This study investigates the effects of researcher presence (the researcher remaining with the respondent during survey completion versus a dropoff/callback approach) and type of appeal (social utility, help-the-sponsor, egoistic, and a no-appeal control) on response quality in hand-delivered, self-administered surveys. The criterion, response quality, is defined as response, item completion, item distortion, and item omission rates. Based on the theories of relational communication, reasoned action, and self-perception, this study hypothesizes that both appeal type and researcher presence will have a significant effect on response quality. Although nondirectional hypotheses are advanced due to the conflicting results of previous research, the theoretical orientations lead to hypothesizing that the researcher present condition, compared with the callback approach, will result in significantly higher response quality. To test the hypotheses, questionnaires were hand-delivered to a probability sample of 680 eligible households, representing the eight researcher presence/appeal type treatments. Results of the experiment discussed here suggest that each of the four components of response quality is significantly affected by either a main or an interaction effect. Specifically, the altruistic appeals and the researcher present condition lead to the lowest item omission rate. Although appeal type does not have a significant effect on the item distortion rate, the callback condition results in a significantly lower item distortion rate than the research present condition. With respect to response and item completion rates, a significant interaction effect exists between appeal type and researcher presence. For example, when the egoistic appeal is used, the callback approach yields a significantly greater response rate than the researcher present treatment. On the other hand, when the help-the-sponsor appeal is used, the researcher present treatment elicits a significantly higher response rate than the callback approach. Further, when the help-the-sponsor appeal is used, the researcher present treatment results in a higher completion rate than the callback treatment, whereas when the egoistic appeal is used, the researcher present treatment results in a lower completion rate than the callback treatment. Theoretical and managerial implications of the findings are discussed.