The Effects of Cash,Electronic,and Paper Gift Certificates as Respondent Incentives for a Web-Based Survey of Technologically Sophisticated Respondents

Abstract

An experiment was conducted to determine the effectiveness of three invitation and incentivecombinations in a web-based survey. A stratified convenience sample of 434 researchers who were target users of a collaboratory for earthquake engineering was randomly divided into three experimental conditions: (a) a $5 bill sent with the survey instructions via first class mail, (b) a $5 gift certificate code to Amazon.com sent with the survey instructions via first-class mail, or (c) a $5 gift certificate code to Amazon.com sent with the survey instructions via e-mail. Overall response was 43%. Results show that $5 bills led to significantly higher response rates than either gift certificate condition (57% for cash vs. 36% for the two gift certificate conditions, [UNKNOWN]²(1) = 9.3, p < .01). This suggests that cash is a superior incentive for an online survey, even with technologically sophisticated respondents. This may be due to the perceived limitations, delayed payoff, or reduced visibility of online gift certificates.

Keywords

survey incentives web-based surveys methods earthquake engineering collaboratory

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bosnjak, M. , & Tuten, T. L. (2003). Prepaid and promised incentives in web surveys—An experiment. Social Science Computer Review, 21(2), 208-217.

Church, A. (1993). Estimating the effect of incentives on mail survey response rates: A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57(1), 62-79.

Cook, C. , Heath, F. ,& Thompson, R. L. (2000). A Meta-analysis of response rates in web- or Internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 821-836.

Couper, M. P. (2001). Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 464-494.

Cranor, L. F. , & LaMacchia, B. A. (1998). Spam! Communications of the ACM, 41(8), 74-83.

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: John Wiley.

Downes-Le Guin, T., Janowitz, P., Stone, R., & Khorram, S. (2002). Use of pre-incentives in an internet survey. Journal of Online Research. Retrieved November 25, 2002 from www.ijor.org/ijor_archives/articles/Use_of_pre-incentives_in_an_internet_survey.pdf

Finholt, T. A. (2003). Collaboratories as a new form of scientific organization. Economics of Innovation and New Technologies, 12, 5-25.

Gendall, P. , Hoek, J. , & Brennan, M. (1998). The tea bag experiment: More evidence on incentives in mail surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society, 40(14), 347-352.

10.

Grudin, J. (1989). Why groupware applications fail: Problems in design and evaluation. Office: Technology & People, 4(3), 245-264.

11.

Kraut, R. , Sunder, S. , Morris, J. , Telang, R. , Filer, D. , & Cronin, M. (2002, November). Markets for attention: Will postage for e-mail help? Paper presented at the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, New Orleans, LA.

12.

Mitchell, S. , Lamothe-Galette, C. ,& Potter, F. (2003, May). Checks, point-of-sale cards and telephone cards: Findings on survey response incentives for a low-income population. Paper presented at the American Association for Public Opinion Research Annual Conference, Nashville, TN.

13.

Simon, H. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

14.

Singer, E. , Van Hoewyk, J. ,& Maher, M. P. (1998). Does the payment of incentives create expectation effects? Public Opinion Quarterly, 62(2), 152-165.

15.

Warriner, K. , Goyder, J. , Gjertsen, H. , Hohner, P. , & McSpurren, K. (1996). Charities, no; lotteries, no; cash, yes: Main effects and interactions in a Canadian incentives experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60(4), 542-562.