Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why do people participate in Web surveys? Applying survey participation theory to Internet survey data collection

  • State-of-the-Art
  • Published:
Management Review Quarterly Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent years Web surveys have emerged as the most popular mode of primary data collection in market and social research. To improve our understanding about the influence of different societal-level factors, characteristics of the sample person, and attributes of the survey design on participation in Web surveys, this paper establishes a systematic link between theoretical frameworks used to explain survey participation behavior and state-of-the-art empirical research on online data collection methods. The concepts of self-perception, cognitive dissonance, commitment and involvement, social exchange, compliance, leverage-salience, and planned behavior are discussed and their relationship with factors that have empirically proven to influence Web survey participation are analyzed using data from an expert survey. This paper will help researchers and practitioners to make informed decisions about the use of techniques increasing participation in Web surveys.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Strictly speaking, commitment and involvement are individual determinants of (non)participation in a survey and not a theory per se. However, for the purpose of this paper I will use Albaum and Smith (2012)’s terminology and treat ‘commitment/involvement’ as equivalent to other, more established theoretical frameworks of survey participation.

References

  • Ajzen I (1987) Attitudes, trends, and actions: dispositional prediction of behavior in personality and social psychology. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 20:1–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211

  • Albaum G, Smith SM (2012) Why people agree to participate in surveys. In: Gideon L (ed) Handbook of survey methodology for the social sciences. Springer, New York, pp 179–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Albaum GS, Evangelista F, Medina L (1998) Role of response behavior theory in survey research: a cross-national study. J Bus Res 42:115–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen CT, Schewe CD, Wijk G (1980) More on self-perception theory’s foot technique in the pre-call/mail survey setting. J Mark Res 17:498–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandilla W, Couper MP, Kaczmirek L (2012) The mode of invitation for Web surveys. Surv Pract 5(3). http://surveypractice.org/index.php/SurveyPractice/article/view/20/html. Accessed 8 May 2014

  • Batinic B (2002) Online-Marktforschung auf dem Prüfstand. In: Diller H (ed) Neue Entwicklungen in der Marktforschung. Gesellschaft für Innovatives Marketing e.V., Nürnberg, pp 77–95

  • Batinic B, Moser K (2005) Determinanten der Rücklaufquote in Online-Panels. Z Medienpsychol 17:64–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker HS (1960) Notes on the concept of commitment. Am J Sociol 66:32–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Bem DJ (1972) Self-perception theory. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 6:1–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Bethlehem J, Stoop I (2007) Online panels—a paradigma theft? In: Trotman M, Burrell T, Gerrard L, Anderton K, Basi G, Couper M, Morris K, Birks D, Johnson AJ, Baker R, Rigg M, Taylor S, Westlake A (eds) ASC 2007. The challenges of a changing world. Proceedings of the 5th international conference of the association for survey computing. ASC, Berkeley, pp 113–131

  • Birnholtz JP, Horn DB, Finholt TA, Bae SJ (2004) The effect of cash, electronic, and paper gift certificate as respondent incentives for a Web-based survey of technologically sophisticated respondents. Soc Sci Comput Rev 22:355–362

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosnjak M, Batinic B (1999) Determinanten der Teilnahmebereitschaft an Internet-basierten Fragebogenuntersuchungen am Beispiel E-Mail. In: Batinic B, Werner A, Gräf L, Bandilla W (eds) Online research. Methoden, Anwendungen und Ergebnisse. Hogrefe, Göttingen et al, pp 145–157

  • Bosnjak M, Tuten TL (2001) Classifying response behaviors in web based surveys. J Comput Mediat Commun 6(3). http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue3/boznjak.html. Accessed 12 April 2012

  • Bosnjak M, Tuten TL (2003) Prepaid and promised incentives in Web surveys. An experiment. Soc Sci Comput Rev 21:208–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosnjak M, Tuten TL, Wittmann WW (2005) Unit (non)response in Web-based access panel surveys: an extended planned-behavior approach. Psychol Mark 22:489–505

