Despite all of its strengths and advantages, survey research is often tainted with systematic biases that may invalidate some of the inferences derived from such surveys. Five such biases are the non-response bias, sampling bias, social desirability bias, recall bias, and common method bias.
Non-response bias. Survey research is generally notorious for its low response rates. A response rate of 15-20 per cent is typical in a postal survey, even after two or three reminders. If the majority of the targeted respondents fail to respond to a survey, this may indicate a systematic reason for the low response rate, which may in turn raise questions about the validity of the study’s results. For instance, dissatisfied customers tend to be more vocal about their experience than satisfied customers, and are therefore more likely to respond to questionnaire surveys or interview requests than satisfied customers. Hence, any respondent sample is likely to have a higher proportion of dissatisfied customers than the underlying population from which it is drawn. In this instance, not only will the results lack generalisability, but the observed outcomes may also be an artefact of the biased sample. Several strategies may be employed to improve response rates:
Advance notification: Sending a short letter to the targeted respondents soliciting their participation in an upcoming survey can prepare them in advance and improve their propensity to respond. The letter should state the purpose and importance of the study, mode of data collection (e.g., via a phone call, a survey form in the mail, etc.), and appreciation for their co-operation. A variation of this technique may be to ask the respondent to return a prepaid postcard indicating whether or not they are willing to participate in the study.
Relevance of content: People are more likely to respond to surveys examining issues of relevance or importance to them.
Respondent-friendly questionnaire: Shorter survey questionnaires tend to elicit higher response rates than longer questionnaires. Furthermore, questions that are clear, non-offensive, and easy to respond tend to attract higher response rates.
Endorsement: For organizational surveys, it helps to gain endorsement from a senior executive attesting to the importance of the study to the organization. Such endorsement can be in the form of a cover letter or a letter of introduction, which can improve the researcher’s credibility in the eyes of the respondents.
Follow-up requests: Multiple follow-up requests may coax some non-respondents to respond, even if their responses are late.
Interviewer training: Response rates for interviews can be improved with skilled interviewers trained in how to request interviews, use computerised dialing techniques to identify potential respondents, and schedule call-backs for respondents who could not be reached.
Incentives: Incentives in the form of cash or gift cards, giveaways such as pens or stress balls, entry into a lottery, draw or contest, discount coupons, promise of contribution to charity, and so forth may increase response rates.
Non-monetary incentives: Businesses, in particular, are more prone to respond to non-monetary incentives than financial incentives. An example of such a non-monetary incentive is a benchmarking report comparing the business’s individual response against the aggregate of all responses to a survey.
Confidentiality and privacy: Finally, assurances that respondents’ private data or responses will not fall into the hands of any third party may help improve response rates
Sampling bias. Telephone surveys conducted by calling a random sample of publicly available telephone numbers will systematically exclude people with unlisted telephone numbers, mobile phone numbers, and people who are unable to answer the phone when the survey is being conducted—for instance, if they are at work—and will include a disproportionate number of respondents who have landline telephone services with listed phone numbers and people who are home during the day, such as the unemployed, the disabled, and the elderly. Likewise, online surveys tend to include a disproportionate number of students and younger people who are constantly on the Internet, and systematically exclude people with limited or no access to computers or the Internet, such as the poor and the elderly. Similarly, questionnaire surveys tend to exclude children and the illiterate, who are unable to read, understand, or meaningfully respond to the questionnaire. A different kind of sampling bias relates to sampling the wrong population, such as asking teachers (or parents) about their students’ (or children’s) academic learning, or asking CEOs about operational details in their company. Such biases make the respondent sample unrepresentative of the intended population and hurt generalisability claims about inferences drawn from the biased sample.
Social desirability bias. Many respondents tend to avoid negative opinions or embarrassing comments about themselves, their employers, family, or friends. With negative questions such as, ‘Do you think that your project team is dysfunctional?’, ‘Is there a lot of office politics in your workplace?’, ‘Or have you ever illegally downloaded music files from the Internet?’, the researcher may not get truthful responses. This tendency among respondents to ‘spin the truth’ in order to portray themselves in a socially desirable manner is called the ‘social desirability bias’, which hurts the validity of responses obtained from survey research. There is practically no way of overcoming the social desirability bias in a questionnaire survey, but in an interview setting, an astute interviewer may be able to spot inconsistent answers and ask probing questions or use personal observations to supplement respondents’ comments.
Recall bias. Responses to survey questions often depend on subjects’ motivation, memory, and ability to respond. Particularly when dealing with events that happened in the distant past, respondents may not adequately remember their own motivations or behaviours, or perhaps their memory of such events may have evolved with time and no longer be retrievable. For instance, if a respondent is asked to describe his/her utilization of computer technology one year ago, or even memorable childhood events like birthdays, their response may not be accurate due to difficulties with recall. One possible way of overcoming the recall bias is by anchoring the respondent’s memory in specific events as they happened, rather than asking them to recall their perceptions and motivations from memory.
Common method bias. Common method bias refers to the amount of spurious covariance shared between independent and dependent variables that are measured at the same point in time, such as in a cross-sectional survey, using the same instrument, such as a questionnaire. In such cases, the phenomenon under investigation may not be adequately separated from measurement artefacts. Standard statistical tests are available to test for common method bias, such as Harmon’s single-factor test (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003), Lindell and Whitney’s (2001) market variable technique, and so forth. This bias can potentially be avoided if the independent and dependent variables are measured at different points in time using a longitudinal survey design, or if these variables are measured using different methods, such as computerised recording of dependent variable versus questionnaire-based self-rating of independent variables.
