Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T18:36:08.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Self-Report Surveys and Factorial Survey Experiments

from Part 2 - Quantitative Approaches to Measuring Corporate Compliance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2022

Melissa Rorie
Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Benjamin van Rooij
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam, School of Law
Get access

Summary

Abstract: The use of self-report surveys in social science research is ubiquitous, yet the promise of such methods for the evaluation of business compliance has yet to be fully explored. This chapter details the unique benefits of adopting a survey approach generally in the study of compliance, as well as examining the benefits of “factorial survey experiments” more specifically. Specifically, surveys and factorial surveys have the potential to uncover noncompliance before it happens, provide insights into why noncompliance occurs, and can examine whether employee trainings or other internal efforts are effective in promoting compliance behavior. Throughout the chapter, the utility of these methods for both academic scholars as well as compliance practitioners is emphasized in an attempt to encourage people within corporations to consider moving beyond a reliance on data collected by the corporation in the course of everyday business processes – ideally in partnerships with scholars.

The chapter begins with a brief history of survey research and how surveys have been used in compliance research, then provides an overview of the known benefits and weaknesses of the survey method. A description follows detailing more specifically how the integration of experimental manipulations enhances the usefulness of surveys in the form of “factorial survey” methods. This description includes information on what those survey formats entail (using an example from the author’s own research to illustrate) and outlines their benefits as well as their limitations when applied to compliance research. Finally, the chapter concludes by articulating how the use of surveys and survey experiments would benefit both scholars and professionals.

Type
Chapter
Information
Measuring Compliance
Assessing Corporate Crime and Misconduct Prevention
, pp. 93 - 107
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

