Fcrm Approved

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE [A f No. o004-01"

pub*ic rw•oitng ourdet tot the € oilbctnf of intormUta n ,t it•fitC V! tO ,af te•o p i oate. wcuddug ta ue for reuewimg *nsWUuicucm, a l o•"iW 9 oa0 ats toerc, el.

=aht~e ad maintainin~fg the data msodad. and conwe"~i ai t. 11 fl =tco= 71ia f nformuubom, Sd cominiots eowvgardiig Vnis bunkms eounate or any m Otat ma of tift O Z informo tion.tncludin g suggie tmons fotr rae"UIn th O..rceo. to Waskw ngton Hod ateirst SvmLt. oviectotat for ' mat i uom auaw ai dfand Itoon,.• 1 J12e1S .L

Deovn HNghway. Sust 120. Arhngton. VA 222024302. and to the 0C* of M•nageft iudget ParicitftfloductiOn • 10.t2. Wa cOa. OC 20:

i. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blanx) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

1993, October Final Apr 93 - Aug 93

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE S. FUNDING NUMBERS

An Investigation of Respondent Confidentiality 62785A

Concerns in Army Surveys: Data From Ten Focus Groups 791

1321

G. AUTHOR(S) H01

Savell, Joel M.

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and REPORT NUMBER

Social Sciences ARI Research Report

ATTN: PERI-RG 1650

5001 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600

9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING / MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

I1i. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION i AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Approved for public release;

distribution is unlimited.

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

This research sought information on whether soldiers believe the assurance of

confidentiality they receive in a standard Army survey and, if not, what reasons

they give for not believing it. Participants (n=40), meeting in small homogeneous

groups, completed a standard Army survey that asked questions on six topics of

varying sensitivity. These same participants also completed a 3-item questionnaire

asking about any confidentiality concerns they may have had while filling out the

survey. Then, with their completed survey forms in front of them, they took part in

a focus group discussion to elaborate on these concerns. This report summarizes

the discussions and offers recommendations for further research.

14. SUBJECT TERMS IS. NUMBER OF PAGES

Confidentiality Privacy 23

Anonymity Survey 16. PRIE CODE

Focus groups

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unlimited.

NSN 7540-01.280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev 2-89)

Pveweed by AtMa Sid 139-1S
Research Report 1650

An Investigation of Respondent Confidentiality

Concerns in Army Surveys: Data From Ten

Focus Groups

Joel M. Savell

U.S. Army Research Institute

Manpower and Personnel Policy Research Technical Area

Clinton B. Walker, Acting Chief

Manpower and Personnel Research Division

Zita M. Simutis, Director

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

October 1993

Army Project Number Manpower, Personnel, and Training

20162785A791

Approved tor pulic reoas; distribuon is unlimited.
FOREWORD

It has long been assumed that individuals will not respond

candidly to sensitive survey questions if they believe "the wrong

people" will find out how they responded to these questions and

link their responses to them personally. Most Army surveys assure confidentiality or anonymity on the assumption that including such assurances frees respondents to answer the questions

candidly. What has not been known, however, is the extent to

which these assurances are believed by the soldiers who participate in the surveys.

This research presents evidence that soldiers frequently do

not believe the assurances of confidentiality or anonymity they

are given in Army surveys and indicates some of their reasons for

not believing them.

EDGAR M. JOHNSON

Director

v
AN INVESTIGATION OF RESPONDENT CONFIDENTIALITY CONCERNS

IN ARMY SURVEYS: DATA FROM TEN FOCUS GROUPS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Requirement:

It has become standard practice for organizations conducting sample surveys to provide appropriate guarantees of confidentiality and, in some cases, anonymity. This research sought information on whether soldiers believe such guarantees and, if

not, what reasons they give for not believing them.

Procedure:

Participants (-=40), meeting in small homogeneous groups, completed a standard Army survey that asked questions on six

topics of varying sensitivity. These same participants also

completed a 3-item questionnaire asking about any confidentiality

concerns they may have had while filling out the survey. Then, with their completed survey forms in front of them, they took

part in a focus group discussion to elaborate on these concerns.

Findings:

With respect to the first part of the objective, responses

to an objective questionnaire indicated that only 18 of the 40

participants (45%) routinely believed the confidentiality assurances they were given in Army surveys, and only 23 of them (57%) said they believed the assurances they were given in the present

survey. (This 57% figure is similar to the 58% figure obtained

in a recent Armywide survey.)

With respect to the second part of the objective, there

appeared to be three interrelated reasons some soldiers have

doubts or uncertainties about the assurances of confidentiality they are given. First, they believed (quite apart from the

sincerity they were willing to attribute to those conducting the

survey) that it is simply not possible to guarantee confidentiality for survey responses. They believed that survey booklets (or data recorded from these booklets) always stand a chance of being

seen, inadvertently or otherwise, by individuals whom the respon- dents would not want to see them. Second, the soldiers believed

that the nature of the background information requested in many

Army surveys is such that the various pieces of information could

be combined (in the event someone wanted to do so) to identify

vii
particular individuals and connect then with the responses they

gave to the substantive items. In other words, in the minds of

some soldiers the fact that they are not personally identified in

the survey booklet does not mean that they are not identifiable.

And third, the soldiers had difficulty articulating a reason for

the Army's including many of these background items; in this

situation many assumed the worst. Many of them assumed such

items to have been included because someone (it wasn't necessary

to be able to say whom) wanted to be able to identify them

individually.

Utilization of Findings:

A portion of the results of this research will be used by

the Army Personnel Survey office (APSO) to aid decision making

about relevant matters in future surveys. The results will also

be used to design new research to answer some of the questions

raised.

viii
AN INVESTIGATION OF RESPONDENT CONFIDENTIALITY CONCERNS

IN ARMY SURVEYS: DATA FROM TEN FOCUS GROUPS

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . ..... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 1

Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

METHOD . . . . . *. . . e.. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .& 2

Overview .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2

Participants 0 . . ........... ... .. . 3

Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

RESULTS ........... . ................... * . . . . 6

Responses to Objective Questionnaire Items . . ... 6

Participant Comments During the Discussions . . . . . . 6

DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . *. . . . . . .. 10

Participant Suggestions ................ 11

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . 12

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .*. . . . . . 13

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Privacy/Confidentiality Questionnaire . . . . . . 4

2. Number and Grade(s) of Participants in Each Group 5

3. Responses to Questionnaire Items, Shown

Separately by Respondent Grade/Rank . . . . . . . 7

ix
AN INVESTIGATION OF RESPONDENT CONFIDENTIALITY CONCERNS IN ARMY

SURVEYS: DATA FROM TEN FOCUS GROUPS

INTRODUCTION

The Problem

It has long been taken as a given that individuals will not

respond candidly to sensitive survey questions if they believe

"the wrong people" will be able to find out how they responded to

these questions and link their responses to them personally.

For some, "the wrong people" are simply any individuals and

groups other than those sponsoring and/or conducting the survey,

and what these respondents want to be convinced of is

confidentiality. When survey instructions tell respondents that

their responses will be kept confidential, that records and

reports will not link them personally to the data they provide,

it is mainly to such individuals as these that the assurance is

being directed. For others "the wrong people" are almost anyone

with the ability to link them individually to their responses

(and this includes those professionally associated with the

survey). In these cases, what respondents want to be convinced

of is anonymity. And when survey instructions tell respondents

that the survey is anonymous and ask them not to put their name

or social security number (SSN) anywhere on the form, it is

mainly to such individuals as these that the assurance is being

directed.

It has become a general practice (in the case of Army surveys,

a requirement) for organizations conducting sample surveys to

provide appropriate guarantees of confidentiality and in some

cases anonymity.'. What is not clear is the extent to which

these guarantees of confidentiality or anonymity are believed by

the individuals who participate in these surveys.

Over the years a number of studies have investigated the

effect of anonymity and confidentiality assurances on

questionnaire responses (e.g., Ash & Abramson, 1952; Boruch &

Cecil, 1979; Corey, 1937; Downs & Kerr, 1986; Drake, 1989;

Esposito, Agard, & Rosnow, 1984; Fischer, 1946; Fuller, 1974;

Futtrell & Swan, 1977; Frey, 1986; Fusilier, & Hoyer, 1980;

