Web Survey Bibliography
Title Incentive Types and Amounts in a Web-based Survey of College Students
Author Krebs, C.; Planty, M.; Stroop, J.; Berzofsky, M.; Lindquist, C.
Year 2015
Access date 22.08.2016
Full text PDF (289 KB)
Abstract
Evidence suggests that personalized invitations tend to increase response rates in web surveys (Cook et al., 2000). However, personalization may have an unintended impact on survey estimates. There is some evidence that personalization may reduce self-disclosure on sensitive items (Joinson, Woodley, & Reips, 2007) or increase socially desirable responding (Heerwegh et al. 2005), but other studies have been unable to replicate these findings (e.g. Heerwegh, 2005; Heerwegh & Loosveldt, 2006). To evaluate the impact of personalization on response rates and survey estimates of sensitive items, we compared the effects of personalized and generic greetings in a survey on an extremely sensitive topic: sexual experiences, including sexual assault victimization.
We conducted a Web survey with students at five universities. Sample members were randomly assigned to receive either a personalized greeting (“Dear John”) or a generic greeting (“Dear [Fill: School Name] Student”) in their survey invitation and reminders. Despite the literature suggesting personalization increases response rates, we hypothesized the personalized greeting would result in a lower response rate because our survey focused on such a highly sensitive topic. We also predicted personalization would result in lower rates of self-reported sexual assault victimization compared to a generic greeting. This is because we assumed sample members receiving the personalized greeting would perceive the survey as less anonymous, making them less likely to participate if they had experienced sexual assault victimization, or less likely to report their victimization experiences if they did participate.
We compared the effect of greeting on response rates and reported victimization. The personalized greeting resulted in a significantly higher response rate, but the generic greeting resulted in higher rates of sexual assault victimization; this difference is statistically significant for females. This experiment adds evidence to the divided literature on the effect of personalization on self-disclosure on sensitive items. Our findings suggest personalization increased response rates but decreased reported victimization, emphasizing that a higher response rate is not necessarily indicative of more accurate data.
We conducted a Web survey with students at five universities. Sample members were randomly assigned to receive either a personalized greeting (“Dear John”) or a generic greeting (“Dear [Fill: School Name] Student”) in their survey invitation and reminders. Despite the literature suggesting personalization increases response rates, we hypothesized the personalized greeting would result in a lower response rate because our survey focused on such a highly sensitive topic. We also predicted personalization would result in lower rates of self-reported sexual assault victimization compared to a generic greeting. This is because we assumed sample members receiving the personalized greeting would perceive the survey as less anonymous, making them less likely to participate if they had experienced sexual assault victimization, or less likely to report their victimization experiences if they did participate.
We compared the effect of greeting on response rates and reported victimization. The personalized greeting resulted in a significantly higher response rate, but the generic greeting resulted in higher rates of sexual assault victimization; this difference is statistically significant for females. This experiment adds evidence to the divided literature on the effect of personalization on self-disclosure on sensitive items. Our findings suggest personalization increased response rates but decreased reported victimization, emphasizing that a higher response rate is not necessarily indicative of more accurate data.
Access/Direct link FCSM Research Conference Homepage (Abstract) / (Full text)
Year of publication2015
Bibliographic typeConferences, workshops, tutorials, presentations
Web survey bibliography - 2015 (291)
- Taking MARS Digital; 2015; Melton, E.; Krahn, J.
- A Comparison of the Effects of Face-to-Face and Online Deliberation on Young Students’ Attitudes...; 2015; Triantafillidou, A.; Yannas, P.; Lappas, G.; Kleftodimos, A.
- A Privacy-Friendly Method to Reward Participants of Online-Surveys; 2015; Herfert, M.; Lange, B.; Selzer, A.; Waldmann, U.
- Doing Online Surveys: Zum Einsatz in der sozialwissenschaftlichen Raumforschung; 2015; Nadler, R.; Petzold, K.; Schoenduwe, R.
- Are Fast Responses More Random? Testing the Effect of Response Time on Scale in an Online Choice Experiment...; 2015; Boerger, T.
- The impact of frequency rating scale formats on the measurement of latent variables in web surveys -...; 2015; Menold, N.; Kemper, C. J.
- Investigating response order effects in web surveys using eye tracking; 2015; Karem Hoehne, J.; Lenzner, T.
- Implementation of the forced answering option within online surveys: Do higher item response rates come...; 2015; Decieux, J. P.; Mergener, A.; Neufang, K.; Sischka, P.
- Internet Panels, Professional Respondents, and Data Quality; 2015; Matthijsse, S.; De Leeuw, E. D.; Hox, J.
- Self-administered Questions and Interviewer–Respondent Familiarity; 2015; Rodriguez, L. A., Sana, M., Sisk, B.
- Comparing Food Label Experiments Using Samples from Web Panels versus Mall Intercepts; 2015; Chang, L. C., Lin, C. T. J.
- Translating Answers to Open-ended Survey Questions in Cross-cultural Research: A Case Study on the Interplay...; 2015; Behr, D.
- The impact of gamifying to increase spontaneous awareness; 2015; Cape, P.
- Using eye-tracking to understand how fourth grade students answer matrix items; 2015; Maitland, A.; Sun, H.; Caporaso, A.; Tourangeau, R.; Bertling, J.; Almonte, D.
- Incentive Types and Amounts in a Web-based Survey of College Students; 2015; Krebs, C.; Planty, M.; Stroop, J.; Berzofsky, M.; Lindquist, C.