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

Abbott, Pamela and Sapsford, Roger. 1993. Studying policy and practice: The use of vignettes. Nursing Research, 1, 81.Google Scholar
Aguinis, Herman and Bradley, Kyle J.. 2014. Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17, 351.Google Scholar
Alexander, Cheryl S. and Becker, Henry J.. 1978. The use of vignettes in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 93104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andes, Scott and Correa, Daniel. 2017. November 2. Comment: Boosting research funding as uncertainty reigns. Nature Index 2017 United States. www.nature.com/collections/qqmnjbjjdb.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atzmüller, Christiane and Steiner, Peter M.. 2010. Experimental vignette studies in survey research, Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 6, 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auspurg, Katrin and Jäckle, Annette. 2012. First Equals Most Important? Order Effects in Vignette-Based Measurement. University of Essex: Institute for Social and Economic Research.Google Scholar
Auspurg, Katrin, Hinz, Thomas, and Liebig, Stefan. 2009. Complexity, Learning Effects, and Plausibility of Vignettes in Factorial Surveys. Bibliothek der Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
Aviram, Hadar. 2012. What would you do? Conducting web-based factorial vignette surveys. In Gideon, Lior, ed., Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Beck, Lisa and Ajzen, Icek. 1991. Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 25(3), 285301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chu, Amanda M. Y., So, Mike K. P., and Chung, Ray S. W.. 2018. Applying the randomized response technique in business ethics research: The misuse of information systems resources in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 151, 195212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drummond, Frances J., Sharp, Linda, Carsin, Anne-Elie, Kelleher, Tracy, and Comber., Harry 2018. Questionnaire order significantly increased response to a postal survey sent to primary care physicians. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 177–85.Google Scholar
Eifler, Stefanie. 2010. Validity of a factorial survey approach to the analysis of criminal behavior. Methodology, 6, 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Exum, M. Lyn, Bailey, Diana, and Wright, Eric L.. 2014. False positive and false negative rates in self-reported intentions to offend: A replication and extension. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Exum, M. Lyn, Turner, Michael G., and Hartman., Jennifer L. 2012. Self-reported intentions to offend: All talk and no action? American Journal of Criminal Justice, 17, 523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faia, Michael A. 1980. The vagaries of the vignette world: A comment on Alves and Rossi. American Journal of Sociology, 85, 951.Google Scholar
Falk, Armin, Meier, Stephan, and Zehnder., Christian 2013. Do lab experiments misrepresent social preferences? The case of self-selected student samples. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(4), 839–52.Google Scholar
Finch, Janet. 1987. The vignette technique in survey research. Sociology, 21, 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Sarah. 2020. September 4. Employee satisfaction surveys: Best practices and sample questions. Qualtrics Blog. www.qualtrics.com/blog/employee-satisfaction-survey/.Google Scholar
Gould, Dinah. 1996. Using vignettes to collect data for nursing research studies: How valid are the findings? Journal of Clinical Nursing, 5, 207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, Donald E. 1989. Measures of illegal behavior in individual-level deterrence research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26(3), 253–75.Google Scholar
Green, Robert G., Murphy, Katrina D., and Snyder., Shelita M. 2000. Should demographics be placed at the end or at the beginning of mailed questionnaires? An empirical answer to a persistent methodological question. Social Work Research, 24(4), 237–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hox, Joop J., Kreft, Ita G. G., and Hermkens, Piet L. J.. 1991. The analysis of factorial surveys. Sociological Methods and Research, 19, 493.Google Scholar
Hughes, Jennifer L., Camden, Abigail A., and Yangchen., Tenzin 2016. Rethinking and updating demographic questions: Guidance to improve descriptions of research samples. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 21(3), 138–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, Rhidian and Huby, Meg. 2012. The construction and interpretation of vignettes in social research. Social Work and Social Sciences Review, 11, 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jehn, Karen A. and Jonsen., Karsten 2010. A multimethod approach to the study of sensitive organizational issues. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(4), 313–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, David R. 2018, June 5. With federal funding for science on the decline, what’s the role of a profit motive in research? The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/with-federal-funding-for-science-on-the-decline-whats-the-role-of-a-profit-motive-in-research–93322.Google Scholar
Jones, Thomas V., Gerrity, Martha S., and Earp, JoAnne. 1990. Written case simulations: Do they predict physicians’ behavior? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 43(8), 805–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Judd, Scott, O’Rourke, Eric, and Grant, Adam. 2018. Employee surveys are still one of the best ways to measure engagement. Harvard Business Review. March 14. https://hbr.org/2018/03/employee-surveys-are-still-one-of-the-best-ways-to-measure-engagement.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Jay P. and Ticknor., Bobbie 2012. Studying corporate crime: Making the case for virtual reality. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 7(1), 416–30.Google Scholar
Kirwan, J. R., De Saintonge, D. C., Joyce, C. R., and Currey, H. L.. 1983. Clinical judgment in rheumatoid arthritis. I. Rheumatologists’ opinions and the development of “paper patients.” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 42(6), 644–7.Google Scholar
Kreuter, Frauke, Presser, Stanley, and Tourangeau, Roger. 2008. Social desirability bias in CATI, IVR, and Web surveys the effects of mode and question sensitivity. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 847.Google Scholar
Langley, G. Ross, Tritchler, David L., Llewellyn-Thomas, Hilary A., and Till, James E.. 1991. Use of written cases to study factors associated with regional variations in referral rates. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 44(4), 391402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, Susan Lorde. 2015. Compliance officers: More jobs, more responsibility, more liability. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, 29, 169–98.Google Scholar
McLaren, Nicholas. 2015. The methodology in empirical sales ethics research: 1980–2010. Journal of Business Ethics, 127, 121–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLeod, Michael S., Payne, G. Tyge, and Evert, Robert E.. 2016. Organizational ethics research: A systematic review of methods and analytical techniques. Journal of Business Ethics, 134, 429–43.Google Scholar
Murray, Glenn F. and Erickson., Patricia G. 1987. Cross-sectional versus longitudinal research: An empirical comparison of projected and subsequent criminality. Social Science Research, 16(2), 107–18.Google Scholar
Nagin, Daniel S. and Pogarsky., Greg 2003. An experimental investigation of deterrence: Cheating, self-serving bias, and impulsivity. Criminology, 41(1), 167–94.Google Scholar
Nix, Justin, Pickett, Justin T., Baek, Hyunin, and Alpert., Geoffrey P. 2019. Police research, officer surveys, and response rates. Policing and Society, 29(5), 530–50.Google Scholar
Oll, Josua, Hahn, Rüdiger, Reimsbach, Daniel, and Kotzian., Peter 2018. Tackling complexity in business and society research: The methodological and thematic potential of factorial surveys. Business and Society, 57(1), 2659.Google Scholar
Parker, Christine and Nielsen., Vibeke 2009. The challenge of empirical research on business compliance in regulatory capitalism. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 5, 4570.Google Scholar
Pickett, Justin T., Cullen, Frank T., Bushway, Shawn D., Chiricos, Ted, and Alpert., Geoffrey 2018. The response rate test: Nonresponse bias and the future of survey research in criminology and criminal justice. The Criminologist, 43(1), 711.Google Scholar
Pogarsky, Greg. 2004. Projected offending and contemporaneous rule-violation: Implications for heterotypic continuity. Criminology, 42, 111.Google Scholar
Randall, Donna M. and Gibson, Annetta M.. 1990. Methodology in business ethics research: A review and critical assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(6), 457–71.Google Scholar
Rorie, Melissa and West, Matthew. 2020. Can “focused deterrence” produce more effective ethics codes? An experimental study. Journal of White Collar and Corporate Crime. https://doi.org/10.1177/2631309X20940664.Google Scholar
Rorie, M., Alper, M., Schell-Busey, N., & Simpson, S. S. (2018). Using meta-analysis under conditions of definitional ambiguity: The case of corporate crime. Criminal Justice Studies, 31(1), 3861.Google Scholar
Rorie, Melissa, Simpson, Sally S., Cohen, Mark, and Vandenbergh, Michael. 2018. Examining procedural justice and legitimacy in corporate offending and beyond-compliance behavior: The efficacy of direct and indirect regulatory interactions. Law & Policy, 40(2), 172–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossi, Peter H. 1951. The application of latent structure analysis to the study of social stratification. Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Rossi, Peter H. 1979. Vignette analysis: Uncovering the normative structure of complex judgments. In King, Robert, Samuel, James, and Rossi, Peter H., eds., Qualitative and Quantitative Social Research: Papers in Honor of Paul F Lazarsfeld. New York: Free Press, 176–86.Google Scholar
Rossi, Peter H. and Anderson, Andy B.. 1982. The factorial survey approach: An introduction. In Rossi, Peter H. and Nock, Steven L., eds., Measuring Social Judgments: The Factorial Survey Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Rossi, Peter H. and Nock, Steven L.. 1982. Measuring Social Judgments: The Factorial Survey Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Sampson, Robert J. 2010. Gold standard myths: Observations on the experimental turn in quantitative criminology. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26(4), 489500.Google Scholar
Schindler, Pamela. 2019. Business Research Methods, 13th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Schutt, Russell K. 2015. Investigating the Social World, 8th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Teclaw, Robert, Price, Mark C., and Osatuke., Katerine 2012. Demographic question placement: Effect on item response rates and means of a Veterans Health Administration survey. Journal of Business Psychology, 27, 281–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsingou, Eleni. 2018. New governors on the block: The rise of anti-money laundering professionals. Crime, Law, and Social Change, 69, 191205.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. 2009. Self-regulatory approaches to white-collar crime: The importance of legitimacy and procedural justice. In The Criminology of White-Collar Crime. New York: Springer, pp. 195216.Google Scholar
Wallander, Lisa. 2009. 25 years of factorial surveys in sociology: A review. Social Science Research, 38(3), 505–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Eleanor, Sellers, Deborah, and Rossi, Peter. 1988. Vig-Write: The PC Vignette Generating Program. Amherst, MA: Social and Demographic Research Institute, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Weisburd, David. 2003. Ethical practice and evaluation of interventions in crime and justice: The moral imperative for randomized trials. Evaluation Review, 27(3), 336–54.Google Scholar
Wilson, Jonathan. 2014. Essentials of Business Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Wouters, Kristel, Maesschalck, Jeroen, Peeters, Carel F. W., and Roosen, Marijke. 2014. Methodological issues in the design of online surveys for measuring unethical work behavior: Recommendations on the basis of a split-ballot experiment. Journal of Business Ethics, 120, 275–89.Google Scholar
Yacoubian, George S., VanderWall, Kristine L., Johnson, Regina J., Urbach, Blake J., and Peters, Ronald J.. 2003. Comparing the validity of self-reported recent drug use between adult and juvenile arrestees.Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 35(2), 279–84.Google Scholar
Zerbe, Wilfred J. and Paulhus, Delroy L.. 1987. Socially desirable responding in organizational behavior: A reconception. Academy of Management Review, 12, 250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×