Advertisement

Mixed Devices in Online Surveys: Prevalence, Determinants, and Consequences

  • Michael Bosnjak
  • Robert Bauer
  • Kai W. Weyandt
Chapter

Abstract

One overall aim of this chapter is to identify the prevalence rates of mixed-devices (especially smartphones and tablets) in a representative online panel survey in Germany between 2014 and 2016. Moreover, demographic and psychographic determinants of device type usage for online survey participation across time are identified, along with selected consequences of device usage on nonresponse indicators, survey duration, and evaluative judgments regarding the respective surveys. We found that a substantial share of online survey participants do actually use mobile devices, and that nonresponse is most pronounced among smartphone users. We also found that smartphone users perceive surveys as longer and evaluate them less favorable compared to PC/Laptop participants. The presence of others is another characteristic associated with mobile device survey participants, representing a potential source of bias for collecting data on topics sensitive to social influences. The collection of findings presented in this chapter converge against the claim to systematically align the communication strategy, the survey fielding process, and the incentive scheme with the devices used for survey participation.

References

  1. Abbott, A., & Forrest, J. (1986). Optimal matching methods for historical sequences. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 16(3), 471–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bosnjak, M., Dannwolf, T., Enderle, T., Schaurer, I., Struminskaya, B., Tanner, A., & Weyandt, K.W. (in press). Establishing an open probability-based mixed-mode panel of the general population in Germany: The GESIS Panel. Social Science Computer Review.Google Scholar
  3. Buskirk, T. D., & Andrus, C. H. (2014). Making mobile browser surveys smarter: Results from a randomized experiment comparing online surveys completed via computer or smartphone. Field Methods, 26(4), 322–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Callegaro, M. (2010). Do you know which device your respondent has used to take your online survey? Survey Practice, 3(6), 1–12.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cook, W. A. (2014). Is mobile a reliable platform for survey taking? Defining quality in online surveys from mobile respondents. Journal of Advertising Research, 54(2), 141–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Bruijne, M., & Wijnant, A. (2013). Comparing survey results obtained via mobile devices and computers: An experiment with a mobile web survey on a heterogeneous group of mobile devices versus a computer-assisted web survey. Social Science Computer Review, 31(4), 482–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Bruijne, M., & Wijnant, A. (2014a). Improving response rates and questionnaire design for mobile web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78(4), 951–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Bruijne, M., & Wijnant, A. (2014b). Mobile response in web panels. Social Science Computer Review, 32(6), 728–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Keusch, F., & Yan, T. (in press). Web Versus Mobile Web. An Experimental Study of Device Effects and Self-Selection Effects. Social Science Computer Review.Google Scholar
  11. Lugtig, P., & Toepoel, V. (2016). The use of PCs, smartphones, and tablets in a probability-based panel survey: Effects on survey measurement error. Social Science Computer Review, 34(1), 78–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mavletova, A. (2013). Data quality in PC and mobile web surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 31(6), 725–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mavletova, A., & Couper, M. P. (2013). Sensitive topics in PC web and mobile web surveys: Is there a difference? Survey Research Methods, 7(3), 191–205.Google Scholar
  14. McClain, V. C., Crawford, S. D., & Dungan, J. P. (2012). Use of mobile devices to access computer-optimized web instruments: Implications for respondent behavior and data quality. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  15. Peterson, G. (2012). Unintended mobile respondents. Paper presented at the CASRO Technology Conference 31.05.2012, New York City, NY.Google Scholar
  16. Peytchev, A., & Hill, C. A. (2010). Experiments in mobile web survey design similarities to other modes and unique considerations. Social Science Computer Review, 28(3), 319–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Poggio, T., Bosnjak, M., & Weyandt, K. W. (2015). Survey participation via mobile devices in a probability-based online-panel: Prevalence, determinants, and implications for nonresponse. Survey Practice, 8(1), 1–7.Google Scholar
  18. Sommer, J., Diedenhofen, B., & Musch, J. (in press). Not to be considered harmful: Mobile-device users do not spoil data quality in Web surveys. Social Science Computer Review.Google Scholar
  19. Stapleton, C. (2013). The smart(phone) way to collect survey data. Survey Practice, 6(2), 1–7.Google Scholar
  20. Struminskaya, B., Weyandt, K. W., & Bosnjak, M. (2015). The effects of questionnaire completion using mobile devices on data quality. Evidence from a probability-based general population panel. Methods, Data, Analyses, 9(2), 261–290.Google Scholar
  21. Toepoel, V., & Lugtig, P. (2014). What happens if you offer a mobile option to your web panel? Evidence from a probability-based panel of Internet users. Social Science Computer Review, 32(4), 544–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wells, T., Bailey, J. T., & Link, M. W. (2014). Comparison of smartphone and online computer survey administration. Social Science Computer Review, 32(2), 238–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Bosnjak
    • 1
  • Robert Bauer
    • 2
  • Kai W. Weyandt
    • 3
  1. 1.NeckargemündDeutschland
  2. 2.KopenhagenDänemark
  3. 3.MannheimDeutschland

Personalised recommendations