Recruiting Method and Its Impact on Participant Behavior

Abstract

Purpose – Recruiting sufficient participants who adequately represent the population of interest is an ongoing issue for accounting experimental researchers. This study investigates the impact of recruitment method on the number of participants, effort on the experimental task, and sample bias with respect to three individual difference variables (locus of control, social desirability response bias, and prosocial behavior). We employ five different recruitment methods: three forms of monetary compensation and two levels of an appeal for help with a research project.

Methodology – We recruit students in five sections of the same course taught by the same instructor (not one of the researchers), manipulating recruitment method across sections. Immediately following recruitment, participants completed a simple experimental task and scales for the individual difference variables.

Findings – We find that the method of recruiting resulted in different response rates, with appeal from a fellow student yielding the highest response rate, and appeal from a professor yielding the lowest response rate. Effort was greatest for the appeal from the professor and least for the draw. While the five subsamples that resulted from the five recruiting methods were not different with respect to the individual difference variables, the relationship of those variables to effort did vary.

Research Implications – Our findings suggest that researchers must carefully consider recruitment method not only in terms of how many participants can be attracted, but also in terms of the potential impact of the manner in which recruitment was conducted on the attitudes and behaviors of the participants during the experiment.

Citation

Bay, D., Cook, G.L. and Yeboah, D. (2020), "Recruiting Method and Its Impact on Participant Behavior", Karim, K.E. (Ed.) Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research (Advances in Accounting Behavioural Research, Vol. 23), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1475-148820200000023001