IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/apeclt/v28y2021i2p105-108.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cash is not king in incentivizing online surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen Knowles
  • Philip Stahlmann-Brown

Abstract

We analyse the effect of different incentive structures on response rates for an online survey of New Zealand landowners who have previously not responded to an earlier wave of the survey. We find response rates are lowest for direct cash payment, lower even than for a control group with no incentive, which may be due to direct payment extinguishing any warm glow people receive from the charitable act of completing a survey. Lottery and charitable donation incentives do not increase response rates relative to a control group with no incentive.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen Knowles & Philip Stahlmann-Brown, 2021. "Cash is not king in incentivizing online surveys," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(2), pages 105-108, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:apeclt:v:28:y:2021:i:2:p:105-108
    DOI: 10.1080/13504851.2020.1734524
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13504851.2020.1734524
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13504851.2020.1734524?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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shahidul Islam, 2021. "Impact Of Lottery Incentive On Response Rate And Data Quality: Evidence From Organic Food Consumption Survey Of Conventional Shoppers," Cultural Communication and Socialization Journal (CCSJ), Zibeline International Publishing, vol. 2(2), pages 68-74, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:apeclt:v:28:y:2021:i:2:p:105-108. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEL20 .

    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.