A prior study found that mailing prepaid incentives with $5 cash visible from outside the envelope increased the response rate to a mail survey by 4 percentage points compared to cash that was not externally visible. This “visible cash effect” suggests opportunities to improve survey response at little or no cost, but many unknowns remain. Among them: Does the visible cash effect generalize to different survey modes, respondent burdens, and cash amounts? Does it differ between fresh samples and reinterview samples? Does it affect data quality or survey costs? This article examines these questions using two linked studies where incentive visibility was randomized in a large probability sample for the American National Election Studies. The first study used $10 incentives with invitations to a long web questionnaire (median 71 minutes, n = 17,849). Visible cash increased response rates in a fresh sample for both screener and extended interview response (by 6.7 and 4.8 percentage points, respectively). Visible cash did not increase the response rate in a reinterview sample where the baseline reinterview response rate was very high (72 percent). The second study used $5 incentives with invitations to a mail-back paper questionnaire (n = 8,000). Visible cash increased the response rate in a sample of prior nonrespondents by 4.0 percentage points (from 31.5 to 35.5), but it did not increase the response rate in a reinterview sample where the baseline reinterview rate was very high (84 percent). In the two studies, several aspects of data quality were investigated, including speeding, non-differentiation, item nonresponse, nonserious responses, noncredible responses, sample composition, and predictive validity; no adverse effects of visible cash were detected, and sample composition improved marginally. Effects on survey costs were either negligible or resulted in net savings. Accumulated evidence now shows that visible cash can increase incentives’ effectiveness in several circumstances.
- Award ID(s):
- 1853094
- PAR ID:
- 10321584
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Survey practice
- Volume:
- 15
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 2168-0094
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract -
more » « less
Mail surveys remain a popular method of eliciting attitudinal information, but declining response rates motivate inquiry into new, lower cost methods of contacting potential respondents. This work presents methodological findings from a medium-sized (~12,000 addresses) mail survey testing a United States Postal Service direct mail product called Every Door Direct Mail as a low-cost approach to anonymous mail survey distribution. The results suggest that under certain conditions, Every Door Direct Mail can be a useful approach for mail survey distribution, with response rates similar to those observed with analogous first-class mailing approaches but lower cost per response. As a tool for postal carrier-route saturation mailing that does not use names or addresses, Every Door Direct Mail is potentially useful for researchers who work in small, specific geographies or value or require anonymity. The results from this work suggest good performance on demographics and socially undesirable answers for Every Door Direct Mail relative to addressed mailings. The major disadvantages include an inability to conduct household-level probability sampling, an inability to customize nonresponse follow-up, and minimum mailing sizes associated with the postal carrier route saturation requirement. Every Door Direct Mail is unlikely to become a major tool for survey researchers, but it could be useful in niche applications. This study introduces Every Door Direct Mail to the survey methodology literature and presents empirical data intended to help researchers considering using Every Door Direct Mail.
-
A non-response follow-up study by mail in a national sample of U.S. households had five embedded experiments to test the effects of an advance mailing, alternate survey titles, 1- or 2-page questionnaire length, the inclusion or exclusion of political questions on the 1-page questionnaire, and the position of political content on the first or second page of the 2-page questionnaire. None of these design elements affected the payout of escalated postpaid incentives. Advance mailings had no effect on response rate. A short title (National Survey of Households) had a slightly higher response rate than a longer, more descriptive one (National Survey of Households, Families, and Covid-19). Political question content, whether by inclusion, exclusion, or position, had no discernable effect on response, even among prior-study non-respondents. Questionnaire length was inversely related to response: the 2-page questionnaire depressed the overall response rate by 3.7 points (58.5 compared to 54.8 percent, weighted) and depressed response for the critical sample group of prior non-respondents by 6.9 points (36.9 compared to 29.9).more » « less
-
Elite surveys are increasingly common in political science, but how best to motivate participation in them remains poorly understood. This study compares the effect of three treatments designed to increase participation in an online survey of international non-profit professionals: a monetary reward, an altruistic appeal emphasizing the study’s benefits, and a promise to give the respondent access to the study’s results. Only the monetary incentive increased the survey response rate. It did not decrease response quality as measured in terms of straight-lining or skipped questions, although it may have produced a pool of respondents more likely to speed through the survey. The findings suggest that monetary incentives reduce total survey error even in the context of an elite survey, perhaps especially with elite populations frequently contacted by researchers. However, such incentives may not be without trade-offs in terms of how carefully respondents engage with the survey.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract We develop a theory of money and credit as competing payment instruments, then put it to work in applications. Agents use cash and credit because the former (latter) is subject to the inflation tax (transaction costs). Frictions that make the choice of payment method interesting also imply equilibrium price dispersion. We derive closed‐form solutions for money demand, and show how to simultaneously account for the price‐change facts, cash–credit shares in micro data, and money‐interest correlations in macro data. The effects of inflation on welfare, price dispersion and markups are discussed, as are nonstationary equilibria with dynamics in the price distribution.
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.29115/SP-2021-0012
