English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 91913/122132 (75%)
Visitors : 25838173      Online Users : 163
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 傳播學院 > 新聞學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/103560
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/103560


    Title: 郵寄問卷回收率之研究
    Authors: 卓峯志
    Contributors: 陳世敏
    卓峯志
    Date: 1985
    Issue Date: 2016-11-08 15:55:43 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 論文摘要
    本研究的目的有二:第一,驗證國外的研究結果,考驗其在台灣的適用性;第二,嘗試引用社會心理學上的一些概念來探究用以提高郵寄問卷回收率之技巧如何能提高回收率。
    本文所要驗證的國外研究結果有二:其一是人口暨社會變項對回收率的影響;其二是代價因素對回收率的影響。本文嘗試提出,用以探究如何能提高回收率的概念是「純暴露」( mere exposure) 理論;考驗其是否能充分解釋「接觸」對回收率之影響。
    本研究以一般大眾為對象,寄出 2000 份問卷,退回 85 份,實際能觸達到的樣本為1915人。到截止日期為止,總共回收了715 份問卷,回收率為37.3%。
    研究結果如下:
    (一)人口暨社會變項對回收率的影響:
    男性回收率高於女性。
    年輕者回收率高於年長者。
    鄉鎮回收率和城市差不多。
    大台北以外地區回收率高於大台北地區。
    (二)代價因素對回收率的影響:
    低代價組的回收率高於高代價組。
    代價因素對男性,年輕者,城市,大台北地區的影響較大。
    (三)「純暴露」觀點大體能解釋接觸對回收率的影響;接觸次數愈多回收率愈高,隨著接觸次數的增多,每再多接觸一次所能提高的回收率逐漸減少。
    (四)其他研究發現:
    1.他人代答的情況嚴重,高達21.4%;其中女性多於男性,年長者多於年輕者,城市多於鄉鎮,大台北地區多於大台北以外地區。
    2.用以提高郵寄問卷回收率之技巧雖能提高回收率,卻沒能顯著提高樣本代表性。
    序言Ⅰ
    論文摘要
    圖表目次V
    第一章 緒論1
    第一節 動機及目的1
    第二節 相關文獻探討3
    第三節 研究架構與研究假設15
    第二章 研究方法與步驟24
    第一節 抽樣方法與研究工具24
    第二節 研究步驟28
    第三節 資料處理與統計分析30
    第三章 結果的分析與討論33
    第一節 人口暨社會變項與回收率之關係34
    第二節 代價因素與回收率的關係37
    第三節 接觸與回收率的關係41
    第四節 代價因素與接觸的聯合作用60
    第五節 其他發現66
    第四章 結論與建議70
    第一節 結論70
    第二節 檢討與建議72
    參考文獻75
    圖表目次
    圖目次:
    圖 1-1 本研究之架構圖15
    圖 1-2 暴露次數與正面態度之關係圖19
    圖 1-3 接觸次數與回收率之關係圖19
    圖 3-1 不同接觸次數回收率比較圖42
    圖 3-2 有無事前接觸回收速率比較圖51
    圖 3-3 不同追踪連繫次數回收率比較圖55
    圖 3-4 不同回件代價在不同接觸次數下回收率比較圖61
    表目次:
    表 1-1 有關郵寄問卷回收率之研究4
    表 2-1 各地區樣本分配表25
    表 2-2 樣本村(里)抽選表27
    表 2-3“開頭鄰”抽選表27
    表 2-4 全體原始樣本分析表28
    表 2-5 寄出、退回,以及觸達樣本分析表31
    表 3-1 各組回收率及可用率一覽表33
    表 3-2 各人口暨社會變項上回收率分析表35
    表 3-3 依收件人資料統計而得的回收率分析表36
    表 3-4 代價因素對回收率的影響在性別上之差異38
    表 3-5 代價因素對回收率的影響在年齡上之差異38
    表 3-6 代價因素對回收率的影響在地理區域上的差異40
    表 3-7 代價因素對回收率的影響在都市化程度上的差異41
    表 3-8 接觸次數對回收率的影響在性別上的差異43
    表 3-9 接觸次數對回收率的影響在年齡上的差異44
    表 3-10 接觸次數對回收率的影響在地理區域上的差異45
    表 3-11 接觸次數對回收率的影響在都市化程度上的差異46
    表 3-12 事前接觸對回收率的影響在性別上的差異47
    表 3-13 事前接觸對回收率的影響在年齡上的差異48
    表 3-14 事前接觸對回收率的影響在地理區域上的差異49
    表 3-15 事前接觸對回收率的影響在都市化程度上的差異49
    表 3-16 事前接觸對回收速率之影響50
    表 3-17 接觸方式對回收率的影響在性別上的差異52
    表 3-18 接觸方式對回收率的影響在年齡上的差異53
