The Effect of Monetary Incentives and Follow-Up Mailings on the Response Rate and Response Quality in Mail Surveys

Abstract

The joint and comparative effects of the use of monetary incentives and follow-up mailings were examined in a mail survey of suburban Washington, DC cable television subscribers. Four experimental groups received monetary incentives enclosed with the first mailing only ($0.25, $0.50, $1.00, or $2.00) and three follow-up mailings. These groups were compared with each other and against a control group that did not receive an incentive. The results indicated that the response rate from the first mailing increased significantly as the incentive amount increased from zero to $0.25, and from $0.25 to $1.00. Four mailings without an incentive produced a higher response rate than a single mailing with an incentive, but a combination of follow-up mailings and a $1.00 or $2.00 incentive produced a significantly higher response rate than an equivalent number of mailings without an incentive.There was some evidence of intertreatment response bias. Larger monetary incentives tended to produce: (1) a greater degree of effort expended in completing the questionnaires, as measured by the number of short answers and comments provided, and the number of words written, and (2) comments that were more favorable toward the survey sponsor. JEANNINE JAMES is President of

Response Rates for Mail Surveys of Nonprofit Organizations: A Review and Empirical Test

“…Dillman contended that postpayments change the survey relationship from an environment of social exchange to one of economic exchange, which may result in lower returns. Consistent with this thesis, James and Bolstein (1990) found that even a $1 incentive improved responses whereas a promise of $50 for a completed survey did not. Church (1993) concluded that incentives included with a survey to individuals is better than the promise of higher future returns.…”

“…Sending a small amount of money (or other incentive) with a survey package is a goodwill gesture that puts the sponsor and questionnaire in a positive light and sets the stage for the respondent to reciprocate by completing the questionnaire. The value of small financial incentives has been demonstrated in surveys of individuals (James & Bolstein, 1990;Singer, VanHoewyk, & Maher, 2000) and organizations (Angur & Nataraajan, 1995;Armstrong & Yokum, 1994).…”

Adaptive persuasive messaging to increase service retention: using persuasion profiles to increase the effectiveness of email reminders

“…Reciprocity: People feel obligated to return a favor; thus, when a persuasive request is made by a person the receiver is in debt to, the receiver is more inclined to adhere to the request Cialdini [8]. People even return a favor that they never asked for [18]. 2.…”

Persuasion in ambient intelligence

“…The strategy of reciprocation-the foundation of the tit-for-tat strategy, which is the most favorable algorithm to win social dilemma games (Komorita et al 1991)-seems rational. However, it has been shown that people even reciprocate to favors they had never asked for (Cialdini 2004;James and Bolstein 1992). Reciprocity, both in its rational and effective sense of reciprocating favors, as well as in its more deceptive sense, reciprocating unasked-for favors, can be utilized by ambient persuasive systems.…”