Effects of signed versus unsigned attitude questionnaires

A study was made to determine the effects of signed and unsigned questionnaires when confidentiality was not promised. The hypothesis was that those required to sign questionnaires would have a lower return rate than those who were allowed to remain anonymous; also a pattern difference was projected...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science Vol. 9; no. 1-2; pp. 93 - 98
Main Author Futrell, Charles M
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Greenvale Springer Nature B.V 01.12.1981
Subjects
Attitude surveys
Bank officers
Confidentiality
Effects
Population
Questionnaires
Sensitivity
Signatures
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:A study was made to determine the effects of signed and unsigned questionnaires when confidentiality was not promised. The hypothesis was that those required to sign questionnaires would have a lower return rate than those who were allowed to remain anonymous; also a pattern difference was projected. Subjects comprised bank officers who were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding job attitudes. One half of the officers were asked to sign their questionnaires and one half were not. The questionnaires were distributed by the bank's personnel office. As hypothesized, the officers who signed their questionnaires had different response patterns on sensitive issues than those who remained anonymous. The results indicated that the use of signed questionnaires containing sensitive questions produced significant measurement error and response bias on individual questions. Thus, 4 alternatives to the error/bias problem emerged: 1. Use anonymous type investigations. 2. Promise confidentiality. 3. Disguise identity of respondents. 4. Provide confidentiality and have the investigation administered by an external agency.
ISSN:0092-0703
1552-7824
DOI:10.1007/BF02723569