The Use of Respondent Incentives on Longitudinal Surveys

Laurie, Heather; Lynn, Peter

doi:10.1002/9780470743874.ch12

Cited by 65 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fewer experimental studies exist of panel surveys, which indicate similar results (see Laurie and Lynn 2009 for a review). Incentives yield higher response rates (Mack et al 1998;Castiglioni, Pforr, and Krieger 2008;Zagorsky and Rhoton 2008).…”

Section: International Results Concerning Incentive Effectsmentioning

confidence: 89%

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

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

Section: International Results Concerning Incentive Effectsmentioning

confidence: 89%

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

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, since a panel will have already suffered from attrition after wave 1, it may differ from an initial sample, such as sample I in the cross-sectional experiment. Therefore, respondents may react differently to an incentive (Laurie and Lynn 2009). …”

Section: Longitudinal Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2013

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 SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research at DIW BerlinThis series presents research findings based either directly on data from the German SocioEconomic Panel Study (SOEP) or using SOEP data as part of an internationally comparable data set (e.g. CNEF, ECHP, LIS, LWS, CHER/PACO). SOEP is a truly multidisciplinary household panel study covering a wide range of social and behavioral sciences: economics, sociology, psychology, survey methodology, econometrics and applied statistics, educational science, political science, public health, behavioral genetics, demography, geography, and sport science.The decision to publish a submission in SOEPpapers is made by a board of editors chosen by the DIW Berlin to represent the wide range of disciplines covered by SOEP. There is no external referee process and papers are either accepted or rejected without revision. Papers appear in this series as works in progress and may also appear elsewhere. They often represent preliminary studies and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be requested from the author directly.Any opinions expressed in this series are those of the author(s) and not those of DIW Berlin.Research disseminated by DIW Berlin may include views on public policy issues, but the institute itself takes no institutional policy positions. AbstractThe paper gives an overview of two experiments implemented in the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) considering the effect of monetary incentives on cross-sectional and longitudinal response propensities. We conclude that the overall effects of monetary incentives on response rates are positive compared to the "classic" SOEP setting, where a charity lottery ticket is offered as an incentive. In the cross-section, cash incentives are associated with a higher response rate as well as a lower rate of partial unit non-response (PUNR) and fewer noncontacts on the household level. Separate analyses for German and immigrant households show that a monetary incentive has a positive effect on immigrant households' participation in subsequent waves. Regarding the regions where the households are located, the high cash incentive has a positive effect on response rates in provincial towns and rural areas. The incentive treatment decreases the likelihood of PUNR in the longitudinal setting by motivating members of participating households who had...

show abstract

“…Studies by Ryan (2009), Singer et al (2000), Willimack et al (1995), James and Bolstein (1990), and several of those cited in Laurie and Lynn (2009) found -contrary to the studies cited above -that incentives do have an effect on reporting behaviour and data quality. Goldenberg and Ryan (2009) report that in the US Consumer Expenditure Diary Survey, respondents receiving a pre-paid monetary incentive of USD 20 or USD 40 reported more transactions and also performed better on other indicators of data quality.…”

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 89%

The Influence of an Up-Front Experiment on Respondents’ Recording Behaviour in Payment Diaries: Evidence from Germany

Schmidt

Sieber

2017

Journal of Official Statistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we analyse the effect of an incentive experiment on German consumers' recording behaviour on the basis of a one-week diary of their point-of-sale expenditure. Part of the experiment, which was carried out shortly before the consumers began filling in their payment diaries, involved consumers rolling a die with a chance of winning either EUR 20 or nothing, that is, they were randomly assigned an incentive. We ask whether respondents' recording behaviour differs depending on whether individuals win or lose. We argue that winners attach a more positive feeling to the survey than losers and therefore show a stronger commitment to the diary. As the incentive experiment is part of a larger experiment to elicit respondents' risk preferences, we also provide evidence on the effect of conducting up-front behavioural experiments in representative surveys. Our results indicate that the outcome of the lottery (rolling of the die) has an impact on the quantity of transactions recorded, but does not affect other aspects of respondents' recording behaviour, such as item nonresponse or rounding. It also has a negligible impact on substantive measures, such as the cash share.

show abstract

The Use of Respondent Incentives on Longitudinal Surveys

Cited by 65 publications

References 13 publications

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

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

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

The Influence of an Up-Front Experiment on Respondents’ Recording Behaviour in Payment Diaries: Evidence from Germany

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About