Web Survey Bibliography
Relevance & Research Question: Online panels had once revolutionized the research industry. Particularly with the rise of social media, however, they have been increasingly criticized. Declining response rates and the so called ‘panel effect’ have resulted in a general mistrust in the quality and overall business of online panels. In our presentation we aim to scrutinize new forms of recruitment and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses for future market research projects.
Methods & Data: The presentation gives an overview of various recruitment strategies discussed in marketing, market research and innovation-related literature. It then introduces an online survey from the sporting goods industry. In the preparation of this study, the executing company consciously decided to explore new ways of recruitment. Rather than relying on traditional panel recruitment a multitude of channels (e.g. social media, existing customers) was used to invite participants.
Results: In total, 950 individuals participated in the survey. Their high involvement is indicated e.g. by an average of over 30 minutes they spent with the survey. While all channels helped to recruit participants, some proved to be more efficient than others. Different channels also attracted individuals with different participation motives and patterns. For instance, while for individuals invited via social media the possibility to engage in an appealing research task is the main driver, participants with a professional background rather strive for better products. In addition, different user groups score higher on personal characteristics such as creativity or opinion leadership than others.
Added Value: While recruitment via ‘new’ channels is often tied to significant efforts, its main advantage is that the company can get in touch with highly involved and creative individuals. Participants are no longer anonymous but can be repeatedly invited to research project. In the long run, a company can establish a user community – a valuable asset as it becomes more and more difficult to attract participants. The higher engagement of participants also has implications for the projects themselves. New trends such as ‘Gamification’ which make market research more interactive and playful, aim to offer participants the appealing experience they strive for.
Conference Homepage (abstract)
Web Survey Bibliography - Germany (416)
- Effects of Lotteries on Response Behavior in Online Panels; 2013; Goeritz, A., Luthe, S. C.
- Lotteries and study results in market research online panels; 2013; Goeritz, A., Luthe, S. C.
- Cognitive Probes in Web Surveys: On the Effect of Different Text Box Size and Probing Exposure on Response...; 2013; Behr, D., Bandilla, W., Kaczmirek, L., Braun, M.
- Pros and cons of virtual interviewers – vote in the discussion about surveytainment; 2013; Póltorak, M., Kowalski, J.
- The fish model: What factors affect participants while filling in an online questionnaire?; 2013; Mohamed, B., Lorenz, A., Pscheida, D.
- Interview Duration in Web Surveys: Integrating Different Levels of Explanation; 2013; Rossmann, J., Gummer, T.
- The monetary value of good questionnaire design; 2013; Tress, F.
- Technical and methodological meta-information on current practices in online research: A full population...; 2013; Burger, C., Stieger, S.
- Using interactive feedback to enhance response quality in Web surveys. The case of open-ended questions...; 2013; Emde, M., Fuchs, M.
- Reducing Response Order Effects in Check-All-That-Apply Questions by Use of Dynamic Tooltip Instructions...; 2013; Kunz, T., Fuchs, M.
- Slide to ruin data: How slider scales may negatively affect data quality and what to do about it; 2013; Funke, F.
- Measuring wages via a volunteer web survey – a cross-national analysis of item nonresponse; 2013; Steinmetz, S., Annmaria, B.
- Identifying and Mitigating Satisficing in Web Surveys: Some Experimental Evidence; 2013; Blumenstiel, J. E., Rossmann, J.
- Does one really know?: Avoiding noninformative answers in a reliable way.; 2013; de Leeuw, E. D., Boevee, A., Hox, J.
- Online Mixed Mode Surveying using a Responsive Design; 2013; Kissau, K.
- Sensitive Topics in PC and Mobile Web Surveys; 2013; Mavletova, A. M., Couper, M. P.
- Mobile Research Performance: How Mobile Respondents Differ from PC Users Concerning Interview Quality...; 2013; Schmidt, S., Wenzel, O.
- Who responds to website visitor satisfaction surveys?; 2013; Andreadis, I.
- Measuring working conditions in a volunteer web survey; 2013; de Pedraza, P., Villacampa, A.
- Sampling online communities: using triplets as basis for a (semi-) automated hyperlink web crawler.; 2013; Veny, Y.
- Prison break: Releasing offline experiments from methodological constraints by transforming them into...; 2013; Förstel, H., Manthei, K., Mohnen, A., Berger, G.
- Comparison of psychometric properties of internet versions of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability...; 2013; Vesteinsdottir, V., Reips, U. -D., Joinson, A. N., Porsdottir, F.
- Why are you leaving me?? - Personality predictors of answering drop out in an online-study; 2013; Thielsch, M., Nestler, S., Back, M.
- Propensity Score Weighting – Can Personality Adjust for Selectivity?; 2013; Glantz, A., Greszki, R.
- Research Design as an Influencing Factor for Reliability in Online Market Research; 2013; Wengrzik, J., Theuner, G.
- Ethics, privacy and data security in web-based course evaluation; 2013; Salaschek, M., Meese, C., Thielsch, M.
- Seducing the respondent – how to optimise invitations in on-site online research?; 2013; Póltorak, M., Kowalski, J.
- Influence of mobile devices in online surveys; 2013; Maxl, E., Baumgartner, T.
- E-questionnaire in cross-sectional household surveys; 2013; Karaganis, M.
- GESIS Online Panel Pilot: Results from a Probability-Based Online Access Panel; 2013; Kaczmirek, L., Bandilla, W., Schaurer, I., Struminskaya, B., Weyandt, K.
- Online Survey – Research with children on advertising impact; 2013; Funkenweh, V., Busch, J., Amthor, A. L., Boeer, A., Gaedke, J.
- HTML5 and mobile Web surveys: A Web experiment on new input types; 2013; Funke, F.
- Metadata on the demographics of online research: Results from a full-range study of available online...; 2013; Burger, C., Stieger, S.
- How the screen-out influence the dropout of a commercial panel; 2013; Bartoli, B.
- Beyond methodology - some ethical implications of "doing research online"; 2013; Heise, N.
- Innovation in Data Collection: the Responsive Design Approach; 2013; Bianchi, A., Biffignandi, S.
- Break-off and attrition in the GIP amongst technologically experienced and inexperienced participants...; 2013; Blom, A. G., Bossert, D., Clark, V., Funke, F., Gebhard, F., Holthausen, A., Krieger, U., Wachenfeld...
- Nonresponse and Nonresponse Bias in a Probability-Based Internet Panel; 2013; Blom, A. G., Bossert, D., Funke, F., Gebhard, F., Holthausen, A., Krieger, U.
- Rewards - Money for Nothing?; 2013; Cape, P. J., Martin, P.
- Effects of incentive reduction after a series of higher incentive waves in a probability-based online...; 2013; Struminskaya, B., Kaczmirek, L., Schaurer, I., Bandilla, W.
- Timing of Nonparticipation in an Online Panel: The effect of incentive strategies; 2013; Douhou, S., Scherpenzeel, A.
- How Do Lotteries and Study Results Influence Response Behavior in Online Panels?; 2013; Goeritz, A., Luthe, S. C.
- Sample composition discrepancies in different stages of a probability-based online panel; 2013; Bosnjak, M., Haas, I., Galesic, M., Kaczmirek, L., Bandilla, W., Couper, M. P.
- Metering mobile usage. Insights from global Arbitron mobile trends panel; 2012; Verkasalo, H.
- Is „chapterisation“ a viable alternative to traditional progress indicators ?; 2012; Spicer, R., Dowling, Z.
- Online Questionnaires: Development of ‘basic requirements’; 2012; Tries, S., Blanke, K.
- Pros and cons of Internet based User Satisfaction Surveys; 2012; Consoli, A., Matsulevits, L.
- Between demand and reality: Ensuring efficiency and quality in pretesting questionnaires; 2012; Sattelberger, S., Blanke, K.
- How to provide high data quality in online-questionnaires: Setting guidelines in design; 2012; Tries, S., Nebel, S., Blanke, K.
- WebSM Study: Survey software features overview ; 2012; Vehovar, V.; Cehovin, G.; Kavcic, L.; Lenar, J.