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosnjak M, Neubarth W, Couper MP, Bandilla W, Kaczmirek L (2008) Prenotification in Web-based access panel surveys. The influence of mobile text messaging versus e-mail on response rates and sample composition. Soc Sci Comput Rev 26:213–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulianne S (2012) Examining the gender effects of different incentive amounts in a Web survey. Field Methods 25:91–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulianne S, Klofstad CA, Basson D (2011) Sponsor prominence and response patterns to an online survey. Int J Public Opin Res 23:79–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan M, Hoek J (1992) The behavior of respondents, nonrespondents, and refusers across mail surveys. Public Opin Q 56:530–535

    Google Scholar 

  • Brüggen E, Dholakia UM (2010) Determinants of participation and response effort in Web panel surveys. J Interact Mark 24:239–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Brüggen E, Wetzels M, de Ruyter K, Schillewaert N (2011) Individual differences in motivation to participate in online panels. The effect on response rate and response quality perceptions. Int J Mark Res 53:369–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruvold NT, Comer JM, Rospert AM (1990) Interactive effects of major response facilitators. Decis Sci 21:551–562

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgesse C, Nicholas J, Gulliford M (2012) Impact of an electronic, computer-delivered questionnaire, with or without postal reminders, on survey response rate in primary care. J Epidemiol Community Health 66:663–664

    Google Scholar 

  • Busby DM, Yoshida K (2013) Challenges with online research for couples and families: evaluating nonrespondents and the differential impact of incentives. J Child Fam Stud. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10826-013-9863-6

  • Cavusgil ST, Elvey-Kirk LA (1998) Mail survey response behaviour. A conceptualization of motivating factors and an empirical study. Eur J Mark 32:1165–1192

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho YI, Johnson TP, VanGeest JB (2013) Enhancing surveys of health care professionals: a meta-analysis of techniques to improve response. Eval Health Prof 36:382–407

    Google Scholar 

  • Church AH (1993) Estimating the effect of incentives on mail survey response rates: a meta-analysis. Public Opin Q 57:62–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini RB (2009) Influence. Science and practice, 5th edn. Pearson, Boston

  • Cobanoglu C, Cobanoglu N (2003) The effect of incentives in Web surveys: application and ethical consideration. Int J Mark Res 45:475–488

    Google Scholar 

  • Comley P (2000) Pop-up surveys. What works, what doesn’t work and what will work in the future. In: Brooks R (ed) Mark research in a .com environment. Esomar monograph no. 10. ESOMAR, Amsterdam, pp 181–189

  • Conrad FG, Couper MP, Tourangeau R, Peytchev A (2010) The impact of progress indicators on task completion. Interact Comput 22:417–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook C, Heath F, Thompson RL (2000) A meta-analysis of response rates in Web- or Internet-based surveys. Educ Psychol Meas 60:821–836

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper H (2010) Research synthesis and meta-analysis. A step-by-step approach, 4th edn. Sage, Los Angeles

  • Couper MP (2000) Web surveys. A review of issues and approaches. Public Opin Q 64:464–494

    Google Scholar 

  • Couper MP (2005) Technological trends in survey data collection. Soc Sci Comput Rev 23:486–501

    Google Scholar 

  • Couper MP, Trautgott MW, Lamias MJ (2001) Web survey design and administration. Public Opin Q 65:230–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford SD, Couper MP, Lamias MJ (2001) Web surveys. Perception of burden. Soc Sci Comput Rev 19:146–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtin R, Presser S, Singer E (2005) Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the past quarter century. Public Opin Q 69:87–98

    Google Scholar 

  • de Leeuw E, de Heer W (2002) Trends in household survey nonresponse: a longitudinal and international perspective. In: Groves RM, Dillman DA, Eltinge JL, Little RJA (eds) Survey nonresponse. Wiley, New York, pp 41–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Denissen JJA, Neumann L, van Zalk M (2010) How the Internet is changing the implementation of traditional research methods, people’s daily lives, and the way in which developmental scientists conduct research. Int J Behav Dev 34:564–575

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutskens E, de Ruyter K, Wetzels M, Oosterveld P (2004) Response rate and response quality of Internet-based surveys: an experimental study. Mark Lett 15:21–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA (1978) Mail and telephone surveys. The total design method. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA (2000) Mail and Internet surveys. The tailored design method, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

  • Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2009) Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys. The tailored design method, 3rd edn. Wiley, Hoboken

  • Doerflinger P, Kopec JA, Liang MH, Esdaile JM (2010) The effect of cash lottery on response rates to an online health survey among members of the Canadian Association of Retired Persons: a randomized experiment. Can J Public Health 101:251–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Dykema J, Stevenson J, Day B, Sellers SL, Bonham VL (2011) Effects of incentives and prenotification on response rates and costs in a national Web survey of physicians. Eval Health Prof 34:434–447

    Google Scholar 

  • Dykema J, Stevenson J, Klein L, Kim Y, Day B (2012) Effects of e-mailed versus mailed invitations and incentives on response rates, data quality, and costs in a Web survey of university faculty. Soc Sci Comput Rev 31:359–370

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly AH, Chaiken S (1984) Cognitive theories of persuasion. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 17:267–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Partap S, Wentz R, Kwan I (2002) Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. Brit Med J 324(7347):1183–1191

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Wentz R, Kwan I, Cooper R, Felix LM, Pratap S (2009) Methods to increase response rates to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3

  • ESOMAR (2013) Global market research 2013. ESOMAR, Amsterdam

  • Esser H (1986) Über die Teilnahme an Befragungen. ZUMA Nachr 18:38–47

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2012) Digital Agenda Scoreboard 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/scoreboard/. Accessed 8 May 2014

  • Evans JR, Mathur A (2005) The value of online surveys. Internet Res 15:195–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan W, Yan Z (2010) Factors affecting response rates of the Web survey: a systematic review. Comput Hum Behav 26:132–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang J, Shao P, Lan G (2009) Effects of innovativeness and trust on Web survey participation. Comput Hum Behav 25:144–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang J, Wen C, Pavur R (2012) Participation willingness in Web surveys: exploring effect of sponsoring corporation’s and survey provider’s reputation. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 15:195–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Faught KS, Green KW Jr, Whitten D (2004) Doing survey research on the Internet: yes, timing does matter. J Comput Inf Syst 44:26–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Felix LM, Burchett HE, Edwards PJ (2011) Factorial trial found mixed evidence of effects of pre-notification and pleading on response to Web-based survey. J Clin Epidemiol 64:531–536

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger L (1954) A theory of social comparison processes. Hum Relat 7:117–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press, Stanford. First published by Row, Peterson and Company. Reissued 1970

  • Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. An introduction to theory and research. Addison Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Fittkau & Maaß (2013) Willkommen bei der W3B-Umfrage. http://www.w3b.org. Accessed 1 April 2013

  • Fox RJ, Crask MR, Kim J (1988) Mail survey response rates. A meta-analysis of selected techniques for inducing response. Public Opin Q 52:467–491

    Google Scholar 

  • Furse DH, Stewart DW (1984) Manipulating dissonance to improve mail survey response. Psychol Mark 1:79–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Gajic A, Cameron D, Hurley J (2012) The cost-effectiveness of cash versus lottery incentives for a web-based, stated-preference community survey. Eur J Health Econ 13:789–799

    Google Scholar 

  • Galesic M (2006) Dropouts on the Web: effects of interest and burden experienced during an online survey. J Off Stat 22:313–328

    Google Scholar 

  • Galesic M, Bosnjak M (2009) Effects of questionnaire length on participation and indicators of response quality in a Web survey. Public Opin Q 73:349–360

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganassali S (2008) The influence of the design of Web survey questionnaires on the quality of response. Surv Res Method 2:21–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Göritz AS (2004a) Recruitment for online access panels. Int J Mark Res 46:411–425

  • Göritz AS (2004b) The impact of material incentives on response quantity, response quality, sample composition, survey outcome, and cost in online access panels. Int J Mark Res 46:327–345

