Web Survey Bibliography
Title Using Behavioral Economic Games as Replacement for Grid Questions to Increase Respondent Engagement
Author Buder, F.; Unfried, M.
Year 2016
Access date 29.04.2016
Presentation PDF (1.02MB)
Abstract
Relevance & Research Question:
Latent variables like trust, brand image or attitudes toward a product are widely used in explaining consumer behavior. As these constructs are not directly observable, multi-item scales (also referred to as grid questions), sets of consecutive text statements using the same response scale, are a common measurement instrument. But, the use of grid questions is controversially discussed especially in terms of respondent engagement. This contribution evaluates to what extend experiments with simple behavioral economics games in questionnaires produce similar information about subjects’ attitude and provides insights into potentials of such games in terms of engaging and incentivizing respondents.
Methods & Data:
The data for this contribution were obtained from a two-part survey study: a traditional questionnaire including grid questions on different characteristics regarding the trustworthiness (e.g., diligence, honesty) of people from other European countries as well as two simple games on honesty and the willingness to volunteer. After playing the game the respondents were asked to assess the behavior of participants from other countries to measure their attitudes towards people from these countries. The respondent’s monetary reward depended on the accuracy of this assessment.
Firstly, we checked if grid questions and games yield similar results. Secondly, data from the grid questions were analyzed with respect to indications of decreasing respondent engagement over time (decreasing variance between evaluations of different countries, straight lining etc.).
Results:
In terms of outcome, grid questions and games show quite comparable results regarding, e.g., the ranking of the countries. Regarding respondent engagement, first results for the grid questions indicate decreasing respondent engagement over time.
The biggest advantage of games is the incentive compatible payment. Using just grid questions it is only possible to reward respondents’ participation, not thoughtful responses. In the applied games respondents’ answers determine their individual payoff motivating them to give honest and thoughtful responses. Evidence shows that the social desirability bias can be reduced.
Added Value:
The contribution demonstrates a new way to evaluate latent constructs in questionnaires using behavioral economic games. The advantages lie in a higher respondent engagement and better opportunities to incentivize respondents for thoughtful responses.
Latent variables like trust, brand image or attitudes toward a product are widely used in explaining consumer behavior. As these constructs are not directly observable, multi-item scales (also referred to as grid questions), sets of consecutive text statements using the same response scale, are a common measurement instrument. But, the use of grid questions is controversially discussed especially in terms of respondent engagement. This contribution evaluates to what extend experiments with simple behavioral economics games in questionnaires produce similar information about subjects’ attitude and provides insights into potentials of such games in terms of engaging and incentivizing respondents.
Methods & Data:
The data for this contribution were obtained from a two-part survey study: a traditional questionnaire including grid questions on different characteristics regarding the trustworthiness (e.g., diligence, honesty) of people from other European countries as well as two simple games on honesty and the willingness to volunteer. After playing the game the respondents were asked to assess the behavior of participants from other countries to measure their attitudes towards people from these countries. The respondent’s monetary reward depended on the accuracy of this assessment.
Firstly, we checked if grid questions and games yield similar results. Secondly, data from the grid questions were analyzed with respect to indications of decreasing respondent engagement over time (decreasing variance between evaluations of different countries, straight lining etc.).
Results:
In terms of outcome, grid questions and games show quite comparable results regarding, e.g., the ranking of the countries. Regarding respondent engagement, first results for the grid questions indicate decreasing respondent engagement over time.
The biggest advantage of games is the incentive compatible payment. Using just grid questions it is only possible to reward respondents’ participation, not thoughtful responses. In the applied games respondents’ answers determine their individual payoff motivating them to give honest and thoughtful responses. Evidence shows that the social desirability bias can be reduced.
Added Value:
The contribution demonstrates a new way to evaluate latent constructs in questionnaires using behavioral economic games. The advantages lie in a higher respondent engagement and better opportunities to incentivize respondents for thoughtful responses.
Access/Direct link Conference Homepage (presentation)
Year of publication2016
Bibliographic typeConferences, workshops, tutorials, presentations
Web survey bibliography (4086)
- Displaying Videos in Web Surveys: Implications for Complete Viewing and Survey Responses; 2017; Mendelson, J.; Lee Gibson, J.; Romano Bergstrom, J. C.
- Using experts’ consensus (the Delphi method) to evaluate weighting techniques in web surveys not...; 2017; Toepoel, V.; Emerson, H.
- Mind the Mode: Differences in Paper vs. Web-Based Survey Modes Among Women With Cancer; 2017; Hagan, T. L.; Belcher, S. M.; Donovan, H. S.
- Answering Without Reading: IMCs and Strong Satisficing in Online Surveys; 2017; Anduiza, E.; Galais, C.
- Ideal and maximum length for a web survey; 2017; Revilla, M.; Ochoa, C.
- Social desirability bias in self-reported well-being measures: evidence from an online survey; 2017; Caputo, A.
- Web-Based Survey Methodology; 2017; Wright, K. B.
- Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences; 2017; Liamputtong, P.
- Lessons from recruitment to an internet based survey for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: merits of...; 2017; Davies, B.; Kotter, M. R.
- Web Survey Gamification - Increasing Data Quality in Web Surveys by Using Game Design Elements; 2017; Schacht, S.; Keusch, F.; Bergmann, N.; Morana, S.
- Effects of sampling procedure on data quality in a web survey; 2017; Rimac, I.; Ogresta, J.
- Comparability of web and telephone surveys for the measurement of subjective well-being; 2017; Sarracino, F.; Riillo, C. F. A.; Mikucka, M.
- Achieving Strong Privacy in Online Survey; 2017; Zhou, Yo.; Zhou, Yi.; Chen, S.; Wu, S. S.
- A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Incentives on Response Rate in Online Survey Studies; 2017; Mohammad Asire, A.
- Telephone versus Online Survey Modes for Election Studies: Comparing Canadian Public Opinion and Vote...; 2017; Breton, C.; Cutler, F.; Lachance, S.; Mierke-Zatwarnicki, A.
- Examining Factors Impacting Online Survey Response Ratesin Educational Research: Perceptions of Graduate...; 2017; Saleh, A.; Bista, K.
- Usability Testing for Survey Research; 2017; Geisen, E.; Romano Bergstrom, J. C.
- Paradata as an aide to questionnaire design: Improving quality and reducing burden; 2017; Timm, E.; Stewart, J.; Sidney, I.
- Fieldwork monitoring and managing with time-related paradata; 2017; Vandenplas, C.
- Interviewer effects on onliner and offliner participation in the German Internet Panel; 2017; Herzing, J. M. E.; Blom, A. G.; Meuleman, B.
- Interviewer Gender and Survey Responses: The Effects of Humanizing Cues Variations; 2017; Jablonski, W.; Krzewinska, A.; Grzeszkiewicz-Radulska, K.
- Millennials and emojis in Spain and Mexico.; 2017; Bosch Jover, O.; Revilla, M.
- Where, When, How and with What Do Panel Interviews Take Place and Is the Quality of Answers Affected...; 2017; Niebruegge, S.
- Comparing the same Questionnaire between five Online Panels: A Study of the Effect of Recruitment Strategy...; 2017; Schnell, R.; Panreck, L.
- Nonresponses as context-sensitive response behaviour of participants in online-surveys and their relevance...; 2017; Wetzlehuetter, D.
- Do distractions during web survey completion affect data quality? Findings from a laboratory experiment...; 2017; Wenz, A.
- Predicting Breakoffs in Web Surveys; 2017; Mittereder, F.; West, B. T.
- Measuring Subjective Health and Life Satisfaction with U.S. Hispanics; 2017; Lee, S.; Davis, R.
- Humanizing Cues in Internet Surveys: Investigating Respondent Cognitive Processes; 2017; Jablonski, W.; Grzeszkiewicz-Radulska, K.; Krzewinska, A.
- A Comparison of Emerging Pretesting Methods for Evaluating “Modern” Surveys; 2017; Geisen, E., Murphy, J.
- The Effect of Respondent Commitment on Response Quality in Two Online Surveys; 2017; Cibelli Hibben, K.
- Pushing to web in the ISSP; 2017; Jonsdottir, G. A.; Dofradottir, A. G.; Einarsson, H. B.
- The 2016 Canadian Census: An Innovative Wave Collection Methodology to Maximize Self-Response and Internet...; 2017; Mathieu, P.
- 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.
- In search of best practices; 2017; Kappelhof, J. W. S.; Steijn, S.
- Redirected Inbound Call Sampling (RICS); A New Methodology ; 2017; Krotki, K.; Bobashev, G.; Levine, B.; Richards, S.
- An Empirical Process for Using Non-probability Survey for Inference; 2017; Tortora, R.; Iachan, R.
- The perils of non-probability sampling; 2017; Bethlehem, J.
- A Comparison of Two Nonprobability Samples with Probability Samples; 2017; Zack, E. S.; Kennedy, J. M.
- Rates, Delays, and Completeness of General Practitioners’ Responses to a Postal Versus Web-Based...; 2017; Sebo, P.; Maisonneuve, H.; Cerutti, B.; Pascal Fournier, J.; Haller, D. M.
- Necessary but Insufficient: Why Measurement Invariance Tests Need Online Probing as a Complementary...; 2017; Meitinger, K.
- Nonresponse in Organizational Surveying: Attitudinal Distribution Form and Conditional Response Probabilities...; 2017; Kulas, J. T.; Robinson, D. H.; Kellar, D. Z.; Smith, J. A.
- Theory and Practice in Nonprobability Surveys: Parallels between Causal Inference and Survey Inference...; 2017; Mercer, A. W.; Kreuter, F.; Keeter, S.; Stuart, E. A.
- Is There a Future for Surveys; 2017; Miller, P. V.
- Reducing speeding in web surveys by providing immediate feedback; 2017; Conrad, F.; Tourangeau, R.; Couper, M. P.; Zhang, C.
- Social Desirability and Undesirability Effects on Survey Response latencies; 2017; Andersen, H.; Mayerl, J.
- A Working Example of How to Use Artificial Intelligence To Automate and Transform Surveys Into Customer...; 2017; Neve, S.
- A Case Study on Evaluating the Relevance of Some Rules for Writing Requirements through an Online Survey...; 2017; Warnier, M.; Condamines, A.
- Estimating the Impact of Measurement Differences Introduced by Efforts to Reach a Balanced Response...; 2017; Kappelhof, J. W. S.; De Leeuw, E. D.
- Targeted letters: Effects on sample composition and item non-response; 2017; Bianchi, A.; Biffignandi, S.