skip to main content

Title: Survey Monetary Incentives: Digital Payments as an Alternative to Direct Mail
Despite the growing popularity of digital payment transactions in the United States, most survey participation incentives are still paid through cash or check and then distributed to respondents or potential sample members via direct mail. Though survey researchers have explored alternative incentives, such as e-gift cards, for online samples, there has been no study of electronic cash incentives—specifically paid through mobile pay applications—to date. In this article, we briefly review the literature on incentives used in online surveys and then examine survey incentive payment preferences among respondents using a small, web-based survey of younger adults. Our results suggest a greater preference for cash incentives paid through mobile applications than through direct mail, further highlighting the need for more research on the efficacy of electronically-delivered monetary incentives.
; ; ; ; ;
Award ID(s):
Publication Date:
Journal Name:
Survey practice
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Abstract

    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 samplemore »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.

    « less
  2. 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).
  3. Abstract
    The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically altered family life in the United States. Over the long duration of the pandemic, parents had to adapt to shifting work conditions, virtual schooling, the closure of daycare facilities, and the stress of not only managing households without domestic and care supports but also worrying that family members may contract the novel coronavirus. Reports early in the pandemic suggest that these burdens have fallen disproportionately on mothers, creating concerns about the long-term implications of the pandemic for gender inequality and mothers’ well-being. Nevertheless, less is known about how parents’ engagement in domestic labor and paid work has changed throughout the pandemic, what factors may be driving these changes, and what the long-term consequences of the pandemic may be for the gendered division of labor and gender inequality more generally. <br /><br />The Study on U.S. Parents’ Divisions of Labor During COVID-19 (SPDLC) collects longitudinal survey data from partnered U.S. parents that can be used to assess changes in parents’ divisions of domestic labor, divisions of paid labor, and well-being throughout and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The goal of SPDLC is to understand both the short- and long-term impacts of the pandemic for the genderedMore>>
  4. 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.
  5. Canonical theories of democratic representation envision legislators cultivating familiarity to enhance esteem among their constituents. Some scholars, however, argue that familiarity breeds contempt, which if true would undermine incentives for effective representation. Survey respondents who are unfamiliar with their legislator tend not to provide substantive answers to attitude questions, and so we are missing key evidence necessary to adjudicate this important debate. We solve this problem with a randomized field experiment that gave some constituents an opportunity to gain familiarity with their Member of Congress through an online Deliberative Town Hall. Relative to controls, respondents who interacted with their member reported higher esteem as a result of enhanced familiarity, a mediation effect supporting canonical theories of representation. This effect is statistically significant among constituents who are the same political party as the member but not among those of the opposite party, although in neither case did familiarity breed contempt.