Web Survey Bibliography
How can response rates in online surveys of any kind be improved? Most studies trying to answer this question investigated the effect of singular factors like incentives, reminders, confidentiality assurances, etc. Only few studies tried to develop a theoretical framework for explaining and predicting participation.
ln our study, we assume that different persuasion strategies are of varying effect depending on the personality of the potential participants. The approach-avoidance model of persuasion (Knowles & Linn, 2004) is used to classify different persuasion strategies into Alpha und Omega strategies. According to this model, changes in attitude and behavior are determined by approach forces and avoidance forces, respectively. Approach forces cause movement toward the desired goal while avoidance forces ham per movement toward the goal. Alpha strategies (e.g. incentives) aim at strengthening the approach forces in order to facilitate a change in behavior. In contrast, Omega strategies (e.g. confidentiality assurances) minimize the avoidance forces by reducing doubts and concerns that bar someone from participating.
Our assumption is that, depending on the personality of the participants, Alpha and Omega strategies are of varying effectiveness. To investigate this assumption, the members of several German-speaking Internet communities were asked to participate in an online survey which consisted of several personality sea les (Big Five, need for cognition, chronic regulatory focus et al). After that, different persuasion strategies we re used to convince the participants to provide their email addresses so that they could be invited to a follow-up survey a few weeks later.
Our main hypothesis is that the chronic regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997) of a person has an effect on whether Alpha or Omega strategies are better suited to facilitate participation in a survey. According to Higgins (1997), people with a promotion focus can be differentiated from people with a prevention focus. A promotion focus is associated with terms like encouragement, growth and performance and regulates the occurrence or absence of positive end states. In contrast, a prevention focus is driven by thoughts of protection, security and responsibility in whose context the occurrence or absence of negative end states is regulated. Based on the parallels between regulatory focus and the approach-avoidance model of persuasion, we assume that persons characterized by a strong promotion focus mo lI1oro susceptible to Alpha strategies while those with a strong prevention focus are more susceptible to Omega strategies.
Wie lasst sich die Teilnahme an Online-Befragungen jeglicher Art steigern? Diese Frage wurde in der Vergangenheit nur selten theoriegeleitet versucht zu beantworten. Der uberwiegende Tei! aller Studien zum Thema beschaftigt sich mit der Wirkung einzelner Faktoren wie Incentives, Reminder, Datenschutzzusagen, etc.
Wir gehen in unserer Studie davon aus, dass unterschiedliche Oberzeugungsstrategien je nach Persčnlichkeit des potenziellen Teilnehmers unterschiedlich wirkungsvoll sind. Als Grundlage fOr die Differenzierung der Persuasionsstrategien dient dabei das Annahrungs-Vermeidungs-Modell der Persuasion nach Knowles und Linn (2004), das Alpha- und Omega-Strategien der Persuasion unterscheidet. Danach sind Einstellungs- und Verhaltensanderungen durch Annaherungskrafte auf der einen und Vermeidungskrafte auf der anderen Seite determiniert. Annaherungskrafte bewirken eine Bewegung in Richtung des gewunschten Ziels, Vermeidungskrafte behindern eine Bewegung zum jeweiligen Zi el. Die AIpha-Strategien setzen bei den Annaherungskraften an und versuchen diese zu verstarken, um somit eine Verhaltensanderung herbeizufOhren (z.B. Incentives). Die Omega-Strategien bi!den das Gegenstock dazu: Sie minimieren die Vermeidungskrafte, indem sie die Angste oder Bedenken, die jemanden davon abhalten etwas zu tun, reduzieren (z.B. Datenschutzzusagen).
Die Annahme ist nun, dass abhangig von der Persčnlichkeit der Teilnehmer Alpha- und Omega-Strategi en unterschiedlich effektiv sind. Um dies zu untersuchen, wurden die Mitglieder mehrerer deutschsprachiger Internet-Communities zur Teilnahme an einer Online-Umfrage aufgefordert, in der zunachst verschiedene Pers6nlichkeitsmerkmale (u.a Big Five, Need for cognition, chronischer regulatorischer Fokus) erhoben wurden. Anschlie[l,end wurden die Teilnehmer unter Einsatz verschiedener Persuasionsstrategien gebeten, ihre E-mail-Adresse anzugeben, um einige Wochen spater zu einer Folgeuntersuchung eingeladen zu werden.