    表 3-19 接觸方式對回收率的影響在地理區域上的差異54
    表 3-20 接觸方式對回收率的影響在都市化程度上的差異55
    表 3-21 追踪連繫次數對回收率的影響在性別上的差異56
    表 3-22 追踪連繫次數對回收率的影響在年齡上的差異57
    表 3-23 追踪連繫次數對回收率的影響在地理區域上的差異58
    表 3-24 追踪連繫次數對回收率的影響在都市化程度上的差異59
    表 3-25 代價因素與接觸次數的聯合影響在性別上的差異62
    表 3-26 代價因素與接觸次數的聯合影響在年齡上的差異63
    表 3-27 代價因素與接觸次數的聯合影響在地理區域上的差異64
    表 3-28 代價因素與接觸次數的聯合影響在都市化程度上的差異65
    表 3-29 在各人口暨社會變項上問卷作答方式分析表67
    表 3-30 各組回收問卷適合度分析一覽表68
    Reference: 一、中文部分:
    1.林清山:心理與教育統計學。台北市,東華書局,民68。
    2.陳煥明:女用內衣市場區隔分析--自動互動檢視法之應用。私立淡江大學碩士論文,民72。
    3.陳彰儀、林新沛:問長度、切要性、研究者權威性及追踪連繫對郵寄問卷回收率的影響”中華心理學刊,即將出版,民74。
    4.黃俊英:郵寄問卷調查的回件率問題。國立政治大學學報,民70,43期,141- 155頁。
    5.楊國樞等(編著):社會及行為科學研究法。台北市,東華書局,民71。

    二.英文部分
    1. Andreason A. “Personalizing Mail Questionnaire Correspondence,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 1970, 34, 273-277.
    2. Armstrong J. and Overton T. “Brief vs. Comprehensive Description in Measuring Intentions to Purchase,” Journal of Marketing Research, 1971, 114-117.
    3. Bender D.H. “Colored Stationery in Direct-Mail Advertising,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 1967, 41, 161-164.
    4. Berdie D.R. “Questionnaire Length and Response Rate,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973, 58, 278-280.
    5. Bradt K. “The Usefulness of a Postcard Technique in Mail Questionnaire Study,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 1955, 19, 218-222.
    6. Cahalan D. “Effectiveness of a Mail Questionnaire Technique in the Army.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 1951, 15, 575-578.
    7. Carpenter E.H. “Personalizing Mail Surveys: A Replication and Reassessment,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 1975, 38, 614.
    8. Champion D.J. and Sear A.M. “Questionnaire Response Rate: A methodological analysis”, Social Forcies, 1969, 47, 335-339.
    9. Childers T. and Ferrel O. “Response Rates and Perceived Questronnaire length in Mail Surveys,” Journal of Marketing Research, 1979, 429-431.
    10. Childers T.L. and Skinner S.J. “Gaining Respondent Cooperation in Mail Surveys through Pri Prior Commitment,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 1979, 558-561.
    11. Clausen J. and Ford R. “Controlling Bias in Mail Questionnaires,” Journal of American Statistical Association, 497-511.
    12. Cox, III, E. Anderson Jr. T and Fulcher D. “Reappraising Mail Survey Response Rates,” Journal of Marketing Research, 1974, 413-417.
