The Impact of Lottery Incentives on Student Survey Response Rates

By Stephen R. Porter, M. Whitcomb. 2003

235 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b7d7f224db4d401cfd1ce41fee6495ecc3e5baa9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

The Family's Financial Support as a “Poisoned Gift”: A Family Embeddedness Perspective on Entrepreneurial Intentions (2017, background): “This compares favorably with previous GUESSS editions and with other online student surveys (Porter and Whitcomb 2003).”
Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of students with family business background (2011, result): “98% compares favorably with other e-mail student surveys (Porter and Whitcomb, 2003).”
Development of a Public Service Motivation Measurement Scale: Corroborating and Extending Perry's Measurement Instrument (2008, background): “The e-mail also announced that respondents would be entered in a lottery in which they could win a € 20 voucher (Porter and Whitcomb 2003 ).”
Incentives in Web Studies: Methodological Issues and a Review (2006, methodology): “Another difference between online and offline is that respondents in the more anonymous medium Internet might be distrustful that, for example, a lottery to raffle rewards for survey participation actually exists and will be run fairly (Porter & Whitcomb, 2003).”
What makes student entrepreneurs? On the relevance (and irrelevance) of the university and the regional context for student start-ups (2016, result): “Overall, the response rate for the 41 universities in our sample is 7.9% which is comparable to other online-surveys among students (Porter & Whitcomb, 2003).”
Can Lottery Incentives Boost Web Survey Response Rates? Findings from Four Experiments (2011, background): “It is worth noting that Heerwegh explicitly acknowledged as a limitation the impossibility of ruling out potential contamination due to students communicating interpersonally across experimental groups about the possibility of winning a prize, or lack thereof (see Porter and Whitcomb 2003 ).”
Student Survey Response Rates across Institutions: Why Do they Vary? (2006, unknown): “We believe these additional efforts had little effect on survey response rates, in part because no research to date shows that publicity raises response rates in student surveys, and because the literature demonstrates conclusively that post-paid incentives have no effect on response rates (Porter a”
Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review (2010, background): “However, some tactics of personalization such as personalized greetings and personalized e-mail addresses were found as insignificant factor on responses (Pearson & Levine, 2003; Porter & Whitcomb, 2003a).”
Can a Summer Bridge Program Impact First-Year Persistence and Performance?: A Case Study of the New Start Summer Program (2013, unknown): “The consequence of over-surveying is that students are less likely to participate in research and assessment activities (Porter and Whitcomb 2003), and in the UA context, response rates are generally about 20 %.”
The impact of material incentives on response quantity, response quality, sample composition, survey outcome, and cost in online access panels (2004, background): “Another difference is that, on the one hand, panellists in the relatively anonymous medium of the internet might be more distrustful that, for instance, a lottery actually exists and will be run fairly (Porter & Whitcomb 2003).”
Non-response in student surveys: The Role of Demographics, Engagement and Personality (2005, background): “…2004; Sax, Gilmartin, and Bryant, 2003), e-mail surveys (Dommeyer and Moriarty, 2000), number of contacts (Smith and Bers, 1987), incentives (Porter and Whitcomb, 2003b; Zusman and Duby, 1987), survey burden (Adams and Gale, 1982; Couper, Traugott, and Lamias, 2001; Crawford, Couper, and…”