Should Attitude Questionnaires Be Signed?

Abstract

THE following article presents the details of a study which attempted to investigate differences in responses to a pencil and paper questionnaire administered to two groups of individuals. In one group the respondents remained anonymous while in the second, respondents were identified. Three conclusions were reached. (1) Essentially the same responses were obtained for individuals in the group whether identified or anonymous. (2) Mean scores for the groups did not differ significantly.(3) These results may have been influenced by the fact that the questionnaires were administered by the staff of a university organization and respondents were repeatedly assured that the questionnaires would only be used for confidential research purposes. PURPOSEMany attempts have been made, and are presently being made, to measure employee attitudes in industry. It is often desirable to identify the respondents in such a survey so that the validity and reliability of their responses may be checked. It is possible, however, that identified respondents may give biased answers to attitude questions. Several writers in the field have expressed the belief that attitude questionnaires

Effect of anonymity on return rate and response bias in a mail survey.

“…While it generally has been assumed that respondents are less likely to fake good when responding anonymously, previous research using personality inventories and attitude questionnaires has revealed small or no dif-ferences in the response given by subjects under anonymous and under identified conditions. This finding is consistent for research in which the same individuals have been tested under both anonymous and identified conditions (Corey, 1937;Fischer, 1946;Gerberich & Mason, 1948;Olson, 1936) and when equivalent groups have been tested (Ash & Abramson, 19S2;Hamel & Reif, 1952;Kosen, Kitchen, Kochen, & Stodolosky, 1970;Rosen, 1960).…”

Employee attitudes and employee performance.

“…We have located seven studies in industrial settings which bear upon the question of the influence of anonymity upon morale or job satisfaction (3,14,17,24,29,45,58). Two studies from the Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, compare responses made by employees to morale items when the items are contained in an anonymous questionnaire and when they are part of an interview.…”

Effects of Anonymity and Social Setting on Survey Responses

“…Fuller (1974), however, concludes from her review of the literature that the risk of significant bias is relatively small. While a few researchers have found some systematic bias, others have not, even when the information is somewhat sensitive (see Fischer, 1946;Ash and Abramson, 1952;Hamel and Reif, 1952;Rosen, 1960;Backer and Bakal, 1970;Rosen et ai, 1970;Fuller, 1974). King (1970), for example, found no difference in admission of drug use, in return rate, or in response to attitudinal items in a mail survey of Dartmouth undergraduates, half of whom received questionnaires with identifying numbers, half of whom did not.…”