  • Göritz AS (2005) Contingent versus unconditional incentives in www-studies. Metodološki zvezki. Adv Methodol Stat 2:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Göritz AS (2006a) Incentives in Web studies: methodological issues and a review. Int J Internet Sci 1:58–70

  • Göritz AS (2006b) Cash lotteries as incentives in online panels. Soc Sci Comput Rev 24:445–459

  • Göritz AS (2008) The long-term effect of material incentives on participation in online panels. Field Methods 20:211–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Göritz AS (2014) Determinants of the starting rate and the completion rate in online panel studies. In: Callegaro M, Baker R, Bethlehem J, Göritz AS, Krosnick JA, Lavrakas PJ (eds) Online panel research: a data quality perspective. Wiley, Chichester, pp 154–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Göritz AS, Crutzen R (2012) Reminders in Web-based data collection: increasing response at the price of retention? Am J Eval 33:240–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Göritz AS, Luthe SC (2013a) Lotteries and study results in market research online panels. Int J Mark Res 55:611–626

  • Göritz AS, Luthe SC (2013b) Effects of lotteries on response behavior in online panels. Field Methods 25:219–237

  • Göritz AS, Luthe SC (2013c) How do lotteries and study results influence response behavior in online panels. Soc Sci Comput Rev 31:371–385

  • Göritz AS, Stieger S (2008) The high-hurdle technique put to the test: failure to find evidence that increased loading times enhance data quality in Web-based studies. Behav Res Methods 40:322–327

    Google Scholar 

  • Göritz AS, Stieger S (2009) The impact of the field time on response, retention and response completeness in list-based Web surveys. Int J Hum Comput St 67:342–348

    Google Scholar 

  • Göritz AS, Wolff HG (2007) Lotteries as incentives in longitudinal Web studies. Soc Sci Comput Rev 25:99–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Göritz AS, Wolff HG, Goldstein DG (2008) Individual payments as a longer-term incentive in online panels. Behav Res Methods 40:1144–1149

    Google Scholar 

  • Gouldner AW (1960) The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. Am Sociol Rev 25:161–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Greif V, Batinic B (2007) Die Bedeutung des Einladungsschreibens für die Rücklaufquote in Online-Befragungen. Jahrb Absatz- Verbrauchsforsch 53:162–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves RM (2006) Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opin Q 70:664–675

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves RM, Cialdini RB, Couper M (1992) Understanding the decision to participate in a survey. Public Opin Q 56:475–495

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves RM, Singer E, Corning A (2000) Leverage-salience theory of survey participation. Description and an illustration. Public Opin Q 64:299–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves RM, Presser S, Dipko S (2004) The role of topic interest in survey participation decisions. Public Opin Q 68:2–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves RM, Floyd FJ Jr, Couper MP, Lepowski JM, Singer E, Tourangeau R (2009) Survey methodology. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Guéguen N (2003) Help on the Web: the effect of the same first name between the sender and the receptor in a request made by e-mail. Psychol Rec 53:459–466

    Google Scholar 

  • Guéguen N, Jacob C (2002a) Social presence reinforcement and coputer-mediated communication: the effect of the solicitor’s photography on compliance to a survey request made by e-mail. Cyberpsychol Behav 5:139–142

  • Guéguen N, Jacob C (2002b) Soliciation by e-mail and solicitor’s status: a field study of social influence on the Web. Cyberpsychol Behav 5:377–383

  • Guéguen N, Pichot N, Le Dreff G (2005) Similarity and helping on the Web: the impact of the convergence of surnames between a solicitor and a subject in a request made by e-mail. J Appl Soc Psychol 35:423–429

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackler JC, Bourgette P (1973) Dollars, dissonance and survey returns. Public Opin Q 37:276–281

    Google Scholar 

  • Han V, Albaum G, Wiley JB, Thirkell P (2009) Applying theory to structure respondents’ stated motivations for participating in web surveys. Qual Mark Res Int J 12:428–442

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen RA, Robinson LM (1980) Testing the effectiveness of alternative foot-in-the-door manipulations. J Mark Res 17:359–364

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart AM, Brennan CW, Sym D, Larson E (2009) The impact of personalized prenotification on response rates to an electronic survey. West J Nurs Res 31:17–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Haunberger S (2011) Explaining unit nonresponse in online panel surveys: an application of the extended theory of planned behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol 41:2999–3025

    Google Scholar 

  • Havitz ME, Howard DR (1995) How enduring is enduring involvement? A seasonal examination of three recreational activities. J Consum Psychol 4:255–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy B, Macpherson T, Kuijten B (2005) An empirical evaluation of three Web survey design principles. Mark Bull 16:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Helgeson JG, Voss KV, Terpening WD (2002) Determinants of mail-survey response: survey design factors and respondent factors. Psychol Mark 19:303–328

    Google Scholar 

  • Heerwegh D (2005) Effects of personal salutation in e-mail invitations to participate in a Web survey. Public Opin Q 69:588–598

    Google Scholar 

  • Heerwegh D (2006) An investigation of the effect of lotteries on Web survey response rates. Field Methods 18:205–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Heerwegh D, Loosveldt G (2002) Web surveys. The effect of controlling survey access using PIN numbers. Soc Sci Comput Rev 20:10–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Heerwegh D, Loosveldt G (2003) An evaluation of the semiautomatic login procedure to control Web surveys access. Soc Sci Comput Rev 21:223–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Heerwegh D, Loosveldt G (2006) An experimental study on the effects of personalization, survey length statements, progress indicators, and survey sponsor logos in Web surveys. J Off Stat 22:191–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Heerwegh D, Loosveldt G (2007) Personalizing e-mail contacts: its influence on Web survey response rate and social desirability response bias. Int J Public Opin Res 19:258–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Heerwegh D, Vanhove T, Matthijs K, Loosveldt G (2005) The effect of personalization on response rates and data quality in Web surveys. Int J Soc Res Meth 8:85–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Joinson AN, Reips UD (2007) Personalized salutation, power of sender and response rates to Web-based surveys. Comput Hum Behav 23:1372–1383

    Google Scholar 

  • Joinson AN, Woodley A, Reips UD (2007) Personalization, authentication and self-disclosure in self-administered Internet surveys. Comput Hum Behav 23:275–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanuk L, Berenson C (1975) Mail surveys and response rates: a literature review. J Mark Res 12:440–453

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplowitz MD, Hadlock TD, Levine R (2004) A comparison of Web and mail survey response rates. Public Opin Q 68:94–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplowitz MD, Lupi F, Couper MP, Thorp L (2012) The effect of invitation design on Web survey response rates. Soc Sci Comput Rev 30:339–349

    Google Scholar 

  • Kehoe CM, Pitkow JE (1996) Surveying the territory: GVU’s five www user surveys. World Wide Web J 1:77–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Kent R, Brandal H (2003) Improving e-mail response in a permission marketing context. Int J Mark Res 45:489–503

    Google Scholar 

  • Keusch F (2012) Increasing response rates in list-based Web survey samples. Soc Sci Comput Rev 30:380–388

    Google Scholar 

  • Keusch F (2013) The role of topic interest and topic salience in online panel Web surveys. Int J Mark Res 55:59–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Keusch F, Batinic B, Mayerhofer W (2014) Motives for joining nonprobability online panels and their association with participation behavior. In: Callegaro M, Baker R, Bethlehem J, Göritz AS, Krosnick JA, Lavrakas PJ (eds) Online panel research: a data quality perspective. Wiley, Chichester, pp 171–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Klofstad CA, Boulianne S, Basson D (2008) Matching the message to the medium. Results from an experiment on Internet survey email contacts. Soc Sci Comput Rev 26:498–509

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroeber-Riel W, Esch FR (2004) Strategie und Technik der Werbung. Verhaltenswissenschaftliche Ansätze, 6th edn. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart

  • Laguilles JS, Williams EA, Saunders DB (2011) Can lottery incentives boost Web survey response rates? Findings from four experiments. Res High Educ 52:537–533

    Google Scholar 

  • LaRose R, Tsai H-YS (2014) Completion rates and non-response error in online surveys: comparing sweepstakes and pre-paid cash incentives in studies of online behavior. Comput Hum Behav 34:110–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Lozar Manfreda K, Vehovar V (2002) Survey design features influencing response rates in Web surveys. Paper presented at the international conference on improving survey, August 25–28, 2002. Copenhagen, Denmark

  • Lozar Manfreda K, Batagelj Z, Vehovar V (2002) Design of Web survey questionnaires: three basic experiments. J Comput Mediat Commun 7(3). http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue3/vehovar.html. Accessed 18 April 2012

  • Lozar Manfreda K, Bosnjak M, Berzelak J, Haas I, Vehovar V (2008) Web surveys versus other survey modes. A meta-analysis comparing response rates. Int J Mark Res 50:79–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahon-Haft TA, Dillman DA (2010) Does visual appeal matter? Effects of Web survey aesthetics on survey quality. Surv Res Method 4:43–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus B, Schütz A (2005) Who are the people reluctant to participate in research? Personality correlates of four different types of nonresponse as inferred from self- and observer ratings. J Personal 73:959–984

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus B, Bosnjak M, Lindner S, Pilischenko S, Schütz A (2007) Compensating for low topic interest and long surveys. A field experiment on nonresponse in Web surveys. Soc Sci Comput Rev 25:372–383

    Google Scholar 

  • Matzat U, Snijders C, van der Horst W (2009) Effects of different types of progress indicators on drop-out rates in Web surveys. Soc Psychol 40:43–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Mavletova A, Deviatko I, Maloshonok N (2014) Invitation design elements in Web surveys—can one ignore interactions? Bull Sociol Methodol 123:68–79

    Google Scholar 

  • McCambridge J, Kalaitzaki E, White IR, Khadjesari Z, Murray E, Linke S, Thompson SG, Godfrey C, Wallace P (2011) Impact of length or relevance of questionnaires on attrition in online trials: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 13(4):e96

    Google Scholar 

  • McCree-Hale R, De La Cruz NG, Montgomery AE (2010) Using downloadable songs from Apple iTunes as novel incentive for college students participating in a Web-based follow-up survey. Sci Health Promot 25:119–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Messer BL, Dillman DA (2011) Surveying the general public over the Internet using address-based sampling and mail contact procedures. Public Opin Q 75:429–457

    Google Scholar 

  • Miksza P, Roeder M, Biggs D (2010) Surveying Colorado band directors’ opinions of skills and characteristics important to successful music teaching. J Res Music Educ 57:364–381

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgram S (1974) Obedience to authority: an experimental view. Harper & Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar MM, Dillman DA (2011) Improving response to Web and mixed-mode surveys. Public Opin Q 75:249–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Muncy JA, Hunt SD (1984) Consumer involvement: definitional issues and research directions. Adv Consum Res 11:193–196

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neil KM, Penrod SD (2001) Methodological variables in Web-based research that may affect results: sample type, monetary incentives, and personal information. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 33:226–233

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neil KM, Penrod SD, Bornstein BH (2003) Web-based research: methodological variables’ effects on dropout and sample characteristics. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 35:217–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Pan B, Woodside AG, Meng F (2013) How contextual cues impact response and conversion rates of online surveys. J Travel Res 53:58–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons NL, Manierre MJ (2014) Investigating the relationship among prepaid token incentives, response rates, and nonresponse bias in a web survey. Field Methods 26:191–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Patrick ME, Singer E, Boyd CJ, Cranford JA, McCabe SE (2013) Incentives for college student participation in web-based substance use survey. Addict Behav 38:1710–1714

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrova PK, Cialdini RB, Sills SJ (2007) Consistency-based compliance across cultures. J Exp Soc Psychol 43:104–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty RE, Cacioppo JT (1986) Communication and persuasion: central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Pew Research Center (2014) The Web at 25 in the US. http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/02/25/the-web-at-25-in-the-u-s. Accessed 8 May 2014

