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 - 2016 (264)
- Web Health Monitoring Survey: A New Approach to Enhance the Effectiveness of Telemedicine Systems; 2017; Romano, M. F.; Sardella, M. V.; Alboni, F.
- Socially Desirable Responding in Web-Based Questionnaires: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Candor Hypothesis...; 2016; Gnambs, T.; Kaspar, K.
- Dynamic Question Ordering in Online Surveys; 2016; Early, K.; Mankoff, J.; Fienberg, S. E.
- How to use online surveys to understand human behaviour concerning window opening in terms of building...; 2016; Fabbri, K.
- Impact of satisficing behavior in online surveys on consumer preference and welfare estimates; 2016; Gao, Z.; House, L. A.; Bi, X.
- Comparing Twitter and Online Panels for Survey Recruitment of E-Cigarette Users and Smokers; 2016; Guillory, J.; Kim, A.; Murphy, J.; Bradfield, B.; Nonnemaker, J.; Hsieh, Y. P.
- Influence of Importance Statements and Box Size on Response Rate and Response Quality of Open-Ended...; 2016; Kumar Chaudhary, A.; Israel, G. D.
- Web based health surveys: Using a Two Step Heckman model to examine their potential for population health...; 2016; Morrissey, K.; Kinderman, P.; Pontin, E.; Tai, S.; Schwannauer, M.
- “Better do not touch” and other superstitions concerning melanoma: the cross-sectional web...; 2016; Gajda, M.; Kamiñska-Winciorek, G.; Wydmañski, J.; Tukiendorf, A.
- Methods for Evaluating Respondent Attrition in Web-Based Surveys; 2016; Hochheimer, C. J.; Sabo, R. T.; Krist, A. H.; Day, T.; Cyrus, J.; Woolf, S. H.
- The Low Response Score (LRS): A Metric to Locate, Predict, and Manage Hard-to-Survey Populations; 2016; Erdman, C.; Bates, N.
- Targeted Appeals for Participation in Letters to Panel Survey Members; 2016; Lynn, P.
- Can we assess representativeness of cross-national surveys using the education variable?; 2016; Ortmanns, V.; Schneider, S.
- Methodological Aspects of Central Left-Right Scale Placement in a Cross-national Perspective; 2016; Scholz, E.; Zuell, C.
- Fieldwork Effort, Response Rate, and the Distribution of Survey Outcomes: A Multilevel Meta-analysis; 2016; Sturgis, P.; Williams, Jo.; Brunton-Smith, I.; Moore, J.
- Mobile-only web survey respondents; 2016; Lugtig, P. J.; Toepoel, V.; Amin, A.
- Comparison of Face-to-Face and Web Surveys on the Topic of Homosexual Rights; 2016; Liu, M.; Wang, Yic.
- Question order sensitivity of subjective well-being measures: focus on life satisfaction, self-rated...; 2016; Lee, S.; McClain, C.; Webster, N.; Han, S.
- Web-Based Statistical Sampling and Analysis; 2016; Quinn, A.; Larson, K.
- Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys 2016; 2016
- Using Visual Analogue Scales in eHealth: Non-Response Effects in a Lifestyle Intervention; 2016; Kuhlmann, T.; Reips, U.-D.; Wienert, J.; Lippke, S.
- Development and Pilot Test of a Mobile Application for Field Data Collection; 2016; Chiappetta, L.; Kerr, M. M.
- Statistical Design for Online Experiments Across Desktops, Tablets, Smartphones (and Maybe Wearable...; 2016; Qian, P.; Sadeghi, S.; Arora, N. K.
- A Case Study on the Use of Propensity Score Adjustments with Web Survey Data; 2016; Parsons, V.
- Motivated Misreporting in Web Panels; 2016; Bach, R.; Eckman, S.
- Are Initial Respondents Different from the Nonresponse Follow-Up Cases? A Study of Probability-Based...; 2016; Zeng, W.; Dennis, J. M.
- Using official surveys to reduce bias of estimates from nonrandom samples collected by web surveys; 2016; Beresovsky, V.; Dorfman, A.; Rumcheva, P.
- Predicting and Preventing Break-Offs in Web Surveys; 2016; Mittereder, F.
- A Feasibility Study of Recruiting and Maintaining a Web Panel of People with Disabilities; 2016; Chandler, J.
- Exploration of Methods for Blending Unconventional Samples with Traditional Probability Samples; 2016; Gellar, J.; Zhou, H.; D.; Sinclair, M. D.
- Ratio of Vector Lengths as an Indicator of Sample Representativeness ; 2016; Shin, H. C.
- Design of Sample Surveys That Complement Observational Data to Achieve Population Coverage; 2016; Slud, E.; Ashmead, R.
- Inferences from Internet Panel Studies and Comparisons with Probability Samples; 2016; Lachan, R.; Boyle, J.; Harding, R.
- Exploring the Gig Economy Using a Web-Based Survey: Measuring the Online 'and' Offline Side...; 2016; Robles, B. J.; McGee, M.
- Comparing data quality between online panel and intercept samples; 2016; Liu, M.
- Effect of a Pre-Paid Incentive on Response Rates to an Address-Based Sampling (ABS) Web-Mail Survey; 2016; Suzer-Gurtekin, Z.; Elkasabi, M.; Liu, Me.; Lepkowski, J. M.; Curtin, R.; McBee, R.
- Response Behavior in a Video-Web Survey: A Mode Comparison Study; 2016; Haan, M.; Ongena, Y. P.; Vannieuwenhuyze, J. T. A.; de Glopper, K.
- Standard Definitions Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys; 2016
- Integration of a phone-based household travel survey and a web-based student travel survey; 2016; Verreault, H.; Morency, C.
- Evaluation of mode equivalence of the MSKCC Bowel Function Instrument, LASA Quality of Life, and Subjective...; 2016; Bennett, A. V.; Keenoy, K.; Shouery, M.; Basch, E.; Temple, L. K.
- Making use of Internet interactivity to propose a dynamic presentation of web questionnaires; 2016; Revilla, M.; Ochoa, C.; Turbina, A.
- A streamlined approach to online linguistic surveys; 2016; Erlewine, M. Y.; Kotek, H.
- Du kommst hier nicht rein: Türsteherfragen identifizieren nachlässige Teilnehmer in Online-Umfragen; 2016; Merkle, B.; Kaczmirek, L.; Hellwig, O.
- Incorporating eye tracking into cognitive interviewing to pretest survey questions; 2016; Neuert, C.; Lenzner, T.
- Population Survey Features and Response Rates: A Randomized Experiment; 2016; Guo, Y.; Kopec, J.; Cibere, J.; Li, L. C.; Goldsmith, C. H.
- Mode Effect and Response Rate Issues in Mixed-Mode Survey Research: Implications for Recreational Fisheries...; 2016; Wallen, K. E.; Landon, A. C.; Kyle, G. T.; Schuett, M. A.; Leitz, J.; Kurzawski, K.
- A measure of survey mode differences; 2016; Homola, J.; Jackson, N. M.; Gill, Je.
- Web Health Monitoring Survey: A New Approach to Enhance the Effectiveness of Telemedicine Systems ; 2016; Romano, M. F.; Sardella, M. V.; Alboni, F.
- Smartphones vs PCs: Does the Device Affect the Web Survey Experience and the Measurement Error for...; 2016; Toninelli, D.; Revilla, M.
- Question order sensitivity of subjective well-being measures: focus on life satisfaction, self-rated...; 2016; Lee, S.; McClain, C.; Webster, N.; Han, S.