A penny for your thoughts - the use of cash incentives in face-to-face surveys

Krieger, Ulrich

Vorschau

PDF
Krieger_Dissertation_20180719.pdf - Veröffentlichte Version
Download (2MB)

URL:	https://madoc.bib.uni-mannheim.de/45606
URN:	urn:nbn:de:bsz:180-madoc-456064
Dokumenttyp:	Dissertation
Erscheinungsjahr:	2018
Ort der Veröffentlichung:	Mannheim
Hochschule:	Universität Mannheim
Gutachter:	Blom, Annelies
Datum der mündl. Prüfung:	27 Februar 2018
Sprache der Veröffentlichung:	Englisch
Einrichtung:	Außerfakultäre Einrichtungen > SFB 884 Fakultät für Sozialwissenschaften > Data Science (Blom 2017-2022)
Lizenz:	Creative Commons Namensnennung 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Fachgebiet:	300 Sozialwissenschaften, Soziologie, Anthropologie
Normierte Schlagwörter (SWD):	Empirische Sozialforschung
Freie Schlagwörter (Englisch):	Survey Methodology, Respondent Incentives, face-to-face-survey, survey cost, sample composition
Abstract:	The main body of this dissertation are three experiments on respondent incentives. The incentive experiments have similarities but also cover different aspects of incentive use. All experiments are conducted in the first wave of a longitudinal study with the goal to motivate respondents not only to participate in one survey, but to stay for the long haul. All experiments include at least one condition, offering cash incentives upfront without any strings attached (unconditional cash incentives). The first experiment I present in chapter 5 is comparing unconditional cash incentives to conditional cash incentives in the GIP recruitment survey. I present effects on response rate and sample composition. The added twist to this experiment is that the values of both types of incentive are chosen in a way that their total cost is the same: payinge10 offered conditionally to about half the (responding) sample members compared to e5 sent unconditionally to all sample members. Incentive effects in this experiment are thus measured under the realistic assumption of a fixed survey budged, that needs to be used most effectively on an incentive scheme. The cost aspect is expanded on chapter 6 when discussing the GIP reminder incentive experiment. Here I compare registration rates to the GIP online panel conditional on receiving an unconditional cash incentive with a reminder letter to just receiving the reminder. In addition to reporting on registration rates and sample composition I examine if the use of the cash incentive was cost effective for the GIP project. Finally, I included the results of the SHARE Germany wave 4 incentive experiment form 2011. Parts of the results presented in chapter 7 are taken from a working paper on this topic (Börsch-Supan, Krieger, & Schröder, 2013). However, the results fit nicely into the present volume and the presentation has been improved and the findings are still relevant for todays survey researchers:Testing unconditional cash incentives of high value in a setting of a large, national face-to-face study. 4