CHI TIẾT NGHIÊN CỨU …

Tiêu đề

E-mail subject lines and their effect on web survey viewing and response

Tác giả

Porter S.R.; Whitcomb M.E.

Năm xuất bản

2005

Source title

Social Science Computer Review

Số trích dẫn

DOI

10.1177/0894439305275912

Liên kết

https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-23444455651&doi=10.1177%2f0894439305275912&partnerID=40&md5=881908702ed8f8a79c37702ebd73c789

Tóm tắt

This article investigates the effect of e-mail subject lines on survey viewing and survey response. Using two samples of students (low involvement with the survey sponsor and high involvement with the survey sponsor), the authors tested a variety of combinations of subject lines: the reason for the e-mail contact (survey), the sponsor of the e-mail (Liberal Arts University), a plea for help (request for assistance), and a blank subject line. The authors found a modest effect of subject line for the low-involvement sample, with blank subject lines yielding the highest response. © 2005 Sage Publications.

Từ khóa

E-mail contact; Research methodology; Subject line; Survey

Tài liệu tham khảo

Carini R.M., Hayek J.C., Kuh G.D., Kennedy J.M., Ouimet J.A., College student responses to web and paper surveys: Does mode matter?, Research in Higher Education, 44, 1, pp. 1-19, (2003); Cobanoglu C., Warde B., Moreo P.J., A comparison of mail, fax and web-based survey methods, International Journal of Market Research, 43, pp. 441-452, (2001); Cook C., Heath F., Thompson R.L., A meta-analysis of response rates in web- Or Internet-based surveys, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, pp. 821-836, (2000); Couper M.P., Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches, Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, pp. 464-494, (2000); Couper M.P., Traugott M.W., Lamias M.J., Web survey design and administration, Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, pp. 250-253, (2001); Crawford S.D., Couper M.P., Lamias M.J., Web surveys: Perceptions of burden, Social Science Computer Review, 19, 2, pp. 146-162, (2001); Dillman D.A., Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, (2000); Dillman D.A., Tortora R.D., Conradt J., Bowker D.K., Influence of plain vs. fancy design on response rates for web surveys, Joint Statistical Meetings, (1998); Dommeyer C.J., Moriarty E., Comparing two forms of an email survey: Embedded vs. attached, International Journal of Market Research, 42, 1, pp. 39-50, (2000); Fox R.J., Crask M.R., Kim J., Mail survey response rate: A meta-analysis of selected techniques for inducing response, Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, pp. 467-491, (1988); Goyder J.C., Further evidence on factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires, American Sociological Review, 47, pp. 550-553, (1982); Groves R.M., Singer E., Corning A., Leverage-saliency theory of survey participation, Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, pp. 299-308, (2000); Heberlein T.A., Baumgartner R., Factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires: A quantitative analysis of the published literature, American Sociological Review, 43, pp. 447-462, (1978); Heerwegh D., Loosveldt G., Web surveys: The effect of controlling access using PIN numbers, Social Science Computer Review, 20, 1, pp. 10-21, (2002); Kaplowitz M.D., Hadlock T.D., Levine R., A comparison of web and mail survey response rates, Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 1, pp. 94-101, (2004); Kent R., Brandal H., Improving email response in a permission marketing context, International Journal of Market Research, 45, pp. 489-506, (2003); Kwak N., Radler B., A comparison between mail and web surveys: Response pattern, respondent profile, and data quality, Journal of Official Statistics, 18, pp. 257-273, (2002); Mehta R., Sivadas E., Comparing response rates and response content in mail versus electronic mail surveys, Journal of the Market Research Society, 37, pp. 429-439, (1995); Mowen J.C., Cialdini R.B., On implementing the door-in-the-face compliance technique in a business context, Journal of Marketing Research, 17, pp. 253-258, (1980); Pealer L.N., Weiler R.M., Pigg Jr. R.M., Miller D., Dorman S.M., The feasibility of a web-based surveillance system to collect health risk data from college students, Health Education & Behavior, 28, pp. 547-559, (2001); Porter S.R., Whitcomb M.E., The impact of contact type on web survey response rates, Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, pp. 579-588, (2003); Porter S.R., Whitcomb M.E., The impact of lottery incentives on student survey response rates, Research in Higher Education, 44, pp. 389-407, (2003); Sax L.J., Gilmartin S.K., Bryant A.N., Assessing response rates and nonresponse bias in web and paper surveys, Research in Higher Education, 44, pp. 409-432, (2003); Schaefer D.R., Dillman D.A., Development of a standard e-mail methodology: Results of an experiment, Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, pp. 378-397, (1998); Shannon D.M., Bradshaw C.C., A comparison of response rate, response time, and costs of mail and electronic surveys, Journal of Experimental Education, 70, 2, pp. 179-192, (2002); Smith R.M., Kiniorski K., Participation in online surveys: Results from a series of experiments, Annual Meeting of the American Association of Opinion Research, (2003); Smith T.W., Trends in nonresponse rates, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 7, pp. 157-171, (1995); Steeh C.G., Trends in nonresponse rates, 1952-1979, Public Opinion Quarterly, 59, pp. 66-77, (1981); Trouteaud A.R., How you ask counts: A test of Internet-related components of response rates to a web-based survey, Social Science Computer Review, 22, pp. 385-392, (2004); Tuten T.L., Getting Afoot in the Electronic Door: Understanding Why People Read or Delete Electronic Mail, (1997); Whitcomb M.E., Porter S.R., Email contacts: A test of complex graphical designs, Social Science Computer Review, 22, pp. 370-376, (2004); Yun G.W., Trumbo C.W., Comparative response to a survey executed by post, email and web form, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6, 1, pp. 1-25, (2000)