Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Unit Non-Response Due to Refusal

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences

Abstract

Non-response is a key threat to survey quality when participation is related to the topic of a survey. The higher the non-response and the more respondents differ from the non-respondents, the larger the non-response bias and the lower the validity of survey results. Refusal is usually the major cause of non-response. This can result in non-response bias when the reasons for refusal are related to the topic of the survey. Face-to-face surveys can provide some information about refusals and refusers. Based on empirical evidence from a wide range of studies this chapter shows why people cooperate and why they refuse, which survey design issues can influence cooperation and what impact interviewers can have. It also discusses the extent to which refusal conversion can help to enhance response rates and minimise bias, and how follow-up surveys or doorstep questionnaires can help to provide information about the survey questions that are central to the topic.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abraham, K. G., Maitland, A., & Bianchi, S. M. (2006). Nonresponse in the American time use survey: Who is missing from the data and how much does it matter? Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 676–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). (2011a). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys (7th ed.).

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). (2011b). Best practices: http://www.aapor.org/Best_Practices1.htm#best7. Downloaded on the July 13, 2011.

  • Bates, N., Dahlhamer, J., & Singer, E. (2008). Privacy concerns, too busy, or just not interested: using doorstep concerns to predict survey nonresponse. Journal of Official Statistics, 24(4), 591–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bethlehem, J. G. (2002). Weighting nonresponse adjustments based on auxiliary information. In R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, & R. J. A. Little (Eds), Survey nonresponse (pp. 265–287). Wiley: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bethlehem, J. (2009). Applied survey methods: A statistical perspective. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bethlehem, J. G., Cobben, F., & Schouten, B. (2011a). Handbook of nonresponse in household surveys. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bethlehem, J. G., & Kersten, H. M. P. (1985). On the treatment of nonresponse in sample surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 1(3), 287–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beullens, K., Billiet, J., & Loosveldt, G. (2009). The effect of the elapsed time between initial refusal and conversion contact on conversion success: evidence from the 2nd round of the European Social Survey. Quality & Quantity, 44(6), 1053–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biemer, P. P., & Lyberg, L. E. (2003). Introduction to survey quality. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Billiet, J., Philippens, M., Fitzgerald, R., & Stoop, I. (2007). Estimation of nonresponse bias in the european social survey: Using information from reluctant respondents. Journal of Official Statistics, 23(2), 135–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billiet, J., Matsuo, H., Beullens, K. & Vehovar, V. (2009). Non-response bias in cross-national surveys: Designs for detection and adjustment in the ESS. ASK. Sociological Methods & Research, 18, 3–43 (Published by the Polish Institute of Philosophy and Sociology. Polish Academy of Science).

    Google Scholar 

  • Blom, A., de Leeuw E. D.,& J. Hox (2010). Interviewer effects on nonresponse in the European social survey. ISER Working Paper Series No. 2010-25, University of Essex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogen, K. (1996). The effect of questionnaire length on response rates—A review of the literature. Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, American Statistical Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borg, I. (2000, November). Früh- versus Spätantworter. ZUMA-Nachrichten 47, Jg. 24, 7–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brehm, J. (1993). The phantom respondents: Opinion surveys and political representation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, J., Laurie, H., & Lynn, P. (2006). The long term effectiveness of refusal conversion procedures on longitudinal surveys. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 169, 459–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campanelli, P., Sturgis, P., & Purdon, S. (1997). Can you hear me knocking: An investigation into the impact of interviewers on survey response rates. London: The Survey Methods Centre at SCPR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannel, C. F., & Fowler, F. J. (1963). Comparison of a self-enumerative procedure and a personal interview. A validity study. Public opinion quarterly, 27(2), 250–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carton, A. (1999). Selectie, training en evaluatie van interviewers binnen een interviewernetwerk. Leuven: Garant.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, G., & Duffy, J. C. (2002). Are nonrespondents to health surveys less healthy than respondents? Journal of Official Statistics, 18(1), 13–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couper, M. P. (1997). Survey introductions and data quality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 317–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Couper, M. P., & de Leeuw, E. D. (2003). Nonresponse in cross-cultural and cross-national surveys. In J. A. Harkness, F. J. R. van de Vijver, & P. Ph. Mohler (Eds), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 157–177). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtin, R., Presser, S., & Singer, E. (2000). The effects of response rate changes on the index of consumer sentiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 413–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Leeuw, E. D. (1999, April). How do successful and less successful interviewers differ in tactics for combating survey nonresponse? Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 62, 29–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Leeuw, E. (2001). I am not selling anything: Experiments in telephone introductions. Kwantitatieve Methoden, 22(68), 41–48

    Google Scholar 

  • De Leeuw, E. D., Callegaro, M., Hox, J., Korendijk, E., & Lensvelt-Mulders, G. (2007). The influence of advance letters on response in telephone surveys. A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(3), 413–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Leeuw, E., & de Heer, W. (2002). Trends in household survey nonresponse: A longitudinal and international comparison. In R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, & R. J. A. Little (Eds), Survey Nonresponse (pp. 41–54). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijkstra, W., & Smit, J.H. (2002). Persuading reluctant recipients in telephone surveys. In: R.M. Groves, D.A. Dillman, J.L. Eltinge & R.J.A. Little (Eds) (pp. 121–134), Survey nonresponse. New York: Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durrant, G. B., Groves, R. M., Staetsky, L., & Steele, F. (2010). Effects of interviewer attitudes and behaviors on refusal in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(1), 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, S., Martin, D., DiSogra, C. & Grant, D. (2004). Altering the hold period for refusal conversion cases in an RDD survey. Proceedings of the Survey Research methods Section (3440-3444). Alexandria: American Statistical Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, D. (1991) Weighting for non-response. A survey researcher’s guide. London: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Social Survey. (2011). Round 6 specification for participating countries. London: Centre for Comparative Social Surveys, City University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goyder, J. (1986). Surveys on surveys: Limitations and potentialities. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 27–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goyder, J. (1987). The silent minority. Nonrespondents on sample surveys. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goyder, J., Boyer, L. & Martinelli, G. (2006, October) Integrating exchange and heuristic theories of survey nonresponse. Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 92, 28–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goyder, J., Warriner, K., & Miller, S. (2002). Evaluating socio-economic status (SES) bias in survey nonresponse. Journal of Official Statistics, 18(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R.M. (1989). Survey errors and survey costs. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M. (2006). Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5), 646–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M., Cialdini, R. B., & Couper, M. P. (1992). Understanding the decision to participate in a survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 475–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M., & Couper, M. P. (1998). Nonresponse in household interview surveys. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M., & McGonagle, K. A. (2001). A theory-guided interview training protocol regarding survey participation. Journal of Official Statistics, 17(2), 249–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M., & Peytcheva, E. (2008). The impact of nonresponse rates on nonresponse bias. A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(2), 167–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M., Presser, S., & Dipko, S. (2004). The role of topic interest in survey participation decisions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 2–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M., Singer, E., & Corning, A. (2000). Leverage-saliency theory of survey participation. Description and an illustration. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 299–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Häder, S. & Lynn, P. (2007). How representative can a multi-nation survey be? In R. Jowell, C. Roberts, R. Fitzgerald, G. Eva (Eds), Measuring attitudes cross-nationally. Lessons from the European social survey (pp. 33–52). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, M., & Hurvitz, W. (1946). The problem of nonresponse in sample surveys. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 41, 517–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hippler, H.-J., & Hippler, G. (1986). Reducing refusal rates in the case of threatening questions: The ‘door-in-the-face’ technique. Journal of Official Statistics, 2(1), 25–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, A. L., Green, M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2003). Telephone vs. face-to-face interviewing of national probability samples with long questionnaires: Comparisons of respondent satisficing and social desirability response bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 79–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hox, J., & de Leeuw, E. (2002). The influence of interviewers’ attitude and behavior on household survey nonresponse: An international comparison. In R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, & R. J. A. Little (Eds), Survey nonresponse (pp. 103–120). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hox, J., de Leeuw, E., & Vorst H. (1995, September). Survey participation as reasoned action: A behavioral paradigm for survey nonresponse? Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 48, 52–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jäckle, A., Lynn, P., Sinibaldi J., & Tipping, S. (2011). The effect of interviewer personality, skills and attitudes on respondent co-operation with face-to-face surveys. ISER Working Paper Series No. 2011-14, University of Essex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, T.P., O'Rourke, D., Burris, J., & Owens L. (2002). Culture and survey nonresponse In: R.M. Groves, D.A. Dillman, J.L. Eltinge & R.J.A. Little (Eds) (pp. 55–70), Survey nonresponse. New York: Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeter, S., Miller, C., Kohut, A., Groves, R. M., & Presser, S. (2000). Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 125–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, A., Fitzgerald, R., Stoop, I., & Widdop, S. (2010). Field procedures in the european social survey round 5: Enhancing response rates. Mannheim: European Social Survey, GESIS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick, J. A., Narayan, S. S., & Smith, W. R. (1996). Satisficing in surveys: Initial evidence. In M. T. Braverman & J. K. Slater (Eds), Advances in survey research (pp. 29–44). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurie, H., Smith, R., & Scott, L. (1999). Strategies for reducing nonresponse in a longitudinal survey. Journal of Official Statistics, 15(2), 269–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesser, J., Eyerman, J., & Wang, K. (2008). Interviewer training. In E. de Leeuw, J. Hox, & D. Dillman (Eds), International handbook of survey methodology (pp. 442–460). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loosveldt, G. (2008). Face-to-face interviews. In E. de Leeuw, J. Hox, & D. Dillman (Eds.), International handbook of survey methodology (pp. 201–220). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loosveldt, G., & Carton, A. (2002). Utilitarian individualism and panel nonresponse. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14(4), 428–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loosveldt, G., Carton, A., & Billiet, J. (2004). Assessment of survey data quality: a pragmatic approach focused on interviewer tasks. International Journal of Market Research, vol. 46 (1), 65–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Loosveldt, G., & Storms, V. (2008). Measuring public opinions about surveys. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(1), 74–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, P. (2003). PEDAKSI: Methodology for collecting data about survey non-respondents. Quality & Quantity, 37, 239–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, P., & Clarke, P. (2001). Separating refusal bias and non-contact bias: evidence from uk national surveys. Working Papers of the Institute for Social and Economic Research, paper 2001-24. Colchester: University of Essex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, E.A., Traugott, M.W., & Kennedy, C. (2005). A review and proposal for a new measure of poll accuracy. Public Opinion Quarterly 69(3), 342–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsuo, H., Billiet, J., Loosveldt, G. & Malnar, B. (2010a) Response‐based quality assessment of ESS Round 4: Results for 30 countries based on contact files. Onderzoeksverslag Centrum voor Sociologisch Onderzoek. CeSO/SM/2010‐2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsuo, H., Billiet, J., Loosveldt, G., Berglund, F., & Kleven, Ø. (2010b). Measurement and adjustment of non-response bias based on non-response surveys: the case of Belgium and Norway in the European Social Survey Round 3. Survey Research Methods, 4(3):165–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Merkle, D. A., & Edelman, M. (2002). Nonresponse in exit polls: A comprehensive analysis. In R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, & R. J. A. Little (Eds.), Survey nonresponse (pp. 243–258). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton-Williams, J. (1993). Interviewer approaches. Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowen, J. C., & Cialdini, R. B. (1980). On implementing the door-in-the-face compliance technique in a business context. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 253–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luiten, A. (2011). Personalisation in advance letters does not always increase response rates. Demographic correlates in a large scale experiment. Survey Research Methods, 5(1), 11–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, K., Lepkowski, J., & Garabant, D. (2011). An experimental examination of the content of persuasion letters on nonresponse rates and survey estimates in a nonresponse follow-up study. Survey Research Methods, 5(1), 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogelberg, S. G., Fisher, G. G., Maynard, D. C., Hakel, M. D., & Horvath, M. (2001). Attitudes toward surveys: Development of a measure and its relationship to respondent behavior. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogelberg, S. G., Conway, J. M., Sederburg, M. E., Spitzmüller, C., Aziz, S., & Knight, W. E. (2003). Profiling active and passive nonrespondents to an organizational survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 1104–1114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaeffer, N.C., Dykema, J. & Maynard, D.W. (2010). Interviewers and interviewing. In P. Marsden & J. Wright (eds.), Handbook of survey research (2nd ed., pp. 437–470). UK: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schräpler J. P., Schupp J., & Wagner, G. G. (2010). Individual and neighborhood determinants of survey nonresponse: An analysis based on a new subsample of the german socio-economic panel (SOEP), microgeographic characteristics and survey-based interviewer characteristics. SOEP papers 288, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, E. (2002). The use of incentives to reduce nonresponse in household surveys. In R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, & R. J. A. Little (Eds.), Survey nonresponse (pp. 163–177). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, E. (2006). Nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5), 637–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, E. (2011). Towards a cost-benefit theory of survey participation: Evidence, further test, and implications. Journal of Official Statistics, 27(2), 379–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, E., Groves, R. M., & Corning, A. D. (1999a). Differential incentives. Beliefs about practices, perceptions of equity, and effects on survey participation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 63, 251–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, E., Mathiowetz, N. A., & Couper, M. P. (1993). The impact of privacy and confidentiality concerns on survey participation: The case of the 1990 census. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 465–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, E., Van Hoewyk, J., &Maher, M.P. (1998). Does the payment of incentives create expectation effects? Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 152–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, E., Van Hoewyk, J., & Neugebauer, R. J. (2003). Attitudes and behavior. The impact of privacy and confidentiality concerns on participation in the 2000 census. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 368–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, E., Van Hoewyk, J., Gebler, N., Raghunathan, T., & McGonagle, K. (1999b). The effects of incentives on response rates in interviewer-mediated surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 15(2), 199–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smeets, I. (1995). Facing another gap: An exploration of the discrepancies between voting turnout in survey research and official statistics. Acta Politica, 30, 307–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, T. W. (1983). The hidden 25 Percent: An analysis of nonresponse on the 1980 General Social Survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 386–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, T. W. (1984). Estimating nonresponse bias with temporary refusals. Sociological Perspectives, 27(4), 473–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stinchcombe, A. L., Jones, C., & Sheatsley, P. (1981). Nonresponse bias for attitude questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45, 359–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stocké, V., & Langfeldt, B. (2004). Effects of survey experience on respondents’ attitude towards surveys. Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, January 2004, 81, 5–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoop, I. A. L. (2004). Surveying nonrespondents. Field Methods, 16(1), 23–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoop, I. A. L. (2005). The hunt for the last respondent. The Hague: Social and Cultural Planning Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoop, I. (2007). No time, too busy. Time strain and survey cooperation. In G. Loosveldt, M. Swyngedouw, & B. Cambré (Eds), Measuring meaningful data in social research (pp. 301–314). Leuven: Acco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoop, I., Billiet, J., Koch, A., & Fitzgerald, R. (2010). improving survey response. Lessons learned from the European Social Survey. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturgis, P., & Campanelli, P. (1998). The scope for reducing refusals in household surveys: An investigation based on transcripts of tape-recorded doorstep interactions. Journal of the Market Research Society 40(2), 121–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Te Riele, S. (2002) Vertekening door non-respons. Hoe nauwkeurig zijn de uitkomsten van persoons-enquêtes? Sociaal-economische Maandstatistiek, Jrg. 19, April 2002. Voorburg/Heerlen: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, pp. 20–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teitler, J. O., Reichman, N. E., & Sprachman, S. (2003). Costs and benefits of improving response rates for a hard-to-reach population. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 126–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R., & Smith, T. W. (1996). Asking sensitive questions: The impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 275–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triplett, T. (2002). What is gained from additional call attempts & refusal conversion and what are the cost implications? Research Report. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triplett, T. (2006). 2002 NASF nonresponse analysis. Methodology Reports, Report No. 7. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triplett, T., Scheib, J., & Blair, T. (2001). How long should you wait before attempting to convert a telephone refusal? Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section. Alexandria: American Statistical Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Ingen, E., Stoop, I., & Breedveld, K. (2009). Nonresponse in the Dutch time use survey: Strategies for response enhancement and bias reduction. Field Methods, 21(1), 69–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voogt, R. J. J., Saris, W. E., & Niemöller, B. (1998). Non-response, and the gulf between the public and the politicians. Acta Politica, 33, 250–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, B., & Olson, K. (2010). How much of interviewer variance is really nonresponse error variance. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(5), 1004–1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Further Reading

  • Bethlehem, J. G., Cobben, F., & Schouten, B. (2011b). Handbook of nonresponse in household surveys. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Blom, A., & Kreuter, F. (2011). Special issue on nonresponse. Journal of Official Statistics, 27(2), 151–414. (Guest editors).

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M., & Couper, M. P. (1998b). Nonresponse in household interview surveys. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, E. (2006). Nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoop, I. A. L. (2005). The hunt for the last respondent. The Hague: Social and Cultural Planning Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoop, I., Billiet, J., Koch, A., & Fitzgerald, R. (2010). Improving survey response. Lessons learned from the European Social Survey. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Netherlands Institute for Social Research/SCP, 16164, 2500 BD, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Ineke Stoop

Authors
  1. Ineke Stoop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ineke Stoop .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, Tenth Ave. 899, New York, 10019, New York, USA

    Lior Gideon

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Stoop, I. (2012). Unit Non-Response Due to Refusal. In: Gideon, L. (eds) Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3876-2_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation