An analysis of the effect of pre-incentives and post-incentives based on draws on response to web surveys

Quality and Quantity

Volumn 44, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 357-373

  Sánchez Fernández, Juan ^a   Muñoz Leiva, Francisco ^a   Montoro Ríos, Francisco J ^a   Ibáñez Zapata, J Ángel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Draws; Incentives; Quality response; Response rate; Web surveys

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951207962     PISSN: 00335177     EISSN: 15737845     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11135-008-9197-4     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Aoki, K., Elasmar, M.: Opportunities and challenges of conducting web-surveys: results of a field experiment. In 55th Annual Meeting of American Association for Public Opinion Research. Portland, Oregon, May 18-21, 2000.
2. Bauman, S., Jobity, N., Airey, J., Atak, H.: Invites, intros and incentives: lessons from a web survey. 55th Annual Conference of American Association for Public Opinion Research. Portland, Oregon, May 18-21, 2000.
3. Birnbaum M. H.: A web-based program of research on decision making. In: Reips, U. D., Bosnjak, M.(eds) Pabst Science Publishers., pp. 23-55. Lengerich, Germany (2001).
4. Birnholtz J. P., Horn D. B., Finholt T. A., Bae S. J.: The effects of cash, electronic, and paper gift certificates as respondent incentives for a web-based survey of technologically sophisticated respondents. Soc. Sci. Comp. Rev. 22(3), 355-362 (2004).
5. Bornstein B. H.: The ecological validity of jury simulations: is the jury still out?. Law Human Behav. 23, 75-92 (1999).
6. Bosnjak, M., Tuten, T. L.: Classifying response behaviors in web-based surveys. J. Comput. Mediated Commun (2001). http://www.ascuse.org/jeme/vol6/issue3/boznjak.html (Retrieved October 9, 2002).
7. Bosnjak M., Tuten T. L.: Prepaid and promised incentives in web surveys: an experiment. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 21(2), 208-217 (2003).
8. Brehm S. S., Brehm J. W.: A Theory of Psychological Reactance. Academic Press, New York (1981).
9. Chang, L., Krosnick, J.: National surveys via RDD telephone interviewing vs. the internet: comparing sample representativeness and response quality. Paper Presented at the American Association for Public Opinion Research Annual Meeting, Phoenix, Arizona, 2003.
10. Cho H., LaRose R.: Privacy issues in internet surveys. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 17(4), 421-434 (1999).
11. Cialdini R. B.: Influence: the Psychology of Persuasion. William Morrow and Company, New York (1984).
12. Cobanoglu C., Cobanoglu N.: The effect of incentives in web surveys: application and ethical considerations. Int. J. Mark. Res. 45(4), 475-488 (2003).
13. Cobanoglu C., Warde B., Moreo P. J.: A comparison of mail, fax and web-based survey methods. Int. J. Mark. Res. 43(4), 441-452 (2001).
14. Coderre F., Mathieu A., St-Laurent N.: Comparison of the quality of qualitative data obtained through telephone, postal and email surveys. Int. J. Mark. Res. 46(3), 347-357 (2004).
15. Cook C., Heath F., Thompson R. L.: A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 60(6), 821-836 (2000).
16. Couper M. P.: Web surveys: a review of issues and approaches. Public Opin. Q. 64(4), 464-494 (2000).
17. Couper M. P., Traugott M. W., Lamias M. J.: Web survey design and administration. Public Opin. Q. 65(2), 230-253 (2001).
18. Crawford, S., McCabe, S., Couper, M. P., Boyd, C.: From mail to web: improving response rates and data collection efficiencies. International Conference on Improving Surveys. Copenhagen, Denmark, 2002.
19. Deutskens E., Ruyter K., Wetzels M.: An assessment of equivalence between online and mail surveys in service research. J. Ser. Res. 8(4), 346-355 (2006).
20. Deutskens E., Ruyter K., Wetzels M., Oosterveld P.: Response rate and response quality of internet-based surveys: an experimental study. Mark. Lett. 15(1), 21-36 (2004).
21. Dillman A.: Mail and Internet Surveys: The Total Design Method. Wiley, New York (2000).
22. Dillman D. A., Singer E., Clark J. R., Treat J. B.: Effects of benefits appeals, mandatory appeals, and variations in statements of confidentiality on completion rates for census questionnaires. Public Opin. Q. 60, 376-389 (1996).
23. Downes-Le Guin, T., Janowitz, P., Stone, R., Khorram, S.: Use of pre-incentives in an internet survey. J. Online Res. 1-7 (2002). http://www.ijor.org/ijor_archives/articles/Use_of_pre-incentives_in_an_internet_survey.pdf (Retrieved July, 15, 2006).
24. Fink J. C.: CATI's first decade: the Chilton experience. Soc. Methods Res. 12(2), 153-168 (1983).
25. Flaherty L. M., Pearce K. J., Rubin R. B.: Internet and face-to-face communication: not functional alternatives. Commun. Q. 46(3), 250-268 (1998).
26. Frick A., Bächtiger M. T., Reips U. D.: Financial incentives, personal information and drop-out rate in online studies. In: Reips, U. D., Bosnjak, M.(eds) Dimensions of Internet Science, pp. 209-219. Pabst Science, Lengerich, Germany (2001).
27. Fricker S., Galesic M., Tourangeau R., Yan T.: An experimental comparison of web and telephone surveys. Public Opin. Q. 69(3), 370-392 (2005).
28. Goetz E. G., Tyler T. R., Lomax Cook F. L.: Promised incentives in media research: a look at data quality, sample representativeness, and response rate. J. Mark. Res. 21(2), 148-154 (1984).
29. Göritz A. S.: The impact of material incentives on response quantity, response quality, sample composition, survey outcome, and cost in online access panels. Int. J. Mark. Res. 46(3), 327-345 (2004).
30. Göritz A. S.: Contingent versus unconditional incentives in WWW-studies. Metodolosky Zvezki 2(1), 1-14 (2005).
31. Göritz A. S.: Cash lotteries as incentives in online panels. Soci. Sci. Comput. Rev. 24(4), 445-459 (2006a).
32. Göritz A. S.: Incentives in web studies: methodological issues and review. Int. J. Internet Sci. 1(1), 58-70 (2006b).
33. Groves R. M., Cialdini R. B., Couper M. P.: Understanding the decision to participate in a survey. Public Opin. Q. 56(4), 475-495 (1992).
34. Heerwegh D.: Effects of personal salutations in E-mail invitations to participate in a web survey. Public Opin. Q. 69(4), 588-598 (2005).
35. Heerwegh D.: An investigation of the effect of lotteries on web survey response rates. Field Methods 18(2), 205-220 (2006).
36. Heerwegh D., Loosveldt G.: Web surveys: the effect of controlling survey access using PIN numbers. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 20(1), 10-21 (2002).
37. Heerwegh D., Loosveldt G.: An evaluation of the semiautomatic login procedure to control web survey access. Soci. Sci. Comput. Rev. 21(2), 223-234 (2003).
38. Heerwegh D., Vanhove T., Matthijs K., Loosveldt G.: The effect of personalization on response rates and data quality in web surveys. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 8(2), 85-99 (2005).
39. Ilieva J., Baron S., Healey N. M.: Online surveys in marketing research: pros and cons. Int. J. Mark. Res. 44(3), 361-382 (2002).
40. Joinson A. N.: Social desirability, anonymity, and internet-based questionnaires. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 31, 433-438 (1999).
41. Kaplowitz M. D., Hadlock T. D., Levine R.: A comparison of web and mail survey response rates. Public Opin. Q. 68(1), 94-101 (2004).
42. Kelly G., McKenzie B.: Security, privacy, and confidentiality issues on the internet. J. Med. Internet Res. 4(2), 1-12 (2002).
43. McCabe S. E., Couper M. P., Cranford J. A., Boyd C. J.: Comparison of web and mail surveys for studying secondary consequences associated with substance use: evidence for minimal mode effects. Addict. Behav. 31, 162-168 (2005).
44. Musch, J., Reips, U. D.: The brief history of web experimenting: a survey. Psychology experiments on the internet. In: Birnbaum M. H. (ed.) pp. 61-87. Academic Press, San Diego (2000).
45. O'Neil K. M., Penrod S. D.: Methodological variables in web-based research that may affect results: sample type, monetary incentives, and personal information. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 33(2), 226-233 (2001).
46. O'Neil K. M., Penrod S. D., Bornstein B. H.: Web-based research: methodololical variables' effects on dropout and sample characteristics. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 35, 217-226 (2003).
47. Porter S. R., Whitcomb M. E.: The impact of contact type on web survey response rates. Public Opin. Q. 67(4), 579-588 (2003a).
48. Porter S. R., Whitcomb M. E.: The impact of lottery incentives on student survey response rates. Res. High. Educ. 44(4), 389-407 (2003b).
49. Roster C. A., Rogers R. D., Albaum G.: A comparison of response characteristics from web and telephone surveys. Int. J. Mark. Res. 46(3), 359-373 (2004).
50. Roztocki, N.: Using internet-based surveys for academic research: opportunities and problems. Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Management (ASEM) National Conference 2001, pp. 290-295 (2001).
51. Sears A.: Introduction: empirical studies of WWW usability. Int. J. Human Comput. Interact. 12, 167-171 (2000).
52. Sheehan, K. B.: E-mail survey response rates: a review. J. Comput. Mediated Commun. 6(2) (2001). http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue2/sheehan.html (Retrieved 9 March, 2002).
53. Sheehan K. B., Hoy M. G.: Flaming, complaining, abstaining: how online users respond to privacy concerns. J. Advert. 28(3), 37-51 (1999).
54. Sheehan K. B., Mcmillan S. J.: Response variation in e-Mail surveys: an exploration. J. Adver. Res. 39, 45-54 (1999).
55. Smyth J. D., Dillman D. A., Christian L. M., Stern M. J.: Comparing check-all and forced-choice question in web surveys. Public Opin. Q. 70(1), 66-77 (2006).
56. Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., Rasinski, K.: The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge University Press (2000).
57. Tuten T. L., Bosnjak M., Bandilla W.: Banner-advertised web surveys. Mark. Res. 11, 17-21 (2000).
58. Tuten T. L., Galesic M., Bosnjak M.: Effects of immediate versus delayed notification of prize draw results on response behavior in web surveys: an experiment. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 22(3), 377-384 (2004).
59. Weible R., Wallace J.: Cyber research: the impact of the Internet on data collection. Mark. Res. 10(3), 19-24 (1998).
60. Yun G. W., Trumbo C. W.: Comparative response to a survey executed by post, e-mail, & web form. J. Comput. Mediated Commun. 6(1), 1-11 (2000).