Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T03:08:45.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Old versus New: The Comparative Efficiency of Mail and Internet Surveys of State Legislators

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Samuel H. Fisher III  and
Rebekah Herrick
Samuel H. Fisher III
Affiliation:
University of South Alabama, Mobile, USA
Rebekah Herrick*
Affiliation:
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, USA
*
Rebekah Herrick, Oklahoma State University, 218 Murray, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA. Email: rebekah.herrick@okstate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Internet surveys of the general population have been growing in use over the last few years because they are less expensive, faster, and greener than most other survey modes. However, they have been used less frequently to survey elites, and little is known about the representativeness of their results. This article helps fill that void by using an experiment where half of a sample of state legislators are given an Internet survey and half a mail survey, and then the response rate, representativeness of respondents, and similarity of responses are compared. The results indicate that mail and Internet surveys generate fairly representative samples, albeit with few biases, and similar responses; however, mail surveys generate a significantly higher response rate than Internet surveys. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords

state legislatorsInternet surveymail surveysurvey reliabilitysurvey response rates
Type
Research Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 147 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alperin, David J., and Schultz, David. 2003. E-democracy: Legislative-Constituent Communications in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Philadelphia, PA. This was presented at the American Political Science Association annual meeting.Google Scholar
Ballard, Chet, and Prine, Rudy. 2002. “Citizen Perceptions of Community Policing: Comparing Internet and Mail Survey Responses.” Social Science Computer Review 20:485–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, Edith. 1995. “The Policy Priorities of African American Women in the State Legislature.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 20:223–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachmann, Duane P., Elfrink, John, and Vazzana, Gary. 2000. “E-mail and Snail Mail Face Off in Rematch: Despite Email Surveys' Advantages, Response Rates Still Lag.” Market Research 11(4): 10–5.Google Scholar
Carey, John M., Niemi, Richard G., Powell, Lynda W., and State Legislative Survey, Gary Moncrief., 2002 [Computer file]. ICPSR20960-v1. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester [producer], 2002. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2008-03-25. doi:10.3886/ICPSR20960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John M., Niemi, Richard G., Powell, Lynda W., and Moncrief, Gary F.. 2006. “The Effects of Term Limits on State Legislatures: A New Survey of the 50 States.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 31:105–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Shin Tian. 2005. “Comparing Mail and Web-Based Survey Distribution Methods: Results of Surveys to Leisure Travel Retailers.” Journal of Travel Research 43:422–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Colleen, Heath, Fred, and Thompson, Russel L.. 2000. “A Meta-Analysis of Response Rates in Web- or Internet-Based Surveys.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 60:821–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, Christopher A. 2002. “E-Mail in the State Legislature: Evidence from 3 States.” State and Local Government Review 34(2): 127–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper, Mick P. 2000. “Web Surveys: A Review of Issues and Approaches.” Public Opinion Quarterly 64:464–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daley, Dorothy M. 2008. “Interdisciplinary Problems and Agency Boundaries: Exploring Effective Cross-Agency Collaboration.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19:477–93.Google Scholar
Dillman, Don A. 2007. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Hoboken, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Ellickson, Mark C., and Whistler, Donald E.. 2001. “Explaining State Legislators' Casework and Public Resource Allocation.” Political Research Quarterly 54(3): 553–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., Luttbeg, Norman R., and Holloway, William V.. 1975. “Knowing One's District: How Legislators Predict Referendum Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 19(2): 231–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, Wayne. 1985. “Leadership, Party Caucuses, and Committees in U.S. State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 10(2): 243–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, Patricia K., and Richardson, Lilliard E. Jr. 1996. “Explaining Variation in Casework among State Legislators.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 21(1): 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedge, David, Button, James, and Spears, Mary. 1996. “Accounting for the Quality of Black Legislative Life: The View from the States.” American Journal of Political Science 40(1): 82–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heerwegh, Dirk, and Loosveldt, Geert. 2006. “Personalizing E-Mail Contacts: Its Influence on Web Survey Response Rate and Social Desirability Response Bias.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 19(2): 258–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heerwegh, Dirk. 2005. “Effects of Personal Salutations in E-mail Invitations to Participate in a Web Survey.” Public Opinion Quarterly 69(4): 588–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heerwegh, Dirk, and Loosveldt, Geert. 2008. “Face-to-Face versus Web Surveying in a High-Internet-Coverage Population: Differences in Response Quality.” Public Opinion Quarterly 72(5):1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrick, Rebekah. 2010. Sex Difference in Constituent Engagement? Social Science Quarterly 91(4): 947–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoonakker, Peter, and Carayon, Pascale. 2009. “Questionnaire Survey Nonresponse: A comparison of Postal Mail and Internet Surveys.” Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 25(5): 348–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosmer, David W., and Lemeshow, Stanley. 2000. Applied Logistics Regression. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplowitz, Michael D., Hadlock, Timothy D., and Levine, Ralph. 2000. “A Comparison of Web and Mail Survey Response Rates.” Public Opinion Quarterly 68(1): 94–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krosnick, Jon. 1999. “Survey Research.” Annual Review of Psychology 50:537–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Layman, Geoffrey C., Carsey, Thomas, Green, John C., Herrera, Richard, and Cooperman, Rosalyn. 2010. “Activists and Conflict Extension in American Party Politics.” American Political Science Review 104:324–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maestas, Cherie. 2003. “The Incentive to Listen: Progressive Ambition, Resources, and Opinion Monitoring among State Legislators.” Journal of Politics 65(2): 439–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maestas, Cherie, Neeley, Grant W., and Richardson, Lilliard E.. 2003. “The State of Surveying Legislators: Dilemmas and Suggestions.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 3:90–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malhotra, Neil. 2008. “Completion Time and Response Order Effects in Web Surveys.” Public Opinion Quarterly 72(5): 914–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCabe, Sean Esteban, Diez, Alison, Boyd, Carol J., Nelson, Toben F., and Weitzman, Elissa R.. 2006. “Comparing Web and Mail Responses in a Mixed Mode Survey in College Alcohol Use Research.” Addictive Behaviors 31:1619–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, Christopher Z. 1991a. “Information Sources in State Legislative Decision Making.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 16(3): 445–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, Christopher Z. 1991b. “Peddling Information in the State Legislature: Closeness Counts.” Western Political Quarterly 44(2): 433–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orr, Shannon K. 2005. “New Technology and Research: An Analysis of Internet Survey Methodology in Political Science.” P.S. Political Science 38:263–7.Google Scholar
Richardson, Lilliard E. Jr., Daugherty, Linda M., and Freeman, Patricia K.. 2001. “E-mail Contact Between Constituents and State Legislators.” State and Local Government Review 33(1): 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, Scott, and Waldman, Donald M.. 2008. “Learning and Fatigue During Choice Experiments: A Comparison of Online and Mail Survey Modes.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 23:351–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuldt, B., and E., Totten J. 1994. “Electronic Vs. Mail Survey Response Rates.” Marketing Research 6(1): 36–9.Google Scholar
Shannon, David M., and Bradshaw, Carol C.. 2002. “A Comparison of Response Rate, Response Time, and Costs of Mail and Electronic Surveys.” The Journal of Experimental Education 70(2): 179–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 2007. Measuring State Legislative Professionalism: The Squire Index Revisited. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 7(2): 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sue, Valerie M., and Ritter, Lois A.. 2007. Conducting Online Surveys. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Sue. 1992. “The Effects of Race and Gender on Constituency Service.” Western Political Quarterly 45(1): 169–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Sue, and Welch, Susan. 1991. “The Impact of Gender on Activities and Priorities of State Legislators.” Western Political Quarterly 44:445–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uslaner, Eric M., and Weber, Ronald E.. 1979. “U.S. State Legislators' Opinions and Perceptions of Constituency Attitudes.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 4(4): 563–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weissert, Carol S., and Halperin, Karen. 2007. “The Paradox of Term Limits Support: To Know Them is NOT to Love Them.” Political Research Quarterly 60(3): 516–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar