Skip Navigation


Public Opinion Quarterly Advance Access originally published online on May 21, 2009
Public Opinion Quarterly 2009 73(2):338-348; doi:10.1093/poq/nfp021
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
73/2/338    most recent
nfp021v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tourangeau, R.
Right arrow Articles by Ye, C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

The Framing of the Survey Request and Panel Attrition

Roger Tourangeau and Cong Ye

Address correspondence to Roger Tourangeau; e-mail: rtourangeau{at}survey.umd.edu

Every survey begins with a request to the sample members to take part. How that request is framed can have a variety of consequences, including its intended (positive) effect on the cooperation rate. Survey appeals tend to emphasize the benefits of participation, but there is reason to think that emphasizing the negative consequences of nonparticipation may sometimes be a more effective method of inducing cooperation. We carried out an experiment in which respondents in a random digit dialing (RDD) sample were asked to complete a second telephone interview. For approximately half of the respondents, we emphasized the benefits of their completing the follow-up interview; for the others, we emphasized the loss involved if they chose not to complete the follow-up. Based on Kahneman and Tversky's prospect theory, we predicted that the loss framing would be more effective than the gain framing. In line with our prediction, 87.5 percent of those who got the "loss" framing of the request completed the second interview versus 77.9 percent of those who got the "gain" framing. Multivariate models of the response rate to the second interview (conditional on completion of the first) suggest that the framing effect is fairly robust across subgroups of the sample.


ROGER TOURANGEAU AND CONG YE are with the Joint Program in Survey Methodology, University of Maryland, 1218 LeFrak Hall, College Park, MD 20742, USA. ROGER TOURANGEAU is also with the Survey Research Center, University of Michigan. This survey was carried out as part of a class at the Joint Program in Survey Methodology, the Survey Practicum. We are grateful to Stanley Presser, the instructor in the course, to the students in the Practicum, and to Ting Yan, who helped plan the study.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.