The Effect of Communication Medium On Research Participation Decisions

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
The Effect of Communication Medium on

Research Participation Decisions
Thomas Chesney
Nottingham University Business School
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/11/3/877/4617720 by guest on 19 November 2021

Students are often used in research as research subjects or to validate/pilot question-
naires. It is known that response rates to requests to participate in research projects
vary as a function of a number of factors. This research brief examines the effect of the
communication medium on response rate by comparing an oral request for participa-
tion with an email request. Email and oral communication, specifically public oral
communication, are the two easiest and presumably most common approaches faculty
members have to access students to request their participation in research. Results show
that an impersonal email to a mailing list is the worst way researchers can approach
students to request participation, with there being no difference between making the
request by personalized email or orally.
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00040.x
Background
Students are often used in research as research subjects or to validate/pilot ques-
tionnaires. It is known that response rates to requests to participate in research
projects vary as a function of a number of factors such as: a letter sent to forewarn
that the request is to be made (Brunner & Carroll, 1969), incentives such as money
(Singer, Van Hoewyk, Gebler, Raghunathan, & McGonagle, 1999), the questionnaire
length, design and the number of difficult questions (Dillman, Sinclair, & Clark,
1993), how interesting the topic is to the respondent (Groves, Singer, & Corning,
2000), and the use of follow up methods (Roscoe, Lang, & Sheth, 1975). Persuasive-
ness has been found to be dependent on a large number of factors including the
vividness of the message (Frey & Eagly, 1993), the attractiveness of the speaker
(DeBono & Harnish, 1988) and the mood of the recipient (Raghunathan & Trope,
2002).
This research brief examines the effect of the communication medium on
response rate by comparing an oral request for participation with an email request.
Numerous studies have compared one communication channel with another (e.g.,
Lana, 1963; McGinnies, 1965). However, there is little point in comparing two
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11 (2006) 877–883 ª 2006 International Communication Association 877
channels without considering how appropriate they are to communicators, in this
case faculty members, to meet their specific goals (Rosnow & Robinson, 1967). The
choice of email and oral communication, specifically public oral communication, is
therefore not arbitrary. These are the two easiest and presumably most common
approaches faculty members have to access students to request their participation in
research—by asking students in a lecture or tutorial, or by using a class email list.
(Asking students in a tutorial to participate is a public oral request as opposed to
asking one student after class, which would be private oral.) Both of these techniques

are more convenient than making the request by some other means, for example,
telephone or letter.
This work offers a straight comparison of the effectiveness of the two techniques
that will be of interest to researchers who use students in their studies.
Oral versus Email

It is difficult to predict whether an email communication will have a better or worse
response than an oral one. Previous research into response rates has provided mixed
and unexpected results. For instance, Yammarino, Skinner, and Childers (1991), in
a meta-analysis of 115 studies, found preliminary notification and follow-ups, inclu-
sion of a return envelope with postage, and monetary incentives, were effective in
increasing mail survey response rates. However Tuten, Bosnjak, and Bandilla (2000)
found that response rate was lower when respondents had a chance to win a prize
than when it was pointed out that they were being given the chance to contribute to
science. Conventional wisdom says that in surveys, personal questions should be
asked last (see for instance: http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/bowater/research/pdf/
questionnaire_design.pdf), but Frick, Bächtinger, and Reips (1999) found that when
they were asked first in web-based surveys, fewer drop-outs occurred.
When a request is made orally in a lecture hall a number of factors that have
a potential impact on the decision to participate are on display that are less visible
in an email. The recipients will all be aware of the source’s age, sex, and attractiveness.
In addition, the source will be close to the recipients. Leverage-saliency theory (Groves
et al., 2000) states that people vary in the importance they assign to characteristics of
requests such as these, and that this importance influences whether they agree to
participate. Previous studies suggest that a recipient relies more on these character-
istics to make a decision when they cannot understand the message (Chaikin, 1980;
Petty & Cacioppo, 1981), or when the characteristics are more vivid (Pallak, 1983).
Moon (1999) studied the impact of two of these characteristics on persuasion via
computer-mediated communication: the physical distance between source and
recipient, and response latency (RL) (how long it takes the source to respond to
any messages the recipients may send). She found a relationship between closeness
and persuasion: Persuasion was greater the nearer the source was to the recipient. A
relationship was also found with RL: Medium RL led to increased persuasion com-
pared with long and short RLs.
878 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11 (2006) 877–883 ª 2006 International Communication Association
It is difficult to generalize from these findings to the real world communication
of the oral request. It may be expected that an oral request will have a better impact
than an email one as the source is close to the recipients. However, any response to
questions about the request would be immediate (short RL) and might negate this.
Closeness may have an impact because it affects attraction (Pallak, 1983) and like-
ability (Chaiken, 1980). Therefore if the source is likable and attractive, the oral
request may be expected to do better.
Latane (1981) proposes a theory of social impact that specifies the effect one

person has on another. The theory states that the target of a request will be affected
by the number of people making the request, the immediacy of the request, and the
strength of the request. The theory proposes that the more people who are present
making the request, the more likely the target is to agree to participate. When an
email is sent, even if the sender’s address indicates that it comes from a group or an
organization, it is likely that most people will assume that only one person has
written it. This might mean that, in terms of the number of people making the
request, there would be no perceived difference between an email and oral commu-
nication. The immediacy of the request refers to how close the source is to the target.
The oral communication will naturally will be more immediate than an email com-
munication. This suggests that, all else being equal, the oral channel will have more
success than the electronic one. The strength of the request refers to the importance
of the source to the target and encompasses factors such as age, sex, status, and
power. So a head of school might expect to get a higher response than a junior
member of staff. Some of these indications of strength will naturally be more visible
in the oral communication than in the email which suggests that if the source has
high strength, oral will be more successful than email communication.
This leads to the first hypothesis. Given the mixed results of previous research, it
has been left directionless:
H1: There will be a difference in the responses received when a request for participation is
made orally and when it is made by email.
If this is correct, it will be of interest to examine the email and oral conditions
more closely. Latane’s (1981) theory also states that the source’s request will be
diminished according to the size of the target audience. It might be expected, there-
fore, that a personal email to each individual in the group will have a higher response
rate than one email sent to a mailing list:
H2: Emails sent to individuals will get a higher response than emails sent to a group.
Experiments on conformity such as that conducted by Asch (1955) show that the
responses of others in a group have an impact on the response of an individual. It is
possible that in a lecture/tutorial, the more people who agree to participate, the more
likely an individual will be to participate:
H3: Responses to an oral request will be greater when potential respondents perceive that
a large number of their peers have already agreed to take part.
Method
Two hundred and eighty two final year business school undergraduate students
taking a strategic management module were used as the sample. The author was
not a tutor on this module and did not teach this group of students on any other
module. Each student was requested to participate in a research project. The depen-
dent variable was their response, yes or no. For the purposes of teaching, the class was
split into 18 tutorial groups. All the students in each tutorial group were randomly

assigned to one of four conditions. Those assigned to Condition 1 were sent an
individual, personal email with the request shown below. The email began with
‘‘Dear’’ followed by the student’s name. Those in Condition 2 were put into a mailing
list which was used to send one, impersonal email with the same request. This email
started ‘‘Dear all.’’ Students in Conditions 1 and 2 were asked to indicate their
agreement to participate by emailing back and saying so.
Under Conditions 3 and 4, an oral request was made to the tutorial class. To
ensure that all conditions received the same message, exactly the same request was
spoken out loud in the tutorials using exactly the same wording as the email. After
the request was spoken, if there were any questions, they were either answered by
referring to the text that had just been read out, or they were told that answering the
question at this time would interfere with the research. Under Condition 3, a blank
sheet of paper was passed around the class immediately after the request was made.
People willing to participate were asked to write their names on it. Under Condition
4, the sheet of paper already had a large number of names signed up to participate.
It should be noted that assigning tutorial groups to each condition does not give
a truly random sample for each condition, as at the start of the module, students
were free to sign up for any tutorial slot they wanted as long as it was not already full
(the maximum size was 25). This meant that the tutorials might contain groups of
friends and people who signed up because the tutorial time was convenient for them.
There was no way of preventing this.
The wording of the request was as follows: ‘‘I would like to request your partic-
ipation in a research project that will be happening over the next few weeks. If you
agree to participate, all that you would have to do is read some text and then fill in
a questionnaire about what you have read. It will only take about ten minutes and
you can do it at a time convenient to yourself. All I’d like from you at this stage is to
indicate whether you would be willing to participate by [INSTRUCTIONS DEPEND
ON THE CONDITION] and then I will contact you nearer the time.’’
Results
The results are analyzed using a chi-squared test for independence with phi used as
a measure of association. The results of testing H1 are shown in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1 is the cross tabs of comparing the oral request with the email request. The
results reveal a significant difference between the two media, with the oral request
Table 1 Comparing oral and email request
Response No (percentage) Yes (percentage) Total
Email request Count 147(87) 22(13) 169
Expected Count 140.83 28.167 169
Oral request Count 88(78) 25(22) 113
Total Count 235 47 282
Expected Count 235 47 282

x2 = 4.04, df = 1, p = .044**, u = .120, n = 282, **significant at .01.
out-performing the email request. However, the email to group condition achieved
a very low response rate (less than 1%) and this alone may be contributing to the
significance of the relationship. To test this, the analysis was repeated comparing the
oral request with just the email to individuals request. The results are shown in
Table 2. This time, no significant difference was found.
The results of testing H2 are shown in Table 3. The email condition is examined
to determine the impact of emails sent to individuals versus one sent to a group. The
results show emails to individuals are much more successful at eliciting a positive
response than an email to a group.
Table 4 shows the testing of H3, examining the oral request. The results do not show
a statistically significant difference between the responses of people who were given
a blank sheet to sign and those who were given a sheet already full of names to sign.
Table 2 Comparing oral and email to individuals request

No (percentage) Yes (percentage) Total
Email to individuals Count 64(75) 21(25) 85
Oral request Count 88(78) 25(22) 113
x2 = 1.81, df = 1, p = .67, u = 2.30, n = 198.
Table 3 Examining email conditions

Email to group Count 83(99) 1(1) 84
Email to individuals Count 64(75) 21(25) 85
x2 = 20.632, df = 1, p = .000**, u = .349, n = 282, ** significant at .01.
Table 4 Examining oral conditions
Oral request with blank Count 57(84) 11(16) 68
name sheet Expected Count 53.0 15.0 68
Oral request with full Count 31(69) 14(31) 45
name sheet Expected Count 35.0 10.0 45

x2 = 3.506, df = 1, p = .061, u = .176, n = 282.
Conclusions
Support was found for H1 and H2 but not H3. There is a significant difference between
the email and oral request, but only because of the poor performance of the email to
the group. Emails to individuals are significantly better at eliciting a positive response
than one email to a group. There is no statistically significant difference between oral
requests when potential respondents perceive a large number of people have already
agreed to take part and when they do not. However, as seen in Table 4, the number of
yes responses for the full name sheet were much higher than expected and the per-
centage of yes responses for the full name sheet is nearly twice that for the blank name
sheet. Therefore, research to examine this result further would be useful. Overall, the
findings show that to achieve the highest response, researchers should avoid asking
students to participate in research by sending one impersonal email to the entire
group. There is no difference in response if the request is made by personalized email,
or orally in tutorials, so this choice may be made based on convenience.
References
Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193(5), 31–35.
Brunner, G. A., & Carroll, S. J. (1969). The effect of prior notification on the refusal rate in
fixed address surveys. Journal of Advertising Research, 9(1), 42–44.
Chaikin, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source
versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39,
752–766.
DeBono, K. G., & Harnish, R. J. (1988). Source expertise, source attractiveness, and the
processing of persuasive information: a functional approach. Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 55(4), 541–546.
Dillman, D. A., Sinclair, M. D., & Clark, J. R. (1993). Effects of questionnaire length,
respondent-friendly design and a difficult question on response rates for
occupant-addressed census mail surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57(3), 289–304.
Frey, K. P., & Eagly, A. H. (1993). Vividness can undermine the persuasiveness of messages.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(1), 32–44.
Frick, A., Bächtinger, M. T., & Reips, U. D. (1999). Financial incentives, personal information
and drop-out rate in online studies. In U. D. Reips, B. Batinic, W. Bandilla, M. Bosnjak,
L. Gräf, K. Moser, & A. Werner, (Eds.), Current Internet science—Trends, techniques,
results. [Aktuelle online-forschung—Trends, techniken, ergebnisse.] Zürich: Online Press.
Retrieved April 10, 2006, from http://dgof.de/tband99/
Groves, R. M., Singer, E., & Corning, A. (2000). Leverage-Saliency theory of survey
participation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(3), 299–308.
Lana, R. E. (1963). Interest, media, and order effects in persuasive communications. Journal of
Psychology, 56(1), 9–13.
Latane, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36(4), 343–356.

McGinnies, A. (1965). A cross-cultural comparison of printed communication versus spoken
communication is persuasion. Journal of Psychology, 60(1), 1–8.
Moon, Y. (1999). The effects of physical distance and response latency on persuasion in
computer-mediated communication and human-computer communication. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5(4), 379–392.
Pallak, S. R. (1983). Salience of a communicator’s physical attractiveness and persuasion: A
heuristic versus systematic processing interpretation. Social Cognition, 2(2), 158–170.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary
approaches. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
Raghunathan, R., & Trope, Y. (2002). Walking the tightrope between feeling good and being
accurate: Mood as a resource in processing persuasive messages. Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 83(3), 510–525.
Roscoe, A. M., Lang, D., & Sheth, J. N. (1975). Follow-up methods, questionnaire length, and
market differences in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing, 39(2), 20–27.
Rosnow, R. L., & Robinson, E. J. (Eds.). (1967). Experiments in persuasion. New York:
Academic Press.
Singer, E., Van Hoewyk, J., Gebler, N., Raghunathan, T., & McGonagle, K. (1999). The effect
of incentives on response rates in interviewer-mediated surveys. Journal of Official
Statistics, 15(2), 217–230.
Tuten, T. L., Bosnjak, M., & Bandilla, W. (2000). Banner-advertised web-surveys. Marketing
Research, 11(4), 17–21.
Yammarino, F. J., Skinner, S. J., & Childers, T. L. (1991). Understanding mail survey response
behaviour: a meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55(4), 613–639.
About the Author

Thomas Chesney is a lecturer in information systems at Nottingham University
Business School. He holds a Ph.D. in information systems from Brunel University,
an MSc in informatics from Edinburgh University, and a BSc in information man-
agement from the Queen’s University of Belfast. His research interests are adoption
of recreational information systems, use of blogs to share knowledge, and determi-
nants of research participation decisions. For more information, see: http://
www.nottingham.ac.uk/~liztc/Personal/index.html
Address: Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, U.K.

The Effect of Communication Medium On Research Participation Decisions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Effect of Communication Medium On Research Participation Decisions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

The Effect of Communication Medium on

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/11/3/877/4617720 by guest on 19 November 2021

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/11/3/877/4617720 by guest on 19 November 2021

Oral versus Email

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/11/3/877/4617720 by guest on 19 November 2021

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/11/3/877/4617720 by guest on 19 November 2021

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/11/3/877/4617720 by guest on 19 November 2021

Table 2 Comparing oral and email to individuals request

Table 3 Examining email conditions

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/11/3/877/4617720 by guest on 19 November 2021

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/11/3/877/4617720 by guest on 19 November 2021

About the Author

You might also like