IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v107y2023ics2214804323001295.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing the decoy effect to improve online survey participation: Evidence from a field experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Stoffel, Sandro T.
  • Sun, Yining
  • Hirst, Yasemin
  • von Wagner, Christian
  • Vlaev, Ivo

Abstract

As low participation and retention in online survey participation decrease confidence in its results, traditional research has focused on ways to optimize the survey structure and design. So far, no study has tested the decoy effect (i.e. offering an inferior decoy option to increase the attractiveness of the target option) to increase survey participation. In a field experiment with 203 students, we tested the effectiveness of adding a decoy questionnaire to the choice set to improve online survey participation. The decoy questionnaire featured open-ended instead of close-ended questions and delayed remuneration (1 week vs. 4 weeks). We found that the presence of the decoy questionnaire increased the probability of the target questionnaire being completed from 32.7 % to 55.9 %. Furthermore, while the decoy did not affect response behavior or cause non-response bias, a significant order effect was observed. When the target questionnaire was presented before the decoy, the participation was 82.7 % in comparison to 28.0 % when the decoy was presented first. This study is the first to test the decoy effect in the context of aiming to improve survey participation. These findings offer a ‘proof of principle’ that decoys have the potential to increase participation without negatively influencing question response behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Stoffel, Sandro T. & Sun, Yining & Hirst, Yasemin & von Wagner, Christian & Vlaev, Ivo, 2023. "Testing the decoy effect to improve online survey participation: Evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:107:y:2023:i:c:s2214804323001295
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2023.102103
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804323001295
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2023.102103?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heath, Timothy B & Chatterjee, Subimal, 1995. "Asymmetric Decoy Effects on Lower-Quality versus Higher-Quality Brands: Meta-analytic and Experimental Evidence," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 22(3), pages 268-284, December.
    2. Huber, Joel & Payne, John W & Puto, Christopher, 1982. "Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 9(1), pages 90-98, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2015. "Demand for fixed-price multi-year contracts: Experimental evidence from insurance decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 171-194, October.
    2. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    3. Salvatore Nunnari & Jan Zapal, 2017. "A Model of Focusing in Political Choice," Working Papers 599, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    4. Castillo, Geoffrey, 2020. "The attraction effect and its explanations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 123-147.
    5. Li, Feng & Du, Timon C. & Wei, Ying, 2020. "Enhancing supply chain decisions with consumers’ behavioral factors: An illustration of decoy effect," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    6. Jerome R. Busemeyer & Jörg Rieskamp, 2014. "Psychological research and theories on preferential choice," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 3, pages 49-72, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Mohr, Peter N. C. & Heekeren, Hauke R. & Rieskamp, Jörg, 2017. "Attraction Effect in Risky Choice Can Be Explained by Subjective Distance Between Choice Alternatives," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 7, pages 1-10.
    8. Batley, Richard & Hess, Stephane, 2016. "Testing for regularity and stochastic transitivity using the structural parameter of nested logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 93(PA), pages 355-376.
    9. Sürücü, Oktay & Djawadi, Behnud Mir & Recker, Sonja, 2019. "The asymmetric dominance effect: Reexamination and extension in risky choice – An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 102-122.
    10. Jörg Rieskamp & Jerome R. Busemeyer & Barbara A. Mellers, 2006. "Extending the Bounds of Rationality: Evidence and Theories of Preferential Choice," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 44(3), pages 631-661, September.
    11. Mehran Spitmaan & Oihane Horno & Emily Chu & Alireza Soltani, 2019. "Combinations of low-level and high-level neural processes account for distinct patterns of context-dependent choice," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-31, October.
    12. Yuin Jeong & Sangheon Oh & Younah Kang & Sung-Hee Kim, 2021. "Impacts of Visualizations on Decoy Effects," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-19, December.
    13. Marco Marini & Alessandro Ansani & Fabio Paglieri, 2020. "Attraction comes from many sources: Attentional and comparative processes in decoy effects," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(5), pages 704-726, September.
    14. Michael Woodford, 2020. "Modeling Imprecision in Perception, Valuation, and Choice," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 579-601, August.
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:5:p:704-726 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Zhang, Tao & Zhang, David, 2007. "Agent-based simulation of consumer purchase decision-making and the decoy effect," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(8), pages 912-922, August.
    17. Davies, Antony & Cline, Thomas W., 2005. "A consumer behavior approach to modeling monopolistic competition," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 797-826, December.
    18. Slaughter, Jerel E. & Bagger, Jessica & Li, Andrew, 2006. "Context effects on group-based employee selection decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 47-59, May.
    19. Müller, Holger & Benjamin Kroll, Eike & Vogt, Bodo, 2010. "“Fact or artifact? Empirical evidence on the robustness of compromise effects in binding and non-binding choice contextsâ€," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 441-448.
    20. Linhai Wu & Pingping Liu & Xiujuan Chen & Wuyang Hu & Xuesen Fan, 2021. "Contents of product attributes and the decoy effect: A study on traceable pork from the perspective of consumer utility," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(4), pages 974-984, June.
    21. Quan Zheng & Xiajun Amy Pan & Janice E. Carrillo, 2019. "Probabilistic Selling for Vertically Differentiated Products with Salient Thinkers," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(3), pages 442-460, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:107:y:2023:i:c:s2214804323001295. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.