Effect of Topic Sensitivity on Online Survey Panelists’ Motivation and Data Quality

REFERENCES

• Aaker, Jennifer (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (3), 347–356.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albaum, Gerald (1987), “Do Source and Anonymity Affect Mail Survey Results?” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 15 (3), 74–81.
   Google Scholar
• Albaum, Gerald, Catherine A. Roster, and Scott M. Smith (2012), “A Cross-National Study of Topic Sensitivity: Implications for Web-Based Surveys,” Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, 6 (5), 71–82.
   Google Scholar
• Allen, Chris T. (1982), “Perspectives on Mail Survey Response Rates: The Self-Perception Paradigm and Beyond.” Paper presented at the American Marketing Association Conference on Marketing Theory, San Antonio, Texas.
   Google Scholar
• Becker, Howard S. (1960), “Notes on the Concept of Commitment,” American Journal of Sociology, 66 (1), 32–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bem, Daryl J. (1972), “Self-Perception Theory,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 6, L. Berkowitz, ed., New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brick, J. Michael (2011), “The Future of Survey Sampling,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 75 (5), 872–888.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brüggen, Elisabeth, Ko de Ruyter, and Martin Wetzels (2005), “What Motivates Respondents to Participate in Online Panels?” Paper presented at the World Marketing Congress, Academy of Marketing Science, Muenster, Germany, July, 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Brüggen, Elisabeth, Ko de Ruyter, and Martin Wetzels et al. (2011), “Individual Differences in Motivation to Participate in Online Panels: The Effect on Response Rate and Response Quality Perceptions,” International Journal of Market Research, 53 (3), 369–398.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callegaro, Mario et al. (2014), “Online Panel Research: History, Concepts, Applications and a Look at the Future,” in Online Panel Research: A Data Quality Perspective, Mario Callegraro et al., eds., Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Cape, Pete (2012), “Understanding Respondent Motivation,” Survey Sampling International, Chelton, CT.
   Google Scholar
• Comley, P. (2005), “Understanding the Online Panelist,” Worldwide Panel Research: Developments and Progress (pp. 409–424). Amsterdam: ESOMAR.
   Google Scholar
• Couper, Mick P. (2000). “Web Surveys: A Review of Issues and Approaches,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 64 (4), 464–494.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Leeuw, Edith, and Wim de Heer (2002), “Trends in Household Survey Non-response: A Longitudinal and International Comparison,” in Survey Nonresponse, R.M. Groves et al., eds., London: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 41–69.
   Google Scholar
• Deci, Edward L. (1975), Intrinsic Motivation, New York: Plenum.
   Google Scholar
• Deci, Edward L., and Richard M. Ryan (1980), “The Empirical Exploration of IntrinsicMotivational Processes,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 13, L. Berkowitz, ed., New York: Academic Press, 39–80.
   Google Scholar
• Deci, Edward L., and Richard M. Ryan (2000), “The ‘What’ and ‘Why’ of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior,” Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolnicar, Sara (2013), “Asking Good Questions,” Journal of Travel Research, 52 (5), 551–574.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evangelista, Felicitas, Patrick Poon, and Gerald Albaum (2012), “Using Response Behavior Theory to Solicit Survey Participation in Consumer Research,” Journal of Marketing Management, 28 (9/10), 1174–1189.
   Google Scholar
• Festinger, Leon (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Evanson, Ill: Row Peterson.
   Google Scholar
• Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker (1981), “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Göritz, Anje, Hans-Georg Wolff, and Daniel G. Goldstein (2008), “Individual payments as a longer-term incentive in online panels,” Behavior Research Methods, 40 (4), 1144–1149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greszki, Robert, Marco Meyer, and Harald Schoen (2014), “The Impact of Speeding on Data Quality in Nonprobability and Freshly Recruited Probability-based Online Panels,” in Online Panel Research: A Data Quality Perspective, Mario Callegraro et al., eds., Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 238–262.
   Google Scholar
• Groves, Robert M., and Mick P. Couper (1998), Nonresponse in Household Interview Surveys. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Groves, Robert M., Eleanor Singer, and A. Corning (2000), “Leverage-Salience Theory of Survey Participation: Description and an Illustration.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 64 (3), 299–308.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groves, Robert M., Stanley Presser, and Sarah Dipko (2004), “The Role of Topic Interest in Survey Participation Decisions,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 68 (1), 2–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hair, Joseph F. Jr. et al. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Han, Vallen et al. (2009),” Applying Theory to Structure Respondents’ Stated Motivations for Participating in Web Surveys,” Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 12 (4), 428–442.
   Google Scholar
• Hansen, Jared M., and Scott M. Smith (2012), “The Impact of Two-Stage Highly Interesting Questions on Completion Rates and Data Quality in Online Marketing Research,” International Journal of Market Research, 54 (2), 241–260.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jafari, Aliakabar et al. (2013), “Exploring Researcher Vulnerability: Contexts, Complications, and Conceptualization,” Journal of Marketing Management, 29 (9/10), 1182–1200.
   Google Scholar
• Jarvis, Steve (2002), “CMOR Finds Survey Refusal Rate Still Rising,” Marketing News, 36, 3–4.
   Google Scholar
• Karminska, Olena, Allen L. McCutcheon, and Jaak Billet (2010), “Satisficing Among Reluctant Respondents in a Cross-National Context,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 74 (5), 956–984.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kays, Kristina, Kathleen Gathercoal, and William Buhrow (2012), “Does Survey Format Influence Self-Disclosure on Sensitive Question Items?” Computers in Human Behavior, 28 (1), 251–256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keusch, Florian (2013), “The Role of Topic Interest and Topic Salience in Online Panel Web-Surveys,” International Journal of Market Research, 55 (1), 59–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keusch, Florian, Bernad Batinic, and Wolfgang Mayerhofer (2014), “Motives for Joining Nonprobability One Panels and Their Association with Survey Participation Behavior,” in Online Panel Research: A Data Quality Perspective, Mario Callegraro et al., eds., Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 171–191.
   Google Scholar
• Kreuter, Franke, Stanley Presser, and Roger Tourangeau (2008), “Social Desirability Bias in CATI, IVR