| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Public Opinion Quarterly 56:442-453 (1992)
© 1992 American Association for Public Opinion Research
LARGE MONETARY INCENTIVES AND THEIR EFFECT ON MAIL SURVEY RESPONSE RATES
JEANNINE JAMES is an industrial psychologist and president of American Research Company, Inc., Great Falls, Virginia, RICHARD BOLSTEIN is associate professor. Center for Computational Statistics, at George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia.
The effect of various large monetary incentives was examined in a mail survey of owners of small construction subcontracting companies. The sample was randomly divided into seven groups, each of which received either a different monetary amount enclosed with the first mailing ($1 cash, $5 cash, $5 check, $10 check, $20 check, or $40 check) or an offer of a $50 check to be sent once the questionnaire was returned. These groups were compared against each other and against a control group that did not receive an incentive. Three follow-up mailings were sent to the nonrespondents in each group. The results indicate that $1 significantly increased the response rate over the no incentive control condition regardless of the number of mailings. The response rate also increased significantly as the incentive amount increased from $1 to $5 and from $5 to $20. There was a nonsignificant difference in response rate between the $5 check and $5 cash groups. The promise of $50 did not result in a significantly higher response rate than the control group. Discussion includes a cost-benefit analysis of the incentives, as well as a section about the increased "favorability" of respondents toward the survey sponsor within the large incentive groups.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  W. Wetzels, H. Schmeets, J. v. d. Brakel, and R. Feskens Impact of Prepaid Incentives in Face-to-Face Surveys: A Large-Scale Experiment with Postage Stamps Int. J. Public Opin. Res., December 1, 2008; 20(4): 507 - 516. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. L. Zagorsky and P. Rhoton The Effects of Promised Monetary Incentives on Attrition in a Long-Term Panel Survey Public Opin Q, September 1, 2008; 72(3): 502 - 513. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Kemper, B. Heier, T. Barry, D. Brannon, J. Angelelli, J. Vasey, and M. Anderson-Knott What Do Direct Care Workers Say Would Improve Their Jobs? Differences Across Settings Gerontologist, July 1, 2008; 48(suppl_1): 17 - 25. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. S. Rose, S. D. Sidle, and K. H. Griffith A Penny for Your Thoughts: Monetary Incentives Improve Response Rates for Company-Sponsored Employee Surveys Organizational Research Methods, April 1, 2007; 10(2): 225 - 240. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. F. Teisl, B. Roe, and M. E. Vayda Incentive Effects on Response Rates, Data Quality, and Survey Administration Costs Int. J. Public Opin. Res., September 1, 2006; 18(3): 364 - 373. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. E. Kropf and J. Blair Eliciting Survey Cooperation: Incentives, Self-Interest, and Norms of Cooperation Eval Rev, December 1, 2005; 29(6): 559 - 575. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. L. Collins, P. L. Ellickson, R. D. Hays, and D. F. Mccaffrey Effects of Incentive Size and Timing on Response Rates to a Follow-Up Wave of a Longitudinal Mailed Survey Eval Rev, August 1, 2000; 24(4): 347 - 363. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. I. Woodruff, C. C. Edwards, and T. L. Conway Enhancing Response Rates To a Smoking Survey for Enlisted U.S. Navy Women Eval Rev, December 1, 1998; 22(6): 780 - 791. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Bibliography Current Sociology, October 1, 1998; 46(4): 119 - 135.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. A. Everett, J. H. Price, A. W. Bedell, and S. K. Telljohann The Effect of a Monetary Incentive in Increasing the Return Rate of a Survey to Family Physicians Eval Health Prof, June 1, 1997; 20(2): 207 - 214. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|