IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The use of respondent incentives on longitudinal surveys


  • Laurie, Heather
  • Lynn, Peter


Incentives in the form of a gift or money are given to survey respondents in the hope that this will increase response rates and possibly also reduce non-response bias. They can also act as a means of thanking respondents for taking part and showing appreciation for the time the respondent has given to the survey. There is a considerable literature devoted to the effects of respondent incentives, though most studies are based on cross-sectional surveys. These studies show that the both the form of the incentive, gift or money, and the way in which the incentive is delivered to the respondent has a measurable impact on response rates. A monetary incentive sent to the respondent in advance of the interview has the greatest effect on increasing response, regardless of the amount of money involved. This type of unconditional incentive is thought to operate through a process of social reciprocity where the respondent perceives that they have received something unconditionally on trust so reciprocate in kind by taking part in the research. Some of the literature suggests an improvement in data quality from respondents who are given an incentive, in terms of reduced item non-response and reduced bias through encouraging certain demographic groups to participate who otherwise might refuse. It is generally felt that incentives are more appropriate the greater the burden to respondents of taking part. Longitudinal surveys certainly constitute high burden surveys, but there is little guidance on how and when incentives should be employed on longitudinal surveys. In this paper, we review the use that is made of incentives on longitudinal surveys, describing common practices and the rationale for these practices. We attempt to identify the features of longitudinal surveys that are unique and the features that they share with cross-sectional surveys in terms of motivations and opportunities for the use of incentives and possible effects of incentives. We then review experimental evidence on the effects of incentives on longitudinal surveys. Finally, we report on two experimental studies carried out in the UK. These both address a particular issue in longitudinal surveys, namely the effect of changing the way that incentives are used part-way through the survey. Each experiment addressed a different type of change. The first experiment was carried out on the British Election Panel Survey, where an incentive was introduced for the first time at wave 6. Three experimental groups were used at both waves 6 and 7, consisting of a zero incentive and two different values of unconditional incentive. The second experiment was carried out on wave 14 (2004) of the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS). BHPS respondents have always received a gift token as an incentive and since wave 6 of the study (1996) this has been offered unconditionally in advance of the interview to the majority of respondents. The wave 14 experiment was designed to assess the effect on response of increasing the level of the incentive offered from £7 to £10 for established panel members, many of whom have co-operated with the survey for thirteen years.

Suggested Citation

  • Laurie, Heather & Lynn, Peter, 2008. "The use of respondent incentives on longitudinal surveys," ISER Working Paper Series 2008-42, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:ese:iserwp:2008-42

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Lynn, Peter & Buck, Nick & Burton, Jonathan & Jäckle, Annette & Laurie, Heather, 2005. "A review of methodological research pertinent to longitudinal survey design and data collection," ISER Working Paper Series 2005-29, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Sadig, Husam, 2014. "Unknown eligibility whilst weighting for non-response: the puzzle of who has died and who is still alive?," ISER Working Paper Series 2014-35, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    2. Laura Fumagalli & Heather Laurie & Peter Lynn, 2013. "Experiments with methods to reduce attrition in longitudinal surveys," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 176(2), pages 499-519, February.
    3. Sascha Becker & Dolores Messer & Stefan C. Wolter & Sascha O. Becker, 2011. "A Gift is not Always a Gift: Gift Exchange in a Voucher Experiment," CESifo Working Paper Series 3488, CESifo.
    4. Nic Baigrie & Katherine Eyal, 2014. "An Evaluation of the Determinants and Implications of Panel Attrition in the National Income Dynamics Survey (2008-2010)," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 82(1), pages 39-65, March.
    5. Frick, Joachim R. & Grabka, Markus M. & Groh-Samberg, Olaf, 2012. "Dealing With Incomplete Household Panel Data in Inequality Research," EconStor Open Access Articles, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 89-123.
    6. Carine Burricand & Jean-Paul Lorgnet, 2014. "L’attrition dans l’enquête SRCV : déterminants et effets sur la mesure des variables monétaires," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 469(1), pages 19-35.
    7. Felderer, Barbara & Müller, Gerrit & Kreuter, Frauke & Winter, Joachim, 2018. "The Effect of Differential Incentives on Attrition Bias: Evidence from the PASS Wave 3 Incentive Experiment," Munich Reprints in Economics 62837, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    8. Pforr, Klaus & Blohm, Michael & Blom, Annelies G. & Erdel, Barbara & Felderer, Barbara & Fräßdorf, Mathis & Hajek, Kristin & Helmschrott, Susanne & Kleinert, Corinna & Koch, Achim & Krieger, Ulrich & , 2015. "Are Incentive Effects on Response Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Large-scale, Face-to-face Surveys Generalizable to Germany? Evidence from Ten Experiments," EconStor Open Access Articles, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 740-768.
    9. Nicole Watson & Mark Wooden, 2011. "Re-engaging with Survey Non-respondents: The BHPS, SOEP and HILDA Survey Experience," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2011n02, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    10. McGonagle Katherine A. & Schoeni Robert F. & Couper Mick P., 2013. "The Effects of a Between-Wave Incentive Experiment on Contact Update and Production Outcomes in a Panel Study," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 29(2), pages 261-276, September.
    11. Nancy A. Connelly & T. Bruce Lauber & Jeff Niederdeppe & Barbara A. Knuth, 2018. "Using a Web‐Based Diary Method to Estimate Risks and Benefits from Fish Consumption," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(6), pages 1116-1127, June.
    12. Annamaria Bianchi & Silvia Biffignandi, 2019. "Social Indicators to Explain Response in Longitudinal Studies," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 141(3), pages 931-957, February.
    13. Sascha O. Becker & Dolores Messer & Stefan C. Wolter, 2013. "A Gift is Not Always a Gift: Heterogeneity and Long-term Effects in a Gift Exchange Experiment," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 80(318), pages 345-371, April.

    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. Catherine Waddams Price & Karl Brazier & Khac Pham & Laurence Mathieu & Wenjia Wang, 2007. "Identifying Fuel Poverty Using Objective and Subjective Measures," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2007-11, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    2. Frethey-Bentham, Catherine, 2011. "Pseudo panels as an alternative study design," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 281-292.
    3. Mark Wooden & Nicole Watson, 2007. "The HILDA Survey and its Contribution to Economic and Social Research (So Far)," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 83(261), pages 208-231, June.
    4. Laurie, Heather, 2007. "The effect of increasing financial incentives in a panel survey: an experiment on the British Household Panel Survey, Wave 14," ISER Working Paper Series 2007-05, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    5. Pudney, Stephen & Zantomio, Francesca & Hancock, Ruth, 2006. "Estimating the impact of a policy reform on welfare participation: the 2001 extension to the minimum income guarantee for UK pensioners," ISER Working Paper Series 2006-21, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    6. Francesca Zantomio & Stephen Pudney & Ruth Hancock, 2010. "Estimating the Impact of a Policy Reform on Benefit Take‐up: The 2001 extension to the Minimum Income Guarantee for UK Pensioners," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 77(306), pages 234-254, April.
    7. Uhrig, S.C. Noah, 2008. "The nature and causes of attrition in the British Household Panel Study," ISER Working Paper Series 2008-05, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    8. Kenny, Charles, 2006. "Measuring and reducing the impact of corruption in infrastructure," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4099, The World Bank.
    9. Anna Manzoni & Ruud Luijkx & Ruud Muffels, 2011. "Explaining differences in labour market transitions between panel and life-course data in West-Germany," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 241-261, February.
    10. Jäckle, Annette, 2008. "Measurement error and data collection methods: effects on estimates from event history data," ISER Working Paper Series 2008-13, Institute for Social and Economic Research.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:ese:iserwp:2008-42. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: .

    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: Jonathan Nears (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.