Experimental Evidence of the Effect of Monetary Incentives on Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Response: Experiences from the Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP)

Schröder, Mathis; Saßenroth, Denise; Körtner, John L.; Kroh, Martin; Schupp, Jürgen

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2360550

Cited by 7 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings indicate that €20 conditional incentives and combined conditional and unconditional incentives of varying amounts increase the response rate significantly relative to the lottery, while €10 conditional incentives do not. This partially supports findings in the German context that cash incentives are more effective in increasing response than lotteries are (Pforr et al, 2015;Schröder et al). Furthermore, it corroborates findings that high lotteries and low conditional incentives can be equally effective (Coryn et al, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…Indeed, there is evidence that they increase response rates less than cash incentives do (e.g. Pforr et al, 2015;Schröder, Saenroth, Körtner, Kroh, & Schupp). Some studies even find that lotteries have little or no positive effect on response rates at all (Göritz & Luthe, 2013;Lengacher, Sullivan, Couper, & Groves, 1995).…”

Section: Background and Conceptual Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although there are theoretical reasons to expect that incentives have the potential to attract respondent groups that are usually underrepresented in surveys, especially economically disadvantaged groups (Singer & Ye, 2013), empirical evidence is rather mixed. Indeed, several studies show based on multivariate regressions that persons with comparatively low socio-economic resources can be mobilized through cash incentives (Becker et al, 2019;Göritz, 2008;Göritz & Luthe, 2013;Schröder et al) and lotteries (Göritz & Luthe, 2013). Other studies, however, find no statistically significant demographic differences between various incentive groups (Becker & Mehlkop, 2011;Suzer-Gurtekin et al, 2016).…”

Section: Background and Conceptual Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Enhancing Participation in Probability-Based Online Panels: Two Incentive Experiments and their Effects on Response and Panel Recruitment

Witte¹,

Schröder²,

Schauer³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates how mail based online panel recruitment can be facilitated through incentives. The analysis relies on two incentive experiments and their effects on panel recruitment and the intermediate participation in the recruitment survey. The experiments were implemented in the context of the German Emigration and Remigration Panel Study and encompass two samples of randomly sampled persons. Tested incentives include a conditional lottery, conditional monetary incentives, and the combination of unconditional money-in-hand with conditional monetary incentives. For an encompassing evaluation of the link between incentives and panel recruitment, the article further assesses the incentives’ implications for demographic composition and panel recruitment unit costs. Multivariate analysis indicates that low combined incentives (€5/€5) or, where unconditional disbursement is unfeasible, high conditional incentives (€20) are most effective in enhancing panel participation. In terms of demographic bias, low combined incentives (€5/€5) and €10 conditional incentives are the favored options. The budget options from the perspective of panel recruitment include the lottery and the €10 conditional incentive which break even at net sample sizes of 1,000.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Background and Conceptual Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Background and Conceptual Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Enhancing Participation in Probability-Based Online Panels: Two Incentive Experiments and their Effects on Response and Panel Recruitment

Witte¹,

Schröder²,

Schauer³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Information is collected via different modes with face-to-face interviews being the default. Considerable effort and research are devoted to maximise cooperation and response rates (see Goebel et al 2018;Schröder et al 2013). The aforementioned regular refreshment samples ensure representativeness for all German federal states and sensible sample size despite attrition (for detailed information on fieldwork, survey modes and data quality management please see Goebel et al 2018; for information on initial response rates and attrition please see Kroh et al2018 ).…”

Section: Data and Analytical Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

XAI—Explainable artificial intelligence

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Schupp (2012) recommends that rather than using incentives, surveyors should concentrate on appealing to respondents' sense of civic duty (see also Schnell 2012;Börsch-Supan, Krieger, and Schröder 2013). To our knowledge, incentive effects on German face-to-face surveys have only been examined by Castiglioni, Pforr, and Krieger (2008), Blohm and Koch (2013), Börsch-Supan, Krieger, and Schröder (2013), and Schröder et al (2013), and there has been no attempt to provide a general picture thus far.…”

Section: Incentives In Germanymentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Incentive Effects on Response Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Large-scale, Face-to-face Surveys Generalizable to Germany? Evidence from Ten Experiments

Pforr

Blohm

Blom

et al. 2015

PUBOPQ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes.You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an OpenContent Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.euThis is a pre-copyedited, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in "Public Opinion Quarterly" following peer review. In survey research, a consensus has grown regarding the effectiveness of incentives encouraging survey participation across different survey modes and target populations. Most of this research has been based on surveys from the US, whereas few studies have provided evidence that these results can be generalized to other contexts. This paper is the first to present comprehensive information concerning the effects of incentives on response rates and nonresponse bias across large-scale surveys in Germany. The context could be viewed as a critical test for incentive effects because Germany's population is among the most survey-critical in the world, with very low response rates. Our results suggest positive incentive effects on response rates and patterns of effects that are similar to those in previous research: The effect increased with the monetary value of the incentive; cash incentives affected response propensity more strongly than lottery tickets do; and prepaid incentives could be more cost-effective than conditional incentives. We found mixed results for the effects of incentives on nonresponse bias. Regarding large-scale panel surveys, we could not unequivocally confirm that incentives increased response rates in later panel waves. 6 Survey researchers have been increasingly concerned with decreasing response rates, a change that has been reported in developed countries over the last several decades (Atrostic et al. 2001; de Leeuw and de Heer 2002;Brick and Williams 2013). Decreasing response rates can lead to biased estimates if the nonresponse is not at random (Rubin 1976). Even when nonresponse is not selective, increasing the sample size as a direct countermeasure incurs higher costs. To increase survey response, several methods have been developed, such as advance letters, special contacting procedure...

show abstract

Experimental Evidence of the Effect of Monetary Incentives on Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Response: Experiences from the Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP)

Cited by 7 publications

References 18 publications

Enhancing Participation in Probability-Based Online Panels: Two Incentive Experiments and their Effects on Response and Panel Recruitment

Enhancing Participation in Probability-Based Online Panels: Two Incentive Experiments and their Effects on Response and Panel Recruitment

XAI—Explainable artificial intelligence

Are Incentive Effects on Response Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Large-scale, Face-to-face Surveys Generalizable to Germany? Evidence from Ten Experiments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About