Web Survey Bibliography
Incentives are material and nonmaterial inducements and rewards that are offered to respondents in exchange for their participation in studies. This chapter explains the advantages and disadvantages of using incentives in Web-based studies and describes the types of incentives that are available. Moreover, the chapter seeks to develop evidence-based guidelines for short-term, as well as long-term, use of incentives to attain the goal of collecting high-quality data in a cost-conscious manner. Although a number of theoretical frameworks have been proposed to explain how incentives work (e.g., for an overview of theoretical accounts, see Singer, 2002), the focus of this chapter is pragmatic rather than theoretical. By handing out incentives to respondents, researchers can increase the likelihood of people participating in Web-based studies, and incentives may improve the quality of respondents responses. In particular, incentives can increase the response and the retention rates in a study. The response rate is the number of people who call up the first page of a study divided by the number of people who were invited or were aware of and eligible to take part in this study. The retention rate is the number of respondents who stay until the last page of a study relative to the number of respondents who have called up the first page of this study. Moreover, there is the hopebut not yet many datathat incentives will also increase other facets of data quality such as the completeness, consistency, and elaborateness of participants answers. However, using incentives might also entail undesirable effects. First, incentives might increase the response and retention rates at the expense of other facets of data quality, for example, more items are skipped; response styles occur more often; or answers to open-ended questions are shorter. It is possible that groups who are offered an incentive will answer less conscientiously than groups without incentives because the incentives might reduce the intrinsic motivation to perform the task (Heerwegh, 2006). Howeverat least in offline surveyssometimes the opposite has been found to be the case (Singer, Van Hoewyk, & Maher, 2000). Singer (2002) found that people who are rewarded for their participation would continue to give good information (p. 168). The second potential undesirable effect of incentives is that they might attract a particular type of respondent and thereby bias sample composition (e.g., poorer people may be more responsive than richer people to monetary incentives; Groves & Peytcheva, 2008). The third possible effect is that incentives might actually reduce the response and retention rates by alienating intrinsically motivated volunteers (see Deci, 1971). Finally, incentives might bias the study results, for example, by altering the mood of the respondents (Singer, 2002) or by altering respondents attitude to the researcher. There is the risk that to earn an incentive, people with little motivation will fill in meaningless data to get to the end of a survey quickly. When no incentive is promised, bored people usually abandon the study prematurely, so they are easily identifiable. Moreover, when offering incentives, researchers need to follow ethical guidelines as well as legal regulations (see chap. 16, this volume). Because the laws pertaining to the use of incentives differ across some countries, particular care is necessary with international studies. Finally, in studies with ad hoc recruitment of respondents, incentives might induce some people to fill out and submit the questionnaire many times, and it is not always possible to detect skillful fraud. To weigh whether incentives can be recommended despite possible drawbacks, researchers need to know how large the desirable and undesirable effects are. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved). (from the chapter)
Mendeley Homepage (abstract)
Web Survey Bibliography (6390)
- Widening the Net: A Comparison of Online Intercept and Access Panel Sampling; 2011; Bakken, D. G., Nawani, R.
- Does choice of vendor make a difference in respondent validation and how does it impact the overall...; 2011; Courtright, M., Miller, C.
- The Future of Research Through Gaming; 2011; Adamou, B.
- Making it fit: how survey technology providers are responding to the challenges of handling web surveys...; 2011; Macer, T.
- Probably the Best Bias in the World?; 2011; Dent, T.
- Optimus Modus: Comparing interviewing modes for visitor surveys; 2011; Stanley, N., Jenkins, S.
- The development of the KubeMatrix™ as a mobile app for Market Research Online Communities; 2011; Birks, D. F., Wilson, D.
- Online Research – Game On!: A look at how gaming techniques can transform your online research; 2011; Puleston, J.
- Engagement, Consistency, Reach – why the Technology Landscape Precludes All Three; 2011; Johnson, A., Rolfe, G.
- Proposed Indicators to Assess Interviewer Performance (IP) in CATI Surveys; 2011; Laflamme, F.
- The use of paradata to improve data collection at Statistics Canada: Empirical results and research; 2011; Gambino, J., Wrighte, D.
- Medium Node: NSF Census Research Network; 2011; McCutcheon, A. L., Belli, R. F., Olson, K., D.; Smyth, J. D., Soh, L.-K.
- A new online building survey system; 2011; Wang, Y.
- The Interactive Effects of Motivations and Trust in Anonymity on Adolescents' Enduring Participation...; 2011; Stiglbauer, B., Gnambs, T., Gamsjäger, M.
- The Research-Data-Centre in Research-Data-Centre Approach: A First Step Towards Decentralised International...; 2011; Bender, S., Heining, J.
- Seeking the right blend: Part II: What happens when you mix panel respondents and social network respondents...; 2011; Gittelman, S. H., Portner, A.
- Seeking the right blend: Part I: What happens when you mix panel respondents and social network respondents...; 2011; Gittelman, S. H., Portner, A.
- By the Numbers: Survey routers? Approach with caution; 2011; Ribeiro, E.
- A Comparison of Internet-Based Participant Recruitment Methods: Engaging the Hidden Population of Cannabis...; 2011; Temple, E. C., Brown, R. F.
- Estudo de usabilidade para PDAs utilizados em coleta de dados nas entrevistas pessoais para pesquisas...; 2011; Patricia Zamprogno Tavares
- The German Access Panel and the Impact of Response Propensities; 2011; Amarov, B., Enderle, T., Muennich, R., Rendtel, U., Zins, S.
- Long-Term Effects in the PPSM Access Panel; 2011; Bartsch, S., Vehre, H., Engel, U.
- Online-Telephone Mixed-Mode Surveys Question Wording Experiments in The Netherlands and Germany; 2011; de Leeuw, E. D., Hox, J.
- First Equals Most Important? Order Effects in Vignette- Based Measurement; 2011; Auspurg, K., Jaeckle, A.
- Equivalence of Measures of Xenophobia in Cross National Survey Research: Findings Based on a Web Probing...; 2011; Bandilla, W., Behr, D., Braun, M., Kaczmirek, L., Majer, S.
- Web Survey Process within the Concept of eSocial Sciences; 2011; Vehovar, V.
- Addressing Panel Attrition in Mobile Phone Panel Surveys: Can Incentives and Switching to Mobile Web...; 2011; Busse, B., Fuchs, M.
- Respondent collaboration in web survey design: developing a unique strategy for pre-testing questions...; 2011; Young, B. P.
- Innovations in survey sampling design: Discussion of three contributions presented at the U.S. Census...; 2011; Opsomer, J.
- Alternative survey sample designs: Sampling with multiple overlapping frames; 2011; Lohr, S. L.
- A Bayesian analysis of small area probabilities under a constraint; 2011; Nandram, B., Sayit, H.
- Adaptive network and spatial sampling; 2011; Thompson, S. K.
- Experiences with the online questionnaire on www.csfd.cz as a part of mixed research; 2011; Kratka, J.
- Administered versus self-administered online surveys: Are the findings comparable?; 2011; de Rada, V. D.
- Impact of Length or Relevance of Questionnaires on Attrition in Online Trials: Randomized Controlled...; 2011; McCambridge, J., Kalaitzaki, E., White, I. R., Khadjesari, Z., Murray, E., Linke, S., Thompson, S. G...
- Questions for Surveys: Current Trends and Future Directions; 2011; Schaeffer, N. C., Schaeffer, N. C.
- The Future of Modes of Data Collection; 2011; Couper, M. P.
- The Future of Survey Sampling; 2011; Brick, J. M.
- Methodological Issues in Internet-Mediated Research: A Randomized Comparison of Internet Versus Mailed...; 2011; Whitehead, L.
- Why do you play? The development of the motives for online gaming questionnaire (MOGQ); 2011; Demetrovics, Z., Urbán, R., Nagygyörgy, K., Farkas, J., Zilahy, D., Mervó, B., Reindl, A., Agoston,...
- Citizen Satisfaction Survey Data: A Mode Comparison of the Derived-Importance Performance Approach; 2011; Herian, M. N., Tomkins, A. J.
- Surveying ourselves: examining the use of a web-based approach for a physician survey.; 2011; Matteson, K., Anderson, B. L., Pinto, S. B., Clark, M. A., Lopes, V., Schulkin, J.
- Using Online Surveys to Conduct Jury Research; 2011; Edelman, B.
- The Impact of Non-Response Treatments on the Stability of Blockmodels; 2011; Znidarsic, A., Ferligoj, A., Doreian, P.
- The “Frequency Divide” on Web Surveys: Opinions, Behaviours and Demographics Differences...; 2011; Reis, E., Vicente, P.
- LinkedIn and Facebook in Belgium: The Influences and Biases of Social Network Sites in Recruitment and...; 2011; Caers, R., Castelyns, V.
- Researching Personal Information on the Public Web - Methods and Ethics; 2011; Wilkinson, D., Thelwall, M.
- Apples and oranges: does a web survey produce similar results to social media tracking?; 2011; Bourque, C., Hobbs, R., Hilaire, D. S.
- PhD Students’ Research Group Networks. A Qualitative Approach; 2011; Coromina, L., Capo, A., Coenders, G., Guia, J.
- The influence of Social Support and Personal Networks on Doctoral Student Performance; 2011; Hlebec, V., Kogovsek, T., Ferligoj, A.