Hamel & Reif, 1952; Hartnett & Seligsohn, 1967); Houston &

Jefferson, 1975; Jones, 1979; Manniche, & Hayes, 1957; McGuire,

1969; Perlin, 1961; Rosen, 1960; Rosenberg, 1969; Singer,

Hippler, & Schwarz, 1993; Singer & Miller, 1993; Tyson, &

Kaplowitz, 1977; Wildman, 1977; Wilson & Rosen, 1975; Woods &

'There are some, of course, who are unwilling to provide any

information about themselves that they are not absolutely required

to provide (Singer & Miller, 1993); but such individuals are

unlikely to respond to any non-required survey items--particularly

if they are asked to identify themselves.
McNamara, 1980). As Singer and her colleagues (e.g., Singer,

Hippler, & Schwarz, 1993) have pointed out, however, these

studies have not shown clearly that confidentiality assurances

improve data quality. In some studies there has been no effect

(e.g., Hartnett & Seligsohn, 1967; Reamer, 1987), and in other

studies (e.g., experiments in which the topic has intentionally

been made non-sensitive--see Singer et al., 1993), assurances of

confidentiality have produced negative effects on subjects'

willingness to take part in the survey.

Nearly all these studies were conducted by organizations that,

unlike the Army, have little or no control over those who respond

to their survey; and virtually all of the studies have used nonmilitary samples. 2 The implications of these studies for Army

research on this topic would thus appear to be limited to two:

(1) Confidentiality assurances can't always be counted on to

reduce respondents' concerns about confidentiality and anonymity,

and (2) in some situations such assurances can backfire.

Objective

This research addressed the first of these two implications.

Its objective was to obtain information on whether soldiers

believe the assurance of confidentiality they receive in a

standard Army survey and, if not, what reasons they give for not

believing it. The research was designed less to test ideas than

to generate them.

METHOD

Overview

Participants completed a standard Army survey that asked

questions on six topics of varying sensitivity. Afterwards these

same participants completed a 3-item questionnaire asking about

any confidentiality concerns they may have had while filling out

the survey. Then, with their completed survey forms in front of

them, they took part in a focus group discussion aimed at

elaborating these concerns.

'Wilson and Rosen (1975) collected data from soldiers on the

effects of response anonymity. The experiment was what might be

called an "imagining" experiment. Subjects were not exposed to

actual experimental treatments; rather, they were told about each

of several experiment conditions and asked to say how they would

respond under each of these conditions.

2
Part ic ipants

Participants were 40 soldiers: 16 officers and 24 enlisted

personnel, as shown below:

6 captains (03)

10 lieutenants (01-02)

3 senior NCOs (E8)

10 junior NCOs (E6)

11 junior enlisted (E2-E4)

Thirty were male, and ten were female.

Procedure

In each of 10 small groups, homogeneous in rank/grade, the

Investigator administered an omnibus-type survey including items

from the fall-1992 and the spring-1993 Sample Survey of Military

Personnel (SSMP). The instrument took, on the average, about 28

minutes to complete. When participants had completed the

instrument, they didn't turn it in immediately but retained it to

refer to during the discussion that was to take place shortly.

Participants were then given a brief, 3-item questionnaire

concerning confidentiality in surveys (Table 1). When these 3-

item questionnaires had been completed, they were collected; and

the Investigator proceeded with the discussion, using standard

focus group procedures (Krueger, 1988; Merton, 1946, 1990). The

approach was that of "retrospective introspection" (Merton,

1990), in which (in the present case) participants were asked,

for each topic, (a) what was in their mind when they answered the

questions on the topic, (b) whether in responding to these items

they recalled being concerned about confidentiality, and, if so,

(c) what they were concerned about. Items in the survey varied

in sensitivity and addressed such topics as satisfaction with

various aspects of Army life, rating of supervisor's leadership,

rating of unit, gambling, use of alcohol, and use of drugs.

Items were also included that asked about the respondent's

military and social demographics, and one item asked the

respondent's SSN.

Data were collected in May 1993. Prior to the Investigator's

arrival at the post, each participant had been selected3 and

assigned to one of 10 small groups (Table 2); and there were two

groups for each of five grade/rank categories: E2-E4, E5-E6, E8,

01-02, and 03. Two forms of the survey instrument were

constructed: one with the demographic items at the beginning and

3The Investigator learned later that any "bad apples" had been

removed from the list of potential participants before selections

were made.