Unsere Haupthypothese lautet, dass der regulatorische Fokus (Higgins, 1997) einer Person einen Einfluss darauf hat, ob Alpha- oder Omega-Strategien besser geeignet sind, die Teilnahme an einer Befragung herbeizufOhren. Nach Higgins lassen sich Personen mit einem Promotion- von Personen mit einem Prevention-Fokus differenzieren. Der Promotion-Fokus wird mit den Begriffen F6rderung, Wachstum und Leistung in Verbindung gebracht und reguliert genereli das Eintreffen bzw. Ausbleiben von positiven Endzustanden. Im Gegenzug sind beim Prevention-Fokus Schutz, Sicherheit und Verantwortung treibende Krafte, vor deren Hintergrund das Ausbleiben bzw. Eintreffen von negativen Endzustanden reguliert wird. Basierend auf den Paralielen des regulatorischen Fokus und dem Annaherungs-Vermeidungs-Modell nehmen wir an, dass Personen mit einem starken Promotion-Fokus eher auf Alpha-Strategien ansprechen, wahrend ein starker Prevention-Fokus eher fOr Omega-Strategien empfanglich macht.
Web survey bibliography - Germany (361)
- Interviewer effects on onliner and offliner participation in the German Internet Panel; 2017; Herzing, J. M. E.; Blom, A. G.; Meuleman, B.
- Comparing the same Questionnaire between five Online Panels: A Study of the Effect of Recruitment Strategy...; 2017; Schnell, R.; Panreck, L.
- Push2web or less is more? Experimental evidence from a mixed-mode population survey at the community...; 2017; Neumann, R.; Haeder, M.; Brust, O.; Dittrich, E.; von Hermanni, H.
- Social Desirability and Undesirability Effects on Survey Response latencies; 2017; Andersen, H.; Mayerl, J.
- Comparison of response patterns in different survey designs: a longitudinal panel with mixed-mode and...; 2017; Ruebsamen, N.; Akmatov, M. K.; Castell, S.; Karch, A.; Mikolajczyk, R. T.
- Mobile Research im Kontext der digitalen Transformation; 2017; Friedrich-Freksa, M.
- Kognitives Pretesting; 2017; Neuert, C.
- Grundzüge des Datenschutzrechts und aktuelle Datenschutzprobleme in der Markt- und Sozialforschung; 2017; Schweizer, A.
- Article Establishing an Open Probability-Based Mixed-Mode Panel of the General Population in Germany...; 2017; Bosnjak, M.; Dannwolf, T.; Enderle, T.; Schaurer, I.; Struminskaya, B.; Tanner, A.; Weyandt, K.
- Socially Desirable Responding in Web-Based Questionnaires: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Candor Hypothesis...; 2016; Gnambs, T.; Kaspar, K.
- Methodological Aspects of Central Left-Right Scale Placement in a Cross-national Perspective; 2016; Scholz, E.; Zuell, C.
- Predicting and Preventing Break-Offs in Web Surveys; 2016; Mittereder, F.
- Incorporating eye tracking into cognitive interviewing to pretest survey questions; 2016; Neuert, C.; Lenzner, T.
- Geht’s auch mit der Maus? – Eine Methodenstudie zu Online-Befragungen in der Jugendforschung...; 2016; Heim, R.; Konowalczyk, S.; Grgic, M.; Seyda, M.; Burrmann, U.; Rauschenbach, T.
- Comparing Cognitive Interviewing and Online Probing: Do They Find Similar Results?; 2016; Meitinger, K., Behr, D.
- Device Effects - How different screen sizes affect answers in online surveys; 2016; Fisher, B.; Bernet, F.
- Effects of motivating question types with graphical support in multi channel design studies; 2016; Luetters, H.; Friedrich-Freksa, M.; Vitt, SGoldstein, D. G.
- Analyzing Cognitive Burden of Survey Questions with Paradata: A Web Survey Experiment; 2016; Hoehne, J. K.; Schlosser, S.; Krebs, D.
- Secondary Respondent Consent in the German Family Panel; 2016; Schmiedeberg, C.; Castiglioni, L.; Schroeder, J.
- Does Changing Monetary Incentive Schemes in Panel Studies Affect Cooperation? A Quasi-experiment on...; 2016; Schaurer, I.; Bosnjak, M.
- Using Cash Incentives to Help Recruitment in a Probability Based Web Panel: The Effects on Sign Up Rates...; 2016; Krieger, U.
- The Mobile Web Only Population: Socio-demographic Characteristics and Potential Bias ; 2016; Fuchs, M.; Metzler, A.
- The Impact of Scale Direction, Alignment and Length on Responses to Rating Scale Questions in a Web...; 2016; Keusch, F.; Liu, M.; Yan, T.
- Web Surveys Versus Other Survey Modes: An Updated Meta-analysis Comparing Response Rates ; 2016; Wengrzik, J.; Bosnjak, M.; Lozar Manfreda, K.
- Retrospective Measurement of Students’ Extracurricular Activities with a Self-administered Calendar...; 2016; Furthmueller, P.
- Privacy Concerns in Responses to Sensitive Questions. A Survey Experiment on the Influence of Numeric...; 2016; Bader, F., Bauer, J., Kroher, M., Riordan, P.
- Ballpoint Pens as Incentives with Mail Questionnaires – Results of a Survey Experiment; 2016; Heise, M.
- Does survey mode matter for studying electoral behaviour? Evidence from the 2009 German Longitudinal...; 2016; Bytzek, E.; Bieber, I. E.
- Forecasting proportional representation elections from non-representative expectation surveys; 2016; Graefe, A.
- Setting Up an Online Panel Representative of the General Population The German Internet Panel; 2016; Blom, A. G.; Gathmann, C.; Krieger, U.
- Online Surveys are Mixed-Device Surveys. Issues Associated with the Use of Different (Mobile) Devices...; 2016; Toepoel, V.; Lugtig, P. J.
- Stable Relationships, Stable Participation? The Effects of Partnership Dissolution and Changes in Relationship...; 2016; Mueller, B.; Castiglioni, L.
- Will They Stay or Will They Go? Personality Predictors of Dropout in Online Study; 2016; Nestler, S.; Thielsch, M.; Vasilev, E.; Back, M.
- Respondent Conditioning in Online Panel Surveys: Results of Two Field Experiments; 2016; Struminskaya, B.
- A Privacy-Friendly Method to Reward Participants of Online-Surveys; 2015; Herfert, M.; Lange, B.; Selzer, A.; Waldmann, U.
- The impact of frequency rating scale formats on the measurement of latent variables in web surveys -...; 2015; Menold, N.; Kemper, C. J.
- Investigating response order effects in web surveys using eye tracking; 2015; Karem Hoehne, J.; Lenzner, T.
- Implementation of the forced answering option within online surveys: Do higher item response rates come...; 2015; Decieux, J. P.; Mergener, A.; Neufang, K.; Sischka, P.
- Translating Answers to Open-ended Survey Questions in Cross-cultural Research: A Case Study on the Interplay...; 2015; Behr, D.
- The Effects of Questionnaire Completion Using Mobile Devices on Data Quality. Evidence from a Probability...; 2015; Bosnjak, M.; Struminskaya, B.; Weyandt, K.
- Are they willing to use the web? First results of a possible switch from PAPI to CAPI/CAWI in an establishment...; 2015; Ellguth, P.; Kohaut, S.
- Measuring Political Knowledge in Web-Based Surveys: An Experimental Validation of Visual Versus Verbal...; 2015; Munzert, S.; Selb, P.
- Changing from CAPI to CAWI in an ongoing household panel - experiences from the German Socio-Economic...; 2015; Schupp, J.; Sassenroth, D.
- Rating Scales in Web Surveys: A Test of New Drag-and-Drop Rating Procedures; 2015; Kunz, T.
- Mode System Effects in an Online Panel Study: Comparing a Probability-based Online Panel with two Face...; 2015; Struminskaya, B.; De Leeuw, E. D.; Kaczmirek, L.
- Higher response rates at the expense of validity? Consequences of the implementation of the ‘forced...; 2015; Decieux, J. P.; Mergener, A.; Neufang, K.; Sischka, P.
- A quasi-experiment on effects of prepaid versus promised incentives on participation in a probability...; 2015; Schaurer, I.; Bosnjak, M.
- Response Effects of Prenotification, Prepaid Cash, Prepaid Vouchers, and Postpaid Vouchers: An Experimental...; 2015; van Veen, F.; Goeritz, A.; Sattler, S.
- Recruiting Respondents for a Mobile Phone Panel: The Impact of Recruitment Question Wording on Cooperation...; 2015; Busse, B.; Fuchs, M.
- The Influence of the Answer Box Size on Item Nonresponse to Open-Ended Questions in a Web Survey ; 2015; Zuell, C.; Menold, N.; Koerber, S.