To compare the effectiveness of different prenotification and invitation procedures in a web-based three-wave access panel survey over 3 consecutive months, we experimentally varied the contact mode in a fully crossed two-factorial design with (a) three different prenotification conditions (mobile short messaging service [SMS], e-mail, no prenotice) and (b) two “invitation and reminder” conditions (SMS, e-mail). A group with nearly complete mobile phone coverage was randomly assigned to one of these six experimental conditions. As expected, SMS prenotifications outperformed e-mail prenotifications in terms of response rates across all three waves. Furthermore, e-mail invitation response rates outperformed those for SMS invitations. The combination of SMS prenotification and e-mail invitation performed best. The different experimental treatments did not have an effect on the sample composition of respondents between groups.
American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2005). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys (3rd ed.). Retrieved February 8, 2006, from http://www.aapor.org/pdfs/standarddefs_3.1.pdf
2.
Balabanis, G., Mitchell, V.-W., & Heinonen-Mavrovouniotis, S. (2005, May). SMS-based surveys: Strategies to improve participation. Paper presented at the 34th EMAC Conference, Milan, Italy.
3.
Chebat, J.-C., & Picard, J. (1991). Does prenotification increase response rates in mail surveys? A self-perception approach. Journal of Social Psychology, 131(4), 477-481.
4.
Church, A.H. (1993). Estimating the effect of incentives on mail survey response rates: A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly , 57, 62-79.
5.
Cialdini, R.B. (1993). Influence: Science and practice (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
6.
Clore, G.L. (1992). Cognitive phenomenology: Feelings and the construction of judgment. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), The construction of social judgments (pp. 133-163). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
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, 821-836.
8.
Couper, M.P. (2000). Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches . Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 464-494.
9.
Dillman, D.A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method . New York: John Wiley.
10.
Dillman, D.A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: John Wiley.
11.
Göritz, A.S., & Wolff, H.-G. (2007). Lotteries as incentives in longitudinal web studies . Social Science Computer Review, 25(1), 99-110.
12.
Groves, R.M., Cialdini, R.B., & Couper, M.P. (1992). Understanding the decision to participate in a survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 475-495.
13.
Groves, R.M., Presser, S., & Dipko, S. (2004). The role of topic interest in survey participation decisions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 2-31.
14.
Hembroff, L.A., Rusz, D., Rafferty, A., McGee, H., & Ehrlich, N. (2005). The cost-effectiveness of alternative advance mailings in a telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(2), 232-245.
15.
Jacoby, L.L., Kelley, C.M., & Dywan, J. (1989). Memory attributions. In H. L. Roediger & F.I.M. Craik (Eds.), Varieties of memory and consciousness: Essays in honour of Endel Tulving (pp. 391-422). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund . (2005). JIM 2005. Jugend, information, (multi-)media [JIM 2005. Youth, information, and multimedia]. Stuttgart, Germany: Landesanstalt für Kommunikation .
17.
Porter, S.R., & Whitcomb, M.E. (2003). The impact of contact type on web survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67(4), 579-588.
18.
Rammstedt, B., & John, O.P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 203-212.
19.
Singer, E. (2002). The use of incentives to reduce nonresponse in household surveys. In R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge , & R.J.A. Little (Eds.), Survey nonresponse (pp. 163-177). New York: John Wiley.
20.
Tuten, T.L. (1997). Getting a foot in the electronic door: Understanding why people read or delete electronic mail (ZUMA Working Paper No. 97/8). Mannheim, Germany: ZUMA.
21.
Whittlesea, B.W.A., Jacoby, L.L., & Girard, K. (1990). Illusions of immediate memory: Evidence of an attributional basis for feelings of familiarity and perceptual quality. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 716-732.
22.
Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Fazendeiro, T., & Reber, R. (2003). The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment. In J. Musch & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp. 189-217). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
