The Visible Cash Effect with Prepaid Incentives: Evidence for Data Quality, Response Rates, Generalizability, and Cost
The Visible Cash Effect with Prepaid Incentives: Evidence for Data Quality, Response Rates, Generalizability, and Cost
复制标题
预付费激励的可见现金效应：数据质量、响应率、普遍性和成本的证据
DOI：
10.1093/jssam/smac032
复制
发表时间：
2022
影响因子：
2.1
通讯作者：
DeBell, Matthew
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
DeBell, Matthew
之前的一项研究发现，与外部不可见的现金相比，邮寄预付奖励的信封外部可见的5美元现金使邮件调查的回复率提高了4个百分点。这种“可见的现金效应”表明，有机会以很少或没有成本的方式改善调查答复，但仍有许多未知数。其中：可见的现金效应是否适用于不同的调查模式，受访者的负担，和现金数额？新样本和重新访谈样本之间有区别吗？它会影响数据质量或调查成本吗？本文探讨了这些问题，使用两个链接的研究，激励可见性随机在一个大概率样本的美国全国选举研究。第一项研究使用了10美元的奖励，并邀请参加一个长的网络问卷（中位数为71分钟，n= 17，849）。可见的现金增加了在一个新的样本的筛选和扩展采访的响应率（分别为6.7和4.8个百分点）。可见的现金并没有增加重新访谈样本的响应率，其中基线重新访谈响应率非常高（72%）。第二项研究使用了5美元的激励措施，并邀请参加一份邮寄的纸质问卷（n=8,000）。有形现金增加了4.0个百分点（从31.5到35.5），在先前的非受访者的样本的响应率，但它没有增加的响应率在重新采访的样本中，基线重新采访率非常高（84%）。在这两项研究中，数据质量的几个方面进行了调查，包括超速，非分化，项目无反应，非严重的反应，不可信的反应，样本组成，和预测有效性，没有发现可见的现金的不利影响，样本组成略有改善。对调查费用的影响可以忽略不计，或产生净节余。现在积累的证据表明，有形现金可以在几种情况下提高激励措施的有效性。
A prior study found that mailing prepaid incentives with $5 cash visible from outside the envelope increased the response rate to a mail survey by 4 percentage points compared to cash that was not externally visible. This “visible cash effect” suggests opportunities to improve survey response at little or no cost, but many unknowns remain. Among them: Does the visible cash effect generalize to different survey modes, respondent burdens, and cash amounts? Does it differ between fresh samples and reinterview samples? Does it affect data quality or survey costs? This article examines these questions using two linked studies where incentive visibility was randomized in a large probability sample for the American National Election Studies. The first study used $10 incentives with invitations to a long web questionnaire (median 71 minutes,n=17,849). Visible cash increased response rates in a fresh sample for both screener and extended interview response (by 6.7 and 4.8 percentage points, respectively). Visible cash did not increase the response rate in a reinterview sample where the baseline reinterview response rate was very high (72 percent). The second study used $5 incentives with invitations to a mail-back paper questionnaire (n=8,000). Visible cash increased the response rate in a sample of prior nonrespondents by 4.0 percentage points (from 31.5 to 35.5), but it did not increase the response rate in a reinterview sample where the baseline reinterview rate was very high (84 percent). In the two studies, several aspects of data quality were investigated, including speeding, non-differentiation, item nonresponse, nonserious responses, noncredible responses, sample composition, and predictive validity; no adverse effects of visible cash were detected, and sample composition improved marginally. Effects on survey costs were either negligible or resulted in net savings. Accumulated evidence now shows that visible cash can increase incentives’ effectiveness in several circumstances.