some types of questions in certain populations. Anonymity studies have produced mixed results. These differences may be due to such factors as varying degrees of risk perceived by respondents, different levels of sensitivity, and promises of confidentiality. The results of this study indicate that the use of signed questionnaires containing sensitive questions will produce significant measurement error as well as response bias on individual questions. Given these effects. the firm appears to have four alternatives for the investigation of sensitive issues among its managers. The first is to restrict the investigations to areas that do not require respondent identification. This is not a satisfactory alternative because such studies preclude investigation of longitudinal or supervisory effects. A second alternative is to promise confidentiality to the respondent and restrict distribution of data, allowing only selected individuals within the personnel department access to individual responses. This method, although an improvement, may not be as effective in reducing measurement error or response bias because of the possible lack of credibility of an internal agency. The third alternative is to use the technique of disguised identification of respondents. The question of whether or not to use this technique is of particular concern today because the firm
Effects of Signed
versus
Unsigned
Questionnaires
97
must weigh the increased accuracy of results against the mores of American society in deciding which action is acceptable. One researcher found that about 70% of the line marketing executives and marketing research directors believed that disguised identification is not ethical if the cover letter refers to an anonymous survey [5]. In some states, a promise of anonymity not kept could be the basis of a civil law suit [6]. The final choice is slightly more expensive but may offer the greatest protection against such effects. Confidentiality of the responses would be promised as in the second choice. However, in this case the study would be administered by an external agency such as a management consultant or academic researcher. The findings of the study then could be reported on a group basis to the organization. This approach seems the most appropriate for the company studied.
References 1.
Ash, Philip, Questionaire
and Abromson, Edward, The Effect of Anonymity on AttitudeResponse, J. Abnorm. Sot. Psychol. 47 (July, 1952): 722-723.
2.
Benson, (March,
3.
Butler, Richard P., Effects of Signed and Unsigned Questionaires for Both Sensitive and Nonsensitive Items,J. Appl. Psycho/. 57 (June, 1973): 348-349.
4.
Corey, Stephen M., Signed Versus Unsigned Psycho/. 28 (February, 1937): 144-148.
5.
Crawford, Research,
6.
Cronbach, Lee J., Essentials of Psychological New York, 1970, p. 161.
I.
Dickson, John P., Casey, Michael J., and Wyckoff, Daniel W., The Invisible Ink Caper-or a Watergate Mentality in Marketing Research Ethics, in Proceedings, American Institute for Decision Sciences, Howard C. Schneider, ed., 1916, p. 214.
8.
Elinson, Jack, and Haines, Valerie Am. Psychol. 5 (July, 1950): 315.
9.
Evans, Chester R., Item Structure Variation as a Methodological Employee Survey, Am. Psychol. 4 (July, 1949): 280.
Lawrence E., Studies 1941): 79-82.
in Secret-Ballot
Attitude
C. M., Attitudes of Marketing Executives J. Marketing 34 (April, 1970): 46-52.
10.
Fuller, Carol, Effect of Anonymity Survey, J. Appl. Psychol. 59 (June,
11.
Gerberich, J. B., and Mason, Educ. Res. 42 (October, 1948):
Public Opinion Q. 5
Technique,
Questionaires,
Toward
Testing,
Ethics
in Attitude
on Return Rate and Response 1974): 292-296. Versus
in Marketing
3rd ed., Harper
T., Role of Anonymity
J. M., Signed 122-126.
J. E&K.
Unsigned
& Row,
Surveys,
Problem
in an
Bias in a Mail Questionaire,
J.
98 12.
Charles Hamel,
La Verne,
M. Futrell, and
Donald E. Stem,
Keil, Hans C., Should 1952): 87-91.
Jr., and Bill D. Fortune
Attitude
Questionaires
be Signed,
Personnel Psvchol. 5 (Summer, 13.
Koson, D., Kitchen, C., Kochen, M., and Stodolosky, D., Psychological Testing by Computer: Effect on Response Bias, Educ. Psychol. Measurement 30 (Winter, 1970): 803-810.
14.
Olson, Willard C., The Waiver 20 (August, 1936): 442-450.
15.
Pearlin, Leonard I., The Appeals of Anonymity Opinion Q. 2.5 (Winter, 1961): 640-647.
16.
Rosen, Ned A., Anonymity (Winter, 1960): 675-679.
17.
Siegel, Sidney, Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, New York, 1956, Appendix, p. 250.
McGraw-Hill,
18.
Snedecor, George W., and Cochran, William G., Statistical Methods, Iowa State University Press, Ames, 1967, p. 549.
6th ed., The
19.
of Signature
and
Attitude
in Personal
Reports,
in Questionaire
Measurement,
J. Appl.
Psych.
Response,
Public
Public Opinion Q. 24
Smith, Patricia Cain, Rendall, Lorne M., and Hulin, Charles L., The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement: A Strategy for the Study of Attitudes, Rand McNally and Company, Chicago, 1969.
An assessment was made of the effects of signed and unsigned questionnaires on return rates and response patterns to sensitive and nonsensitive items when respondent confidentiality was not promised. The subjects were 126 grocery store managers who responded to a job attitude questionnaire internally administered by their firm’s personnel office. Response patterns were found to be influenced by signing questionnaires. There were no differences in response rates between groups.
Survey research designs commonly require the identification of individual respondents. Examples include studies that require matching of data from subordinates with data from supervisors and longitudinal studies comparing the same individuals over time. Respondents can be identified by either of two basic methods. One method is to request that each respondent sign the questionnaire. The other method is indirect. It includes a range of techniques, from the use of openly numbered or coded questionnaires to disguised identification by such means as code numbers under stamps on return envelopes. Without the protection of anonymity, respondents may not return the questionnaire or may fail to answer certain questions. Even if response is unbiased, measurement error may be introduced by normative responses [ lo]. Some researchers have found that a lack of anonymity does not influence results [ 1, 3, 4, 9, 1 l131. However, opposite findings also have been reported [ 2, 8, 10, 14, 161 . Although many studies have involved college students in an educational setting [3, 4, 10, 151, no empirical study done in a managerial setting was found in an extensive review of the literature. Address correspondence to: Charles M. Futrell, College of Business Administration, Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas 77843. JOURNAL
OFBUSINESSRESEARCH
0 Elsevier North-Holland, Inc., 1978
6 (1978),
91
91-98 0148-2963/78/0006-0091$01.25
92
Charles M. Futrell,
Donald
E. Stem,
Jr., and Bill D. Fortune
The usual argument with respect to sensitivity is that some respondents may fear adverse consequences if certain questions are answered frankly. Fear of ridicule, mistrust, or other forms of punishment all act to influence response [ 161. Even if questions are sensitive, an explicit promise of confidentiality may make anonymity unnecessary from the respondent’s point of view. This argument has been used to explain the finding of no differences in response patterns between identified and unidentified respondents [ 3, 121. However, prior research on confidentiality is difficult to evaluate because many researchers do not state whether or not an explicit promise of confidentiality was made [ 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13- 151. Furthermore, the sensitivity of questions in prior research has been defined on a judgmental basis by the investigator [ 151 or by individuals considered to have expert knowledge of the respondents [3]. Sensitivity was not measured by use of members of the survey population. The validity of these alternate methods is unknown because the respondents’ perceptions of the questions may have been different from those of the researcher or expert observer. The main purpose of this study was to determine the effects of signed and unsigned questionnaires when confidentiality is not promised on a management attitude questionnaire administered by a firm’s personnel office. The hypothesis was that managers who were required to sign their questionnaires would have lower return rates than individuals who were allowed to remain anonymous and would have different response patterns. Method A self-administered questionnaire was designed to collect information on employee attitudes toward various facets of their job, for example, job satisfaction, effort expended on the job, job involvement, extent of looking for another job, and demographic information. The questionnaires were distributed by the firm’s personnel office to 130 managers in their retail grocery stores. The respondents were instructed to return the questionnaires to the personnel office. No mention was made of confidentiality. By computerized random number generation, one-half of the managers were chosen to return their questionnaires unsigned. Two follow-up letters from the personnel office were used to encourage participation. To strengthen the operational definition of sensitivity for this
Effects
of Signed
versus
Unsigned
Questionnaires
93
study, five managers from the population to be measured were selected randomly to rate each of the items on the questionnaires as to its degree of sensitivity from the viewpoint of the manager. They were then excluded from the sample. A 5-point scale was used with 0 equal to “not sensitive,” 1 equal to slightly sensitive,” 2 equal to “definitely sensitive,” 3 equal to “very sensitive,” and 4 The degree of sensitivity was sensitive.” equal to “critically defined as the extent to which an adverse effect (e.g., supervisor pressure) could potentially occur to the manager as a result of how he answered the question. To assess the reliability of this technique, the Spearman-Brown formula was applied to determine the extent of agreement among the five raters of 30 randomly selected questions 161. The resultant reliability coefficient of .72 indicates a fairly high degree of consistency among the raters. The five managers gave low sensitivity ratings (0 and 1) on most of the items. Eight questions received a value of “0” (not sensitive). Questions 1 through 4 (see Table 1) were from the Job Descriptive Index and used scale values of 0, 1, and 3 [ 191. Educational level was measured with a single multiple choice question using high school graduate, some college, college graduate, some graduate school, masters graduate, and other-specify as possible responses with values of 1 through 6, respectively. The length of employment question was an open-ended question in years. The respondents’ size of town in which raised was determined with a single multiple choice question using less than 10,000, 10,000 to 100,000, 100,000 to 1 ,OOO,OOO, and over 1 ,OOO,OOOas possible responses with values of 1 through 4, respectively. Seven questions were given a value of 4 (critically sensitive). Sensitive questions I through 4 (see Table 1) used 7-point scales ranging from “To No Extent” through “To A Very Great Extent.” Question 5 employed a single multiple choice question, with possible responses in increments of 10%. The 1 represented none and 8 being 6 1% and over. Sensitive question 6 had scales ranging from “Definitely Disagree” (1) through “Definitely Agree” (5). Question 7 used a single multiple choice scale ranging from “No Bias” (1) through “A Great Deal of Bias” (7). Analysis and Results If a respondent preferred anonymity but was in the identified group, he had the choice of either not returning the questionnaire,
94
Charles M. Futrell,
Donald E. Stem, Jr., and Bill D. Fortune
omitting questions, or giving answers that expressed more favorable behavior than he would choose under anonymity. Of the 130 managers, 126 (97%) responded. The anonymous group had 64 (99%) respondents and the identified group had 62 (95%) respondents. Thus, there was no significant difference in the response rates between identified and anonymous groups (p = .346) [ 181. Mann-Whitney U tests were completed between the patterns of response for the unsigned and the signed questionnaires [ 171. As shown in Table 1, the patterns of response did not vary significantly for the nonsensitive questions. Statistically significant differences occurred on six of the seven sensitive questions. The difference in responses between the groups for question 6 was not significant (c, = .066) [ 171. An examination of the direction of the sensitive question means shows that the managers who did not sign their questionnaires tended to answer sensitive questions that indicate they are (1) more intense in looking for another job, (2) expending less energy on the job, (3) practicing pilferage to a greater extent, (4) falsifying more reports, and (5) viewing minority employees less favorably than the managers who signed their questionnaires. The fact that all differences are in the predicted direction indicates a consistent measurement error due to forced identification of the respondents. A sign test indicates that the probability of this error being due to chance is ,016 [ 171. The anonymous group answered all of the questions, with the exception of one manager who omitted one sensitive question. Among the identified group, the number of omitted questions per respondent ranged from four to zero. The mean number of omitted sensitive questions for the identified group was .35, whereas the mean for the anonymous group was only .02. A t-test indicates that this difference is significant at p < ,005 (t = 3.272). Discussion As hypothesized, the managers who were identified had different response patterns on sensitive issues than managers who were allowed to remain anonymous. Significant differences were found in the number of sensitive items omitted, the identified group omitting a greater number of sensitive questions per respondent. Significant differences in mean ratings also were found for the sensitive questions, the identified group producing uniformly more
Effects
of Signed
versus Unsigned
95
Questionnaires
Table 1: Mean Scores and Results of U-Test for Significant Differences between Unsigned and Signed Groups for Nonsensitive and Sensitive Questions Mean Score Questions Nonsensitive
Signed
Z
2.68
2.70
0.19
2.26 2.59 2.08 33.00 2.50 4.10
2.15 2.56 2.16 33.00 2.56 4.15
0.72 0.10 0.59 0.00 0.09 0.47
2.00
2.10
0.41
1.78
1.10
1.6ja
3.25
2.27
1 .96a
3.38
1.98
2.40b
2.80
4.25
2.30b
3.10
I .lO
2.6jb
3.50
3.65
1.50
3.75
2.25
2.25a
questions
1. My co-workers are fast. 2. My co-workers are easy to make enemies. 3. My co-workers talk too much. 4. My work is hot. 5. Age 6. Level of education 7. Length of time of employment 8. Size of town raised during childhood Sensitive
Unsigned
questions
1. To what extent are you presently seeking to change jobs? 2. To what extent do you falsify reports to management to improve the way your work looks to your superior? 3. To what extent do you take merchandise from the store without paying for it? 4. To what extent do you put in a full working day? 5. Some persons claim American workers are not turning out as much work each day as they should. If you wanted to. how much more work could you accomplish each day? 6. In my job I feel that I have accomplished something worthwhile at the end of a working day. 7. What is your attitude toward minority employees? a Significant b Significant
at p G 0.05. at p G 0.01.
96
Charles M. Futrell,
Donald
E. Stem, Jr., and Bill D. Fortune
normative responses. However, overall response rates between groups were not different, most likely because of the pressure exerted by the personnal department to return the questionnaires. Other researchers [ 3, 151 who found no differences in response patterns due to anonymity did not use ratings by population members to classify questions on sensitivity. In addition, both identified and anonymous groups were promised confidentiality. Such promises would tend to nullify any differences in the degree of risk perceived by the identified and anonymous groups. The magnitude of this effect would logically depend on the credibility of the individual or organization promising the confidentiality. In this study respondent ratings were used and no actual or implied promise of confidentiality was made (e.g., “results will be reported as a group”). Because of this methodology, differences in the perceived risk of non-normative responses were not equalized between groups. The use of a sub-sample of population members to rate question sensitivity also may have helped by insuring the use of questions that were truly sensitive for the population being measured. Anonymity may not be necessary for some types of questions in certain populations. Anonymity studies have produced mixed results. These differences may be due to such factors as varying degrees of risk perceived by respondents, different levels of sensitivity, and promises of confidentiality. The results of this study indicate that the use of signed questionnaires containing sensitive questions will produce significant measurement error as well as response bias on individual questions. Given these effects. the firm appears to have four alternatives for the investigation of sensitive issues among its managers. The first is to restrict the investigations to areas that do not require respondent identification. This is not a satisfactory alternative because such studies preclude investigation of longitudinal or supervisory effects. A second alternative is to promise confidentiality to the respondent and restrict distribution of data, allowing only selected individuals within the personnel department access to individual responses. This method, although an improvement, may not be as effective in reducing measurement error or response bias because of the possible lack of credibility of an internal agency. The third alternative is to use the technique of disguised identification of respondents. The question of whether or not to use this technique is of particular concern today because the firm
Effects of Signed
versus
Unsigned
Questionnaires
97
must weigh the increased accuracy of results against the mores of American society in deciding which action is acceptable. One researcher found that about 70% of the line marketing executives and marketing research directors believed that disguised identification is not ethical if the cover letter refers to an anonymous survey [5]. In some states, a promise of anonymity not kept could be the basis of a civil law suit [6]. The final choice is slightly more expensive but may offer the greatest protection against such effects. Confidentiality of the responses would be promised as in the second choice. However, in this case the study would be administered by an external agency such as a management consultant or academic researcher. The findings of the study then could be reported on a group basis to the organization. This approach seems the most appropriate for the company studied.
References 1.
Ash, Philip, Questionaire
and Abromson, Edward, The Effect of Anonymity on AttitudeResponse, J. Abnorm. Sot. Psychol. 47 (July, 1952): 722-723.
2.
Benson, (March,
3.
Butler, Richard P., Effects of Signed and Unsigned Questionaires for Both Sensitive and Nonsensitive Items,J. Appl. Psycho/. 57 (June, 1973): 348-349.
4.
Corey, Stephen M., Signed Versus Unsigned Psycho/. 28 (February, 1937): 144-148.
5.
Crawford, Research,
6.
Cronbach, Lee J., Essentials of Psychological New York, 1970, p. 161.
I.
Dickson, John P., Casey, Michael J., and Wyckoff, Daniel W., The Invisible Ink Caper-or a Watergate Mentality in Marketing Research Ethics, in Proceedings, American Institute for Decision Sciences, Howard C. Schneider, ed., 1916, p. 214.
8.
Elinson, Jack, and Haines, Valerie Am. Psychol. 5 (July, 1950): 315.
9.
Evans, Chester R., Item Structure Variation as a Methodological Employee Survey, Am. Psychol. 4 (July, 1949): 280.
Lawrence E., Studies 1941): 79-82.
in Secret-Ballot
Attitude
C. M., Attitudes of Marketing Executives J. Marketing 34 (April, 1970): 46-52.
10.
Fuller, Carol, Effect of Anonymity Survey, J. Appl. Psychol. 59 (June,
11.
Gerberich, J. B., and Mason, Educ. Res. 42 (October, 1948):
Public Opinion Q. 5
Technique,
Questionaires,
Toward
Testing,
Ethics
in Attitude
on Return Rate and Response 1974): 292-296. Versus
in Marketing
3rd ed., Harper
T., Role of Anonymity
J. M., Signed 122-126.
J. E&K.
Unsigned
& Row,
Surveys,
Problem
in an
Bias in a Mail Questionaire,
J.
98 12.
Charles Hamel,
La Verne,
M. Futrell, and
Donald E. Stem,
Keil, Hans C., Should 1952): 87-91.
Jr., and Bill D. Fortune
Attitude
Questionaires
be Signed,
Personnel Psvchol. 5 (Summer, 13.
Koson, D., Kitchen, C., Kochen, M., and Stodolosky, D., Psychological Testing by Computer: Effect on Response Bias, Educ. Psychol. Measurement 30 (Winter, 1970): 803-810.
14.
Olson, Willard C., The Waiver 20 (August, 1936): 442-450.
15.
Pearlin, Leonard I., The Appeals of Anonymity Opinion Q. 2.5 (Winter, 1961): 640-647.
16.
Rosen, Ned A., Anonymity (Winter, 1960): 675-679.
17.
Siegel, Sidney, Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, New York, 1956, Appendix, p. 250.
McGraw-Hill,
18.
Snedecor, George W., and Cochran, William G., Statistical Methods, Iowa State University Press, Ames, 1967, p. 549.
6th ed., The
19.
of Signature
and
Attitude
in Personal
Reports,
in Questionaire
Measurement,
J. Appl.
Psych.
Response,
Public
Public Opinion Q. 24
Smith, Patricia Cain, Rendall, Lorne M., and Hulin, Charles L., The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement: A Strategy for the Study of Attitudes, Rand McNally and Company, Chicago, 1969.