IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/diw/diwsop/diw_sp855.html

Using Personalized Feedback to Increase Data Quality and Respondents' Motivation in Web Surveys?

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Kühne
  • Martin Kroh

Abstract

*****Volltextdokument auf Wunsch der Autoren gelöscht***** Web surveys technically allow providing feedback to respondents based on their previous responses. This personalized feedback may not only beused to target follow-up questions, it also allows test results to be returned immediately to respondents. This paper argues that the possibility of learning something about themselves increases respondents’ motivation and possibly the accuracy of responses. While past studies mainly concentrate on the effects of providing study results on future response rates, thus far survey research lacks of theoretical and empirical contributions on the effects of personalized, immediate, feedback on response behavior. To test this, we implemented a randomized trial in the context of the Berlin Aging Study II (BASE-II) in 2014, providing feedback regarding the respondents’ personality tests (Big-Five personality inventory) to a subgroup of the sample. Results show moderate differences in response behavior between experimental and control group (item nonresponse, response styles, internal consistency, socially desirable responding, corrective answers, and response times). In addition, we find that respondents of the experimental group report higher levels of satisfaction with the survey.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon Kühne & Martin Kroh, 2016. "Using Personalized Feedback to Increase Data Quality and Respondents' Motivation in Web Surveys?," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 855, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwsop:diw_sp855
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ivar Krumpal, 2013. "Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 2025-2047, June.
    2. Anke Böckenhoff & Denise Saßenroth & Martin Kroh & Thomas Siedler & Peter Eibich & Gert G. Wagner, 2013. "The Socio-Economic Module of the Berlin Aging Study II (SOEP-BASE): Description, Structure, and Questionnaire," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 568, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    3. Matthias Schonlau & Arthur van Soest & Arie Kapteyn & Mick Couper, 2009. "Selection Bias in Web Surveys and the Use of Propensity Scores," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 37(3), pages 291-318, February.
    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. Almut Schumann & Detlev Lück, 2023. "Better to ask online when it concerns intimate relationships? Survey mode differences in the assessment of relationship quality," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 48(22), pages 609-640.
    2. Jessica Gabriele Walter, 2018. "The adequacy of measures of gender roles attitudes: a review of current measures in omnibus surveys," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 829-848, March.
    3. repec:plo:pone00:0217595 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Ian Burn & Patrick Button & Luis Felipe Munguia Corella & David Neumark, 2019. "Older Workers Need Not Apply? Ageist Language in Job Ads and Age Discrimination in Hiring," NBER Working Papers 26552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Fiore, M. & Gaviglio, A. & Demartini, E. & La Sala, P., 2018. "Sugarcoating Food Technologies and consumers’ acceptance of long-life fish," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 275971, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Aycinena, Diego & Bogliacino, Francesco & Kimbrough, Erik O., 2024. "Measuring norms: Assessing the threat of social desirability bias to the Bicchieri and Xiao elicitation method," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 225-239.
    7. Burgstaller, Lilith & Feld, Lars P. & Pfeil, Katharina, 2022. "Working in the shadow: Survey techniques for measuring and explaining undeclared work," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 661-671.
    8. Richard Valliant & Jill A. Dever, 2011. "Estimating Propensity Adjustments for Volunteer Web Surveys," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 40(1), pages 105-137, February.
    9. Kar, Abhishek & Brauer, Michael & Bailis, Rob & Zerriffi, Hisham, 2020. "The risk of survey bias in self-reports vs. actual consumption of clean cooking fuels," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 18(C).
    10. Michael T Gastner & Károly Takács & Máté Gulyás & Zsuzsanna Szvetelszky & Beáta Oborny, 2019. "The impact of hypocrisy on opinion formation: A dynamic model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-21, June.
    11. Gábor Hajdu & Tamás Hajdu, 2025. "The Experiential Advantage in Consumption: Evidence from Hungary," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 177(3), pages 1327-1346, April.
    12. Babette Bühler & Katja Möhring & Andreas P. Weiland, 2022. "Assessing dissimilarity of employment history information from survey and administrative data using sequence analysis techniques," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(6), pages 4747-4774, December.
    13. Guzi, Martin & de Pedraza, Pablo, 2013. "A Web Survey Analysis of the Subjective Well-being of Spanish Workers," IZA Discussion Papers 7618, IZA Network @ LISER.
    14. Joel Martin & Michael Toczko & Emily Locke & Ryan McCarthy & Italia Milani & Nathalie Barrios & Samer Koutoubi & Jatin Ambegaonkar & Niyati Dhokai & Ali Boolani, 2022. "Influence of Grit on Physical Activity, Sitting Time and Dietary Behaviors: A Multi-Study Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-14, December.
    15. Sjöstedt, Martin & Sundström, Aksel & Jagers, Sverker C. & Ntuli, Herbert, 2022. "Governance through community policing: What makes citizens report poaching of wildlife to state officials?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    16. Tricia Koroknay†Palicz & Joao Montalvao, 2020. "Sex, Lies, and Surveys: The Role of Interviewer Characteristics," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 40(4), pages 3313-3324.
    17. Arni, Patrick & Dragone, Davide & Goette, Lorenz & Ziebarth, Nicolas R., 2021. "Biased health perceptions and risky health behaviors—Theory and evidence," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    18. Margarida Frade Santos & Diego Gomez-Baya & Celeste Simões & Ilaria Grazzani & Paula Lebre, 2025. "Do School and Family Well-being Mediate the relationship between Social and Emotional Learning and Subjective Happiness?," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 18(5), pages 2309-2330, October.
    19. Justin See & Brooke Wilmsen, 2022. "A multidimensional framework for assessing adaptative justice: a case study of a small island community in the Philippines," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(1), pages 1-21, January.
    20. Shinichi Kitano, 2021. "Estimation of Determinants of Farmland Abandonment and Its Data Problems," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, June.
    21. Anne Maaike Mulders & Frank Tubergen, 2023. "The Role of Education in Native Dutch Adolescents’ Muslim Population Size Perceptions," Journal of International Migration and Integration, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 1137-1156, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:diw:diwsop:diw_sp855. 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: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sodiwde.html .

    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.