- Response Rates and Response Bias in Web Panel Surveys; 2015; Boyle, J.; Berman, L.; Dayton, Ja.; Fakhouri, T.; Iachan, R.; Courtright, M.; Pashupati, K.
- Characteristics of the Population of Internet Panel Members; 2015; Boyle, J; Freedner, N.; Fakhouri, T.
- Internet and Smartphone Coverage in a National Health Survey: Implications for Alternative Modes; 2015; Couper, M. P.; Kelley, J.; Axinn, W.; Guyer, H.; Wagner, J.; West, B. T.
- An Overview of Mobile CATI Issues in Europe; 2015; Slavec, A.; Toninelli, D.
- Using Mobile Phones for High-Frequency Data Collection; 2015; Azevedo, J. P.; Ballivian, A.; Durbin, W.
- Willingness of Online Access Panel Members to Participate in Smartphone Application-Based Research; 2015; Pinter, R.
- Who Has Access to Mobile Devices in an Online Opt-in Panel? An Analysis of Potential Respondents for...; 2015; Revilla, M.; Toninelli, D.; Ochoa, C.; Loewe, G.
- Who Are the Internet Users, Mobile Internet Users, and Mobile-Mostly Internet Users?: Demographic Differences...; 2015; Antoun, C.
- A Meta-Analysis of Breakoff Rates in Mobile Web Surveys; 2015; Mavletova, A. M.; Couper, M. P.
- The Best of Both Worlds? Combining Passive Data with Survey Data, its Opportunities, Challenges and...; 2015; Duivenvoorde, S.; Dillon, A.
- Optimizing the Decennial Census for Mobile – A Case Study; 2015; Nichols, E. M.; Hawala, E. O.; Horwitz, R.; Bentley, M.
- App vs. Web for Surveys of Smartphone Users: Experimenting with mobile apps for signal-contingent experience...; 2015; McGeeney, K.; Keeter, S.; Igielnik, R.; Smith, A.; Rainie, L.
- Using Video to Reinvigorate the Open Question; 2015; Cape, P.
- On the Go: How Mobile Participants Affect Survey Results; 2015; Barlas, F. M.; Thomas, R. K.
- The Matrix Lives On: Improving Grids for Online Surveys; 2015; Thomas, R. K.; Barlas, F. M.; Graham, P.; Subias, T.
- Variance Estimation for Surveys from Internet Panels ; 2015; Rivers, D.
- Sensitivity Analysis of Bias of Estimates from Web Surveys with Nonrandomized Panel Selection; 2015; Beresovsky, V.
- Detecting Fraud in a Survey Sample Recruited Online; 2015; Brown, D.; Dever, J. A.; Augustson, E.; Squiers, L.
- Survey Treatments and Response Modes: Bayesian Survival Analysis with Competing Risks; 2015; Minato, H.
- Purposefully Mobile: Experimentally Assessing Device Effects in an Online Survey ; 2015; Barlas, F. M.; Thomas, R. K.; Graham, P.
- Using equivalence testing to disentangle selection and measurement in mixed modes surveys ; 2015; Cernat, A.
- What do web survey panel respondents answer when asked “Do you have any other comment?”; 2015; Schonlau, M.
- On Climbing Stairs Many Steps at a Time: The New Normal in Survey Methodology; 2015; Dillman, D. A.
- Mobile Research Methods: Opportunities and challenges of mobile research methodologies. ; 2015; Toninelli, D. (Ed.); Pinter, R.; de Pedraza, P.
- Effect of Web-Based Versus Paper-Based Questionnaires and Follow-Up Strategies on Participation Rates...; 2015; Kilsdonk, E.; van den Heuvel-Eibrink, M. M.; van Dulmen-den Broeder, E.; van der Pal, H. J. H.; van...
- Polling Error in the 2015 UK General Election: An Analysis of YouGov’s Pre and Post-Election Polls...; 2015; Wells, A.; Rivers, D.
- Cell Phone and Face-to-face Interview Responses in Population-based Sur- veys - How Do They Compare?; 2015; Ghandour, L.; Ghandour, B.; Mahfoud, Z.; Mokdad, A.; Sibai, A. M.
- Collecting Health Research Data - Comparing Mobile Phone-assisted Personal Interviewing to Paper-and...; 2015; van Heerden, A. C.; Norris, S. A.; Tollman, S. M.; Richter, L. M.
- The Effects of Questionnaire Completion Using Mobile Devices on Data Quality. Evidence from a Probability...; 2015; Bosnjak, M.; Struminskaya, B.; Weyandt, K.
- Are Sliders Too Slick for Surveys? An Experiment Comparing Slider and Radio Button Scales for Smartphone...; 2015; Aadland, D.; Aalberg, T.
- Evaluation of an Adapted Design in a Multi-device Online Panel: A DemoSCOPE Case Study; 2015; Arn, B.; Klug, S.; Kolodziejski, J.
- Maximizing Data Quality using Mode Switching in Mixed-Device Survey Design: Nonresponse Bias and Models...; 2015; Axinn, W.; Gatny, H. H.; Wagner, J.
- Web Surveys Optimized for Smartphones: Are there Differences Between Computer and Smartphone Users?; 2015; Andreadis, I.
- Measuring Political Knowledge in Web-Based Surveys: An Experimental Validation of Visual Versus Verbal...; 2015; Munzert, S.; Selb, P.
- Validation of the new scale for measuring behaviors of Facebook users: Psycho-Social Aspects of Facebook...; 2015; Bodroza, B.; Jovanovic, T.