3
Table 1

Privacy/Confidentiality Questionnaire

Marking Instructions: CIRCLE THE LETTER IN FRONT

OF THE ANSWER YOU CHOOSE

1. How many Army surveys (including the survey today) have you

completed in the past 12 months--that is, since May of last year?

a. 1 (The survey today was the only one.)

b. 2

C. 3

d. 4

e. 5

f. 6

g. 7

h. 8

i. 9

j. 10 or more

2. When an Army survey tells you your answers will be kept

confidential, do you assume they will be kept confidential?

a. Yes, usually

b. Sometimes yes, sometimes no

c. No, usually not

3. What about this particular survey? The booklet says this

survey is confidential and that no effort will be made to trace

your answers back to you. Do you believe this?

a. Yes

b. No

4
Table 2

Number and Grade(s) of Participants in Each Group

Grade Level Number of

Group of Group Soldiers in

Number Members This Group

1 ..... E2-E4 ... ..... 6

2 ....... .. E2-E4 ... ..... 5

3 ......... .. E6 ... ..... 5

4 ......... ..E6 . . ... 5

5 ......... .. E8 ... ..... 1

6 ......... .. E8 . . ... 2

7 ....... .01-02 . . ... 5

8 ....... .01-02 ... ..... 5

9 ......... .. 03 ... ..... 3

10 ......... .. 03 ... ..... 3

5
the other with these items at the end. For each of the five

grade/rank categories, one group received the demographics-first

form and the other received the demographics-last form.

RESULTS

Responses to Objective Questionnaire Items

Participation in Rrior surveys. As indicated above, the

discussion was preceded by the administration of a 3-item

questionnaire; and the responses to these items are displayed in

Table 3. The first item (see Table 1) asked how many Army

surveys (including the survey just completed) the soldier had

completed in the past year. The item was intended mainly as a

lead-in to the following question, but it also provided

information on the respondent-burden question of how often these

soldiers had taken part in an Army survey. Of the 40

participants, 25 (63%) had not during the preceding year

completed a survey other than the one they completed for this

research; and 13 (33%) had completed only one other survey during

this period.

Perception of confidentiality in Army surveys. The second

item (Table 1) asked participants whether they assumed that

promises of confidentiality in Army surveys would be kept. Of

the 40 participants, 18 (45%) said yes, but the remaining 22

(55%) expressed doubts (either "no" or "sometimes yes and

sometimes no"). Those most frequently expressing doubts were the

NCOs (junior and senior). The third item (Table 1) asked

participants whether they believed the assurance of

confidentiality they had been given on the survey they had just

completed. Of the 40 participants, 23 (57%) said yes, but the

remaining 17 (42%) said No. Once again, those most frequently

expressing doubts were the NCOs.

Participant Comments DurinQ the Discussions

Standard confidentiality statement. The first page of the

survey instrument contained a standard confidentiality statement,

and the Investigator probed group members' interpretation of this

statement. Some said they had read the statement, and others

said they had not. Most, however, said they had just skimmed it.

In fact, most said they viewed the inclusion of such a statement

as a little more than standard boilerplate; and, in varying

degree, most expressed doubt or uncertainty as to whether the

assurances would be honored.

Army letter reguesting cooperation. The second page of the

survey instrument contained a letter from the Deputy Chief of

6
Table 3

Responses to Questionnaire Items, Shown Separately

by Resvondent Grade/Rank

QUESTION QUESTION

1 2 3 1 2 3

RESPONDENT RESPONDENT

GRADE/RANK GRADE/RANK

JUNIOR SENIOR

ENLISTED MCOS

1 a a a 22 a c b

2 a b b 23 a c b

3 a a a 24 a a a

4 a a a

5 a a a

6 a a a LIEUTENANTS

7 b a a 25 c a a

8 a b a 26 a a a

9 a c b 27 b a a

10 b b b 28 a b a

11 a c b 29 a a a

30 a c b

31 b c b

JUNIOR 32 a b a

NCOs 33 a b a

12 b c b 34 b a a

13 a b b

14 a a a

15 a b b CAPTAINS

16 b a a 35 b a a

17 a c b 36 b a b

18 d c b 37 b c b

19 a b a 38 b a a

20 b b a 39 a a a

21 a b b 40 b c b

7
Staff for Personnel (DCSPER) requesting the respondent's

cooperation in completing the questionnaire and assuring

confidentiality of participants' responses, and the Investigator

probed group members's interpretation of this letter. As before,

a few said they had read the letter, and a few said they had not;

but most said they has just skimmed it. A few said they thought

a survey coming from Washington could be trusted to preserve

confidentiality more than a survey coming from a local commander,

but the rank of the letter writer (here a 3-star general) was

generally viewed as not making a difference.

Military and social demoQraphics. The instrument included a

variety of military and social demographic items. Military

demographics locate the respondent in the military structure, and

the following items of this type were included: rank,

installation, type of unit, branch or primary MOS, length of time

in the Army, and SSN. Social demographics locate the respondent

in the larger social structure, and the following such items were

included: age, race, ethnicity, gender, and highest level of

education. Most participants said they did not know the reason

for many of these items and, as a result, tended to be suspicious

of the purpose these items' served. A view frequently voiced was

that such items could identify (by post, by type of unit, by

rank, by race, etc.) the individual who provided the information

and that (given a will to use them this way) the items could be

used to trace responses back to the individuals who had given

them. As a result, many respondents said that if they were

concerned about being identified they would omit or falsify

responses to such items or, alternatively, falsify their response

to the substantive items they were concerned about.

Racial/ethnic concerns. A number of black and hispanic

participants made an additional point--viz., that asking for race

and ethnicity information in a survey that focuses on "bad

things" (discipline problems, use of drugs, etc.) is seen by many

as an effort to obtain data that will discredit minority soldiers

by showing disproportionate involvement in these problems.

Reguest for SSN. But far and away the most disliked item was

the one that asked respondents for their SSN. Few of the

participants were able to articulate a legitimate reason for the

survey's including the item, and the fact that it was included

reinforced conclusions many had drawn already regarding the

"true" purpose of many or most of the demographic items.

DemoQraphics first/last. As noted earlier, the design of the

research had provided for two systematically different forms of

the survey instrument, one with the demographics at the beginning

and the other with the demographics at the end--the purpose being

to see whether the nature and/or extent of confidentiality

concerns would be different in the two conditions. What happened

was that confidentiality concerns were voiced at the outset of

8
every discussion--regardless of the location of the other

demographics. And these concerns, at least initially, were

associated with the inclusion of the request for SSN. When the

Investigator asked how soldiers usually dealt with such concerns

he was told that the solution was simple. If the SSN came at the

end of the survey (and the substantive questions were sensitive),

respondents could simply omit or falsify their responses to this

item (they said they were unlikely to go back and change their

answers to the substantive questions.) If the SSN came at the

beginning of the survey they had a choice: either omit or falsify

responses to the demographic item or omit or falsify their

responses to the substantive questions.

Perception of consequences. An effort was made to find out

just what participants thought would happen to them if an

assurance of confidentiality were violated. For the most part,

participants found it difficult to say what they thought would

happen. Some said that their unit leaders might harass them, but

ideas about this tended to be vague.

Substantive topics in the survey. The instrument included

items on the following substantive topics:

"* Satisfaction/dissatisfaction with Army life

"* Rating of supervisor's leadership

"* Rating of unit

"* Gambling

"* Use of alcohol

"* Drugs.

In most cases the group members said that they personally had no

confidentiality concerns in responding to any of these questions;

but they agreed that "some soldiers" might have such concerns,

and the discussion proceeded on the agreed presumption that the

discussion concerned other people. Almost all agreed that the

:rder in which the topics were presented in the instrument (see

above) was the order of their relative sensitivity: satisfaction

with various aspects of Army life was the least sensitive, and

drugs was the most sensitive. And all agreed that to the extent

individuals found an item sensitive they would either omit or

falsify their response to that item or omit or falsify their

response to one or more demographics.

9
DISCUSSION

The objective of this research was to obtain information on

whether soldiers believe the assurance of confidentiality they

receive in a standard Army survey and, if not, what reasons they

give for not believing it. With respect to the first part of

this objective, responses to the questionnaire items indicated

that only 18 of the 40 participants (45%) routinely believe the

confidentiality assurances they are given in Army surveys, and

only 23 of them (57%) said they believed the assurances they were

given in the present survey. This 57% figure is similar to the

figure (58%)W obtained in a recent Armywide survey. Moreover,

the doubt and uncertainty that participants expressed in these

questions was consistent with what was said in the focus group

discussions that followed; and it is consistent also with what

Singer and Miller (1993) found in their review of research

conducted in civilian populations.