  • Peytchev A (2009) Survey breakoff. Public Opin Q 73:74–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Peytchev A (2011) Breakoff and unit nonresponse across Web surveys. J Off Stat 27:33–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Peytchev A, Couper MP, McCabe SE, Crawford SD (2006) Web survey design. Paging versus scrolling. Public Opin Q 70:596–607

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitkow JE, Recker MM (1994) Results from the first world-wide Web user survey. J Comput Netw ISDN Syst 27:243–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter SR, Whitcomb ME (2003a) The impact of lottery incentives on student survey response rates. Res High Educ 44:389–407

  • Porter SR, Whitcomb ME (2003b) The impact of contact type on Web survey response rates. Public Opin Q 67:579–588

  • Porter SR, Whitcomb ME (2004) Understanding the effect of prizes on response rates. New Dir Inst Res 212:51–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter SR, Whitcomb ME (2005a) E-mail subject lines and their effect on Web survey viewing and response. Soc Sci Comput Rev 23:380–387

  • Porter SR, Whitcomb ME (2005b) Non-response in student surveys: the role of demographics, engagement and personality. Res High Educ 46:127–152

  • Porter SR, Whitcomb ME (2007) Mixed-mode contacts in Web surveys. Paper is not necessarily better. Public Opin Q 71:635–648

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter SR, Whitcomb ME, Weitzer WH (2004) Multiple surveys of students and survey fatigue. New Dir Inst Res 212:63–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Postoaca A (2006) The anonymous elect. Market research through online access panels. Springer, Berlin

  • Preece J, Johanson G, Hitchcock J (2010) Lottery incentives and online survey response rates. Surv Pract 3(4). http://www.surveypractice.org/index.php/SurveyPractice/article/view/138/html. Accessed 8 May 2014

  • R Core Team (2014) A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org

  • Reed JG, Baxter PM (1994) Using reference databases. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV (eds) The handbook of research synthesis. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, pp 57–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Reingen H, Kernan JB (1977) Compliance with an interview request: a foot-in-the-door, self-perception interpretation. J Mark Res 14:365–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothshild ML (1984) Perspectives on involvement: current problems and future directions. Adv Consum Res 11:216–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez-Fernández J, Munoz-Leiva F, Montoro-Ríos FJ, Ibánez-Zapata JÁ (2010) An analysis of the effect of pre-incentives and post-incentives based on draws on response to Web surveys. Qual Quant 44:357–373

    Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez-Fernández J, Munoz-Leiva F, Montoro-Ríos FJ (2012) Improving retention rate and response quality in Web-based surveys. Comput Hum Behav 28:507–514

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauermann H, Roach M (2013) Increasing Web survey response rates in innovation research: an experimental study of static and dynamic contact design features. Res Policy 42:273–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Sax LJ, Gilmartin SK, Bryant AN (2003) Assessing response rates and nonresponse bias in Web and paper surveys. Res High Educ 44:409–432

    Google Scholar 

  • Schillewaert N, Meulemeester P (2005) Comparing response distributions of offline and online data collection methods. Int J Mark Res 47:163–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Schillewaert N, Langerak F, Duhamel T (1998) Non-probability sampling for WWW surveys: a comparison of methods. J Mark Res Soc 40:307–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Shih TH, Fan X (2007) Response rates and mode preferences in Web-mail mixed-mode surveys: a meta-analysis. Int J Internet Sci 2:59–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Shih TH, Fan X (2008) Comparing response rates from Web and mail surveys: a meta-analysis. Field Methods 20:249–271

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer E (2011) Toward a benefit-cost theory of survey participation: evidence, further tests, and implications. J Off Stat 27:379–392

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer E, Ye C (2013) The use and effects of incentives in surveys. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 645:112–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Steeth CG (1981) Trends in nonresponse rates 1952–1979. Public Opin Q 45:40–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Stieger S, Göritz AS, Voracek M (2011) Handle with care: the impact of using Java applets in Web-based studies on dropout and sample composition. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 14:327–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Stingelbauer B, Gnambs T, Gamsäger M (2011) The interactive effects of motivations and trust in anonymity on adolescents’ enduring participation in Web-based social science research: a longitudinal behavior analysis. Int J Internet Res 6:29–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland MA, Amar AF, Laughon K (2013) Who send the email? Using electronic surveys in violence research. West J Emerg Med 14:363–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Svensson M, Svensson T, Hansen AW, Lagerros YT (2012) The effect of reminders in a Web-based intervention study. Eur J Epidemiol 27:333–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut JW, Kelly HH (1959) The social psychology of groups, 5th pr 1967. Wiley, New York

  • Tourangeau R (2004) Survey research and social change. Annu Rev Psychol 55:775–801

    Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau R, Groves RM, Kennedy C, Yan T (2009) The presentation of a Web survey, nonresponse and measurement error among members of Web panels. J Off Stat 25:299–321

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuten TL (1997) Getting a foot in the electronic door: understanding why people read or delete electronic mail. ZUMA-Arbeitsbericht Nr 97/08. ZUMA, Mannheim

  • Tuten TL, Bosnjak M, Bandilla W (2000) Banner-advertised Web surveys. Mark Res 11(4):16–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuten TL, Galesic M, Bosnjak M (2004) Effects of immediate versus delayed notification of prize draw results on response behavior in Web surveys. Soc Sci Comput Rev 22:377–384

    Google Scholar 

  • Trouteaud AR (2004) How you ask counts: a test of Internet-related components of response rates to Web-based surveys. Soc Sci Comput Rev 22:385–392

    Google Scholar 

  • Tybout AM, Yalch RF (1980) The effect of experience: a matter of salience? J Consum Res 6:406–413

    Google Scholar 

  • Villar A, Callegaro M, Yang Y (2013) Where am I? A meta-analysis of experiments on the effects of progress indicators for Web surveys. Soc Sci Comput Rev 31:744–762

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltson JT, Lissitz RW, Rudner LM (2006) The influence of Web-based questionnaire presentation variations on survey cooperation and perceptions of survey quality. J Off Stat 22:271–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitcomb ME, Porter SR (2004) E-mail contacts. A test of complex graphical design in survey research. Soc Sci Comput Rev 22:370–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley JB, Han V, Albaum G, Thirkell P (2009) Selecting techniques for use in an Internet survey. Asian Pac J Mark Logist 21:455–474

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson PM, Petticrew M, Calnan M, Nazareth I (2010) Effects of a financial incentive on health researchers’ responses to an online survey: a randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 12(2):e13

    Google Scholar 

  • Yan T, Conrad FG, Tourangeau R, Couper MP (2011) Should I stay or should I go: the effect of progress feedback, promised task duration, and length of questionnaire on completing Web surveys. Int J Public Opin Res 23:131–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Yarger JB, James TA, Ashikaga T, Hayanga AJ, Takyi V, Lum Y, Kaiser H, Mammen J (2013) Characteristics in response rates for surveys administered to surgery residents. Surg 154:38–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu J, Cooper H (1983) A quantitative review of research design effects on response rates to questionnaires. J Mark Res 20:36–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziegenfuss JY, Niederhauser BD, Kallmes D, Beebe TJ (2013) An assessment of incentive versus survey length trade-offs in a web survey of radiologists. J Med Internet Res 15:e49

    Google Scholar 

  • Zillman D, Schmitz A, Skopek J, Blossfeld H-P (2014) Survey topic and unit nonresponse. Evidence from an online survey on mating. Qual Quant 48:2069–2088

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author thanks the editor and two anonymous reviewers as well as Eleanor Singer and Chris Antoun for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper and Chris Antoun and Chan Zhang for their feedback on the expert survey.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lehrstuhl für Statistik und sozialwissenschaftliche Methodenlehre, Universität Mannheim, 68131, Mannheim, Germany

    Florian Keusch

Authors
  1. Florian Keusch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florian Keusch.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (pdf 247 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Keusch, F. Why do people participate in Web surveys? Applying survey participation theory to Internet survey data collection. Manag Rev Q 65, 183–216 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-014-0111-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-014-0111-y

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation