Web Survey Bibliography
Relevance & Research Question: Self-administered online surveys put respondents into an essentially anonymous and uncontrolled response situation. This raises worries on potentially biased or uninformative answers, such as nondifferentiation – always using the same score on all items offered – which may harm the measurement accuracy of population statistics. Our presentation explores the question which respondents are inclined to give such answers.
Methods & Data: For our study, longitudinal observations from a large commercial online survey panel in The Netherlands were available: the Appreciation Panel (fieldwork by Intomart GfK on behalf of NPO, the Dutch Public Broadcasting Organisation. Nondifferentiation behavior was identified in every single survey of the panel for a time frame of six months in 2009 (totaling to 502,750 completed online questionnaires). In this way a history of panel (nondifferentiation) behavior was created for each of over 7,700 active panel members. Subsequently a cross-sectional online survey was designed to survey possible determinants of response behavior. The survey was conducted post-hoc with a stratified probability sample of 1,200 respondents.
Results: Analyses based on data from a large-scale online panel indicate that not only respondents’ perception of effort caused by a survey explains their behavior. Also more abstract social behavioral norms, individual moral obligations and the norm of ‘honest behavior’ are related to nondifferentiation behavior. However, extrinsic motivation to participate in the panel because of a monetary incentive is found unrelated. These results imply that survey researchers have somewhat limited ways to reduce the effects of factors causing uninformative behaviors. Using monetary incentives to encourage panel participation is not harmful to the quality of answers, but it is recommended to limit respondents’ perception of effort.
Added Value: Very few examples have been published about nondifferentiation in applied online market research. The method presented offers an example of applied research what respondents are inclined to give nondifferentiated responses and how nondifferentiation in combination with other indicators such as response time is used to identify low quality responses in online research.
Conference Homepage (abstract) / (presentation)
Web survey bibliography - 2011 (358)
- Surveying the General Public over the Internet Using Address-Based Sampling and Mail Contact Procedures...; 2011; Messer, B. L., Dillman, D. A.
- Mobile phones as an extension of the participant observer's self: Reflections on the emergent role...; 2011; Hein, W., O'Donohoe, S., Ryan, A.
- Mixed methods designs in marketing research; 2011; Harrison, R. L., Reilly, T. M.
- Introduction to Usability Testing for Survey Research; 2011; Geisen, E., Jarrett, C.
- Utilizing Web Technology in Business Data Collection: Some Norwegian, Dutch and Danish Experiences; 2011; Haraldsen, G., Snijkers, G., Roos, M., Sundvoll, A., Vik, T., Stax, H.-P.
- E-Census 2011 Portugal: implementation and results of the Pilot Survey; 2011; Vicente, P., Rosa, A., Reis, E.
- Facebook sampling methods: some methodological proposals; 2011; Macrì, E., Tessitore, C.
- Reflections on web based data collection in a mixed mode design: the case of the EU Labour Force Survey...; 2011; Kloek, W., van der Valk, J.
- Standardising the web data collection channel at the Basque Statistics Office (EUSTAT); 2011; Prado, C., Guinea , C.
- An Experimental Investigation of Mode Effects in the Hungarian Census Test 2009; 2011; Vereczkei, Z.
- Collaborative systems for enhancing the analysis of social surveys: the Grid Enabled Specialist Data...; 2011; Lambert, P., Warner, G., Doherty, T., McCafferty, S., Watt, J., Comerford, M., Gayle, V., Tan, L., Blum...
- ILS Online Survey; 2011; Weber, C.
- Development of a Web-Based Survey for Monitoring Daily Health and its Application in an Epidemiological...; 2011; Sugiura, H., Ohkusa, Y., Akahane, M., Sano, T., Okabe, N., Imamura, T.
- Sampling v. Scale: An investigation the tension between convenience sampling, response rates, probability...; 2011; Garland, P.
- Effectiveness and consequences of various recruitment methods in psychological research: case study; 2011; Poltorak, M.
- A new approach to the analysis of survey drop-out. Results from Follow-up Surveys in the German Longitudinal...; 2011; Rossmann, J., Blumenstiel, J. E., Steinbrecher, M.
- Tracking the decision-making process – Findings from an Online Rolling Cross-Section Panel Study...; 2011; Faas, T.
- Should we use the progress bar in online surveys? A meta-analysis of experiments manipulating progress...; 2011; Callegaro, M., Yang, Y., Villar, A.
- From "Web Questions" to "Propensity Score Weighting": An Evaluation of Topics and...; 2011; Welker, M., Taddicken, M.
- Rich Profiles – Or: What's the problem with self-disclosure data?; 2011; Tress, F.
- Who are leaving our panel: panel attrition and personality traits; 2011; Marchand, M.
- Mobile Research Apps – Adding New Capabilities to Market Research; 2011; Rieber, D.
- The influence of personality traits and motives for joining on participation behavior in online panels...; 2011; Keusch, F.
- Asking sensitive questions in a recruitment interview for an online panel: the income question; 2011; Schaurer, I., Struminskaya, B., Kaczmirek, L., Bandilla, W.
- Speeders in Online Value Research: Cross-checking results of fast and slow respondents in two separate...; 2011; Beckers, T., Siegers, P., Kuntz, A.
- Effects of survey question clarity on data quality; 2011; Lenzner, T.
- Respondent Characteristics as Explanations for Uninformative Survey Response: Sources of Nondifferentiation...; 2011; Van Meurs, L., Klausch, L. T., Schoenbach, K.
- Snap judgement polling; 2011; Anderson, K., Wright, M., Wheeler, M.
- Individual differences in motivation to participate in online panels; 2011; Bruggen, E., Wetzels, M., de Ruyter, K., Schillewaert, N.
- Data Use: A systematic method for checking online questionnaires; 2011; Arbittier, J.
- Understanding the pros and cons of mixed-mode research; 2011; Mora, M.
- Visiting item non-responses in internet survey data collection; 2011; Albaum, G., Roster, C. A., Smith, S. M., Wiley, J. B.
- Why Web-assisted TDIs are a cost-effective qualitative methodology ; 2011; Donnelly, T.
- Capturing affective experiences using the SMS Experience Sampling (SMS-ES) method.; 2011; Andrews, L., Russell-Bennett, R., Drennan, J.
- Successful Prompting Methods on a Web-Based Survey; 2011; Venkataraman, L.
- Multi-Mode Survey Administration; 2011; Holder, T.
- Do’s and Don’ts of Developing Mixed Mode Surveys; 2011; Sanders, Ti.
- Mobile Survey Development Toolkit/Survey Framework; 2011; Rauch, M.
- Web based CATI on Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud and VirtualBox using queXS; 2011; Zammit, A.
- Survey Suite: Our "LOGIN & GO" Solution to Survey Research Needs; 2011; Lowden, M.
- A Dinosaur That Just Won't Die: A Return to Paper Surveys; 2011; Crandall, S., Crisafulli, T.
- Responses to Mail-Internet Mixed Mode Surveys: When Can we do Away with Paper Questionnaires?; 2011; Krebill-Prather, R.
- Web/Cloud Based CATI Using queXS; 2011; Zammit, A.
- When Referring to Mode, Is Expressed Preference the Same as Reality?; 2011; Denk, K.
- Developing Paradata Tools to Maximize Call Center Conversion Rates; 2011; Heinrich, T., Pittman, J., Abu, K.
- Incentives, Research-based Best Practices; 2011; Dykema, J.
- "But This is My Cell Phone!": A Qualitative Look at Practical Techniques for Gaining the...; 2011; George, J., Balok, T., Frasier, A. M.
- Developing and Implementing Adaptive Total Design (ATD); 2011; Carley-Baxter, L. R., Mitchell, S., Peytchev, A., Day, O.
- Three Era's of Survey Research; 2011; Groves, R. M.
- Creating Effective Designs for Mixed-Mode Surveys; 2011; Dillman, D. A.