Extensions of the Lost Letter Technique to Divisive Issues of Creationism, Darwinism, Sex Education, and Gay and Lesbian Affiliations

Abstract

Two field studies using 1,004 "lost letters" were designed to test the hypotheses that returned responses would be greater in small towns than from a city, that addressees' affiliation with a group either (1) opposed to physical education in schools, (2) supporting gay and lesbian teachers, or (3) advocating Creationism or Darwinism would reduce the return rate. Of 504 letters "lost" in Study A, 163 (32.3%) were returned in the mail from residents of southeast Louisiana and indicated across 3 addressees and 2 sizes of community, addressees' affiLiations were not associated with returned responses. Community size and addressees' affiliations were associated with significantly different rates of return in the city. Return rates from sites within a city were lower when letters were addressed to an organization which opposed (teaching) health education in the schools than to one supporting daily health education. Of 500 letters "lost" in Study B, 95 (19.0%) were returned from residents of northwest Florida and indicated across 5 addressees and 2 sizes of community, addressees' affiliations were significantly associated with returned responses overall (5 addressees) and in small towns (control, Creationism, Darwinism addressees), but not with community size. Community size and addressees' affiliations were associated with significantly different rates of return in small towns, with returns greater than or equal to those in the city (except for the addressee advocating teaching Darwinism in public schools). The present findings appear to show that applications of the lost letter technique to other divisive social issues are useful in assessing public opinion.

Helping Behavior as a Subtle Measure of Discrimination Against Lesbians and Gay Men: German Data and a Comparison Across Countries1

“…In all, only eight studies were identified that fulfilled our requirements. 4 Among these four studies (Ellis & Fox, 2001;Gabriel et al, 2001;Gore, Tobiasen, & Kayson, 1997;Shaw, Borough, & Fink, 1994), conducted in 4 Seven further published studies used the lost-letter technique (Milgram, Milgram, & Harter, 1965), employing addressees of (fictitious) groups or organizations related to gay and lesbian topics (Bridges, 1996;Bridges, Anzalone, Ryan, & Anzalone, 2002;Bridges & Rodriguez, 2000;Bridges, Williamson, & Jarvis, 2001;Levinson, Pesina, & Rienzi, 1993;Waugh, Plake, & Rienzi, 2000). These studies were not included in our analysis because they studied community opinions about specific political issues (e.g., gay marriage, gay and lesbian teachers), rather than attitudes toward gay men and lesbians.…”

Support for Refugee Integration in West and East Germany

“…The lost letter technique (e.g., Merritt & Fowler, 1948; Milgram, Mann, & Harter, 1965) is an unobtrusive method that allows experimental manipulations in the field. Because individuals are not aware of participating in a scientific study, this experimental paradigm is not afflicted by potential reactivity, demand effects, or strategic response biases (e.g., Bridges, Anzalone, Ryan, & Anzalone, 2002; Milgram et al, 1965). Specifically, it can be employed to assess prosocial, supportive behavior toward members of different groups or different organizations in a particular population.…”

The Misaddressed Letter Experiment

“…Recipients' addresses were chosen randomly from the telephone books for Australia's three largest cities: Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. All letters contained an invitation to a child's 1 The lost letter experiment has since been used to test attitudes towards creationism (Bridges et al 2002), same-sex marriage (Waugh, Plake and Reinzi 2000), and abortion (Kunz and Fernquist 1989). Other lost letter studies have used posting rates as a measure of altruism (Holland, Silva and Mace 2012), and explored whether posting rates vary when participants know that they are part of a research project (Fessler 2009).…”