With respect to the second part of the objective, there

appeared to be three interrelated reasons for not (or at least

not always) believing the assurances of confidentiality or

anonymity they received. First, the soldiers tended to believe

(quite apart from the sincerity they were willing to attribute to

those conducting the survey) that it is simply not possible to

guarantee complete confidentiality for survey responses. They

tended to believe that survey booklets (or data recorded from

these booklets) always stand a chance of being seen

(inadvertently or otherwise) by individuals whom the respondents

would not want to see them. To the extent therefore that

respondents are concerned about such a possibility (item

sensitivity would presumably be a factor here), they are likely

to become concerned not just about confidentiality but about

anonymity as well.

Second, the soldiers tended to believe that the nature of the

background information requested in many Army surveys is such

that the various pieces of such information could be combined (in

the event some one wanted to do this) to identify specific

individuals and connect them with the responses they gave to the

substantive items. In other words, in the mind of some soldiers

the fact that they are not personally identified in the survey

booklet does not mean that they are not identifiable. And

depending on the sensitivity of these substantive items, such

beliefs by respondents could have measurable effects on data

quality.

'Data from the spring-1990 Sample Survey of Military Personnel

(SSMP), which is administered by the Army Personnel Survey Office.

10
Third, the soldiers had difficulty articulating a reason for

the Army's including the background items; and in this situation

many assumed the worst. Many of them assumed such items had been

included because some one (it wasn't necessary to be able to say

who) wanted to be able to identify them individually.

What is suggested by these observations is that for some

soldiers (and, in the case of particularly sensitive topics,

possibly most soldiers) concerns about confidentiality lead

easily to concerns about anonymity. The more the sensitiveness

of some personally relevant item stimulates concern about

confidentiality, the more respondents indicated they would be

concerned about anonymity. And the more respondents are

convinced their responses cannot be linked to them personally,

the more likely they will be (when asked a sensitive question) to

respond candidly.

Participant Suggestions

Participants were asked what they suggested as a way of

reducing soldiers' confidentiality concerns in responding to a

survey like the one they had just completed. Their suggestions

are listed below:

a. Don't ask for SSN or name. 5

b. Don't ask for any demographic/background

information.

c. Make optional the providing/omitting of any

demographic information requested

d. Don't ask for any demographic/background information

that is not essential for the stated purpose of the

survey, 6

e. Explain the reason for items that are included.

f. Tell who will use the informatiLn and how.

5wilson and Rosen (1975), based on the results of their

experiment with soldiers, recommended that "the respondent's social

security number should not be required" (p.vi).

6Wilson and Rosen (1975) also said that "the background

information gathered in anonymous surveys should be greatly reduced

or eliminated in order to ensure that respondents will feel that

they in fact will be anonymous." (p. vi.)

11
Two participants recalled instances in which their belief in

survey confidentiality had been reduced by factors that had

nothing to do with the survey instrument. One participant said

he had seen a completed survey form lying face up on an NCO's

desk; the other said his own POC had given him a survey form

without an accompanying envelope and that, as instructed, he had

returned the completed form to the POC without such an envelope.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH

The information obtained suggest a number of possibilities for

research. The following are variables that could be manipulated

(alone or in combination) in experimentally created survey forms

to assess their effect on data quality.

a. Nature of (explicit or implicit) identifying

information requested? "* SSN

"* Military demographics

"* Societal demographics

"* None

b. Option/no option to omit background information

c. Large/small number of demographic items included

d. Location of demographics in the survey instrument

(beginning/end)

e. Alerting/not alerting respondent to the inclusion of

background items in the survey and providing/not

providing a plausible justification

f. Printing/not printing tracking number on answer

sheet (to allow for follow-up of nonrespondents) 8

7Not requesting demographic information makes it impossible to

conduct subgroup analysis, which is an important objective of most

surveys.

8If respondents (or potential respondents) see a tracking

number on their questionnaire and believe it is intended for

purposes other than that of simply determining who has and has not

returned the questionnaire, the mere inclusion of such a number

could undermine other efforts to assure confidentiality and/or

anonymity.

12
REFERENCES

Ash, P., & Abramson, E. (1952). The effect of anonymity on

attitude questionnaire response. Journal of Abnormal and

Social Psychology, 47, 722-723.

Boruch, R.F., & Cecil, J.S. (1979). Assuring the confidentiality

of social research data. Philadelphia, PA: University of

Pennsylvania Press.

Corey, S.M. (1937). Signed versus unsigned questionnaires.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 28, 144-148.

Downs, P.E., & Kerr, J.R. (1986). Recent evidence on the

relationship between anonymity and response variables for mail

surveys. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 14,

72-82.

Drake, D.W. (1989). Confidentiality and professional affiliation

effects on subject ratings of interviewers. Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the Southwestern Psychological

Association. Houston, TX. (ERIC Document No. ED 309 345).

Esposito, J.L., Agard, E., & Rosnow, R.L. (1984). Can

confidentiality of data pay off? Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 5, 477-480.

Fischer, R.P. (1946). Signed versus unsigned personal

questionnaires. Journal of Applied Psychology, 30, 220-225.

Frey, J.H. (1986). An experiment with a confidentiality reminder

in a telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 267-269.

Fuller, C. (1974). Effect of anonymity on return rate and

response bias in a mail survey. Journal of Applied Psychology,

59, 292-296.

Fusilier, M.R., & Hoyer, W.D. (1980). Variables affecting

perceptions of invasion of privacy in a personnel selection

situation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 623-626.

Futtrell, C.M., & Swan, J.E. (1977). Anonymity and responses by

salespeople to a mail questionnaire. Journal of Marketing

Research, 14, 611-616.

Hamel, L., & Reif, H.G. (1952). Should attitude questionnaires

be signed? Personnel Psychology, 5, 87-92.

Hartnett, R.T., & Seligsohn, H.C. (1967). The effects of varying

degrees of anonymity on responses to different types of

psychological questionnaires. Journal of Educational

Measurement, A, 95-103.

13
Houston, M.J., & Jefferson, R.W. (1975). On the personalizationanonymity relationship in mail surveys--reply. Journal of

Marketing Research, 1_3, 112-113.

Jones, W.H. (1979). Generalizing mail survey inducement methods:

Population interactions with anonymity. Public Opinion

Quarterly, 4_3 (1), 102-111.

Krueger, R.A. (1988). Focus groups: A Dractical guide for

applied research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Manniche, E., & Hayes, D.P. (1957). Respondent anonymity and

data matching. Public Opinion Quarterly, 21, 384-388.

McGuire, W.J. (1969). Suspiciousness of experimenter's intent.

In R. Rosenberg and R.L. Rosnow (Eds.), Artifact in behavioral

research (pp. 13-57). New York: Academic Press.

Merton, R.K., & Kendall, P.L. (1946). The focused interview.

American Journal of Sociology, 51, 541-557.

Merton, R.K. (1987). The focused interview and focus groups:

Continuities and discontinuities. Public Opinion Ouarterly,

5__1, 550-556.

Merton, R.K., Fiske, M., & Kendall, P.L. (1990). The focused

interview: A manual of problems and procedures (Second

edition). New York: Free Press.

Perlin, L.I. (1961). The appeals of anonymity in questionnaire

response, Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 640-647.

Reamer, F.G. (1987). Informed consent in social work. Social

Work, 5, 425-429.

Rosen, N.A. (1960). Anonymity and attitude measurement. Public

Opinion Quarterly, 2_4, 675-679.

Rosenberg, M.J. (1969). Conditions and consequences of

evaluation apprehension. In R. Rosenberg and R.L. Rosnow

(Eds.), Artifact in behavioral research (pp. 279-349). New

York: Academic Press.

Singer, E., Hippler, H-J, & Schwarz, N. (1992). Confidentiality

assurances in surveys: Reassurance or threat? International

Journal of Public Opinion Research, 4, 256-268.

Singer, E., & Miller, E. (1993, March). Recent research on

confidentiality issues at the Census Bureau. Paper presented

at the Census Bureau's annual research conference. Arlington,

VA.

14
Tyson, H.L., & Kaplowitz, S.A. (1977). Attitudinal conformity and

anonymity. Public Opinion Quarterly, 41, 226-234.

Wildman, R.C. (1977), Effects of anonymity and social settings on

survey responses. Public Opinion Quarterlv, 41, 74-79.

Wilson, T.R., & Rosen, T.H. (1975). Self-disclosure on Army

surveys: Survey procedures and respondent beliefs related to

candidness. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research

Organization. (DTIC # AO 12671)

Woods, K.M., & McNamara, J.R. (1980). Confidentiality: Its

effect on interviewee behavior. Professional PsycholoQy, 1I,

714-721.

15 940113