    13. Dillman, D.A. “Increasing Mail Questionnaire Response in Large Samples of the General Public.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 1972, 36, 254-257.
    14. Dillman, D.A. Mail and Telephone Surveys, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978.
    15. Dillman, D.A. and Christenson, J.A. “Increasing Mail Questionnaire Response: A four state Comparison,” American Sociological Review, 1974, 39, 744-756.
    16. Donald M. “Implications of Nonresponse for the Interpretation of Mail Questionnaire Data,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 1960, 99-114.
    17. Eagly, A.H. “Sex difference in Influenceability.” Psychological Bulletin, 1978, 85(1), 86-116.
    18. Eagly, A.H. “Gender and Social Influence: A Social Psychological Analysis,” American Psychologist, 1983, 38, 971-981.
    19. Eagly, A.H. and Carli, L.L. “Sex of Researchers and sex-typed communications as a Determinants of sex differences in Influenceability: A meta-Analysis of Social Influence Studies,” Psychological Bulletin, 1981, 90(1), 1-20.
    20. Eckland, B.K. “Effect of Prodding to increase mail-back returns,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 1965, 49(3), 165-169.
    21. Erdos, P.L. Professional Mail Survey, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.
    22. Erdos, P.L. “Data Collection methods: Mail Surveys,” in Robert Ferber (ed.), Handbook of Marketing Research, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974, 2:90-91.
    23. Ford, N.M. “Questionnaire Appearance and Response Rates,” Journal of Advertising Research, 1968, 8, 43-45.
    24. Ferris A. “A Note on Stimulating Response to Questionnairers, “American Sociological Review, 1951, 247-249.
    25. Godwin R. ‘The Consequences of Large Monetary Incentives in Mail Surveys of Elites,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 1979, 378-387.
    26. Goldstein H. and Kroll B. “Methods of Increasing Mail Response, “Journal of Marketing, 1957, 21, 55-57.
    27. Goyder, J.C. “Further Evidence on Factors affecting Response Rates to Mailed Questionnaries,” American Sociological Review, 1982, 47, 550-553.
    28. Gullahorn J. and Gullahorn I. “An Investingation of Effects of Three Factors on Response to Mail Questionnaires,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 1963, 294-296.
    29. Hackler J. and Bourgette P. “Dollars, Dissonance, and Survey Returns,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 1973, 276-281.
    30. Hammond E.C. “Isolation in Relation to Type and Amount of Smoking,” American Statistical Association Journal, 1959, 54, 35-51.
    31. Hancock J.W. “An Experimental Study of Four Methods of Measuring Unit Costs of Obtaining Attitude Toward the Retail Store,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 1940, 24, 213-230.
    32. Harris J. and Guffey, Jr. H. “Questronnaire Return: Stamp Versus Business Reply Envelopes Revisted,” Journal of Marketing Research, 1978, 2 290-293.
    33. Heaton, Jr. E.E. “Increasing Mail Questionnaire Return with a preliminary letter.” Journal of Advertising Research, 1965, 5, 35-39.
    34. Heberlein, T.A. and Baumgartner, R. “Factors affecting Response Rates to Mailed Questionnaires: A Quantitative Analysis of Published Literature.” American Sociological Review, 1978, 43, 447-462.
    35. Heberlein, T.A. and Baumgartner, R. “Is a Questionnaire necessary in A Second Mailing?” Public Opinion Quarterly, 1981, 45, 102-108.
    36. Henley, Jr. R. “Response Rate to Mail Questionnaires with a Retarn lead-line,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 1976, 40, 374-375.
    37. Hinrichs, J. R. “Effect of Sampling, Follow-up Letters, and Commitment to Participation on Mail Attitude Survey Response,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60(2), 249-251.
    38. Kahle L. R. and Sales B. D. “Personalization of Outside Envelope in Mail Surveys,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 1978, 547-550.
    39. Kanuk L. and Berenson C. “Mail Surveys and Response Rates: A Literature Review,” Journal of Marketing Research, 1975, 440-453.
    40. Kephart, W. M. and Bressler, M. “Increasing the responses to Mail Questionnaires: A Research Study,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 1958, 22, 123-132.
    41. Kimball A.E. “Increasing the Rate of Return in Mail Surveys,” Journal of Marketing, 1961, 25, 63-64.
    42. Kviz, F. J. “Toward a Standard Definition of Response Rates,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 1977, 41, 265-267.
    43. Linsky, A.S. “Stimulating Responses to Mailed Quarterly, 1975, 38, 82-101.
    44. Longworth, D.S. “Use of a Mail Questionnaire,” American Sociological Review, 1953, 18, 310-313.
    45. Mason W., Dressel R.C. and Bain R.K. “An Experimental study of factors affecting Response to a Mail Survey of beginning Teachers,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 1961, 25, 296-299.
    46. Mayer, C.S. and Pratt, Jr. R.W. “A Note on Nonresponse in a mail Survey.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 1966, 30, 637-646.
    47. Mitchell, Jr. W. “Factors Affecting the Rates of Return on Mailed Questionnaires,” American Statistical Association Journal, 1939, 683-692.
    48. Moore C.C. “Increasing Returns from Questionnaires,” Journal of Educational Research, 1941, 35, 138-141.
    49. Nichols, R.C. and Meyer, M.A. “Timing Postcard follow-ups in Mail Questionnaire Surveys,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 1966, 30, 306-307.
    50. Parsons, R.J. and Medford, T.S. “The Effect of Advance Notice in Mail Surveys of Homogeneous Groups,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 1972, 36, 258-259.
    51. Pucel, D.J. et al. “Questionnaire Follow-up Returns as a function of Incentives and Res Respondent characteristics, “Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 1971, 19, 188-193.
    52. Roberts E., McCrory F. and Forthofer N. Further Evidence on Using a Deadline to Stimulate Response to a Mail Survey,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 1978, 407-410.
    53. Robinson R.A. and Agisim P. “Making Mail Surveys More Reliable,” Journal of Marketing, 1951, 15, 415-424.
    54. Roeher A. “Effective Techniques in Increasing Response to Mailed Questionnaires,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 1963, 299-302.
    55. Scott, C. “Research on Mail Questionnaires,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Association, 1961, 124(2), 143-192.
    56. Simon R. “Responses to Personal and form letters in Mail Survey,” Journal of Advertising Research, 1967, 7, 28-30.
    57. Sletto, R. “Pretesting of Questionnaires,” American Sociological Review, 1940, 15, 193-200.
    58. Slocum, W.L. et al “Increasing Response to Questionnaires and Structured Interviews.” American Sociological Review, 1956, 21, 221-225.
    59. Sosdian, C.P. and Sharp, L.M. “Nonresponse in Mail Surveys: Access Failure or Respondent Resistance.”Public Opinion Quarterly, 1980, 44, 396-402.
    60. Stafford, I.E. “Influencing of Preliminary Contact on Mail Returns,” Journal of Marketing Research, 1966, 3, 410-411.
    61. Stevens R.E. “The Influence of Precoding Mail Questionnaires on Response Rates,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 1974, 38.
    62. Suchman E. and McCandless B. “Who answers questinnaires?” Journal of Applied Psychology, 1940, 758-769.
    63. Tedin, K.L. and Hofstetter, C.R. “The Effect of Cost and Importance Factors on the Return Rate for Single and Multiple Malings.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 1982, 46, 122-128.
    64. Waisanen, F.B. “A Note on the Response to a Mail Questionnaire.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 1954, 18, 210-212.
    65. Watson, J.I. “Improning the Response Rate in Research.” Journal of Advertising Research, 1965, 5, 48-50.
    66. Wildman R.C. “Effects of Anonymity and Social Setting on Survey Responses,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 1977, 41, 74-79.
    67. Wotruba T. “Monetary Inducements and Mail Questionnaire Response,” Journal of Marketing Research, 1966, 398-400.
    68. Zaionc, R.B. “Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monography Supplement, 1968, 9(2), 1-24.
    Relation: 國立政治大學
    新聞研究所
    碩士
    73
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[新聞學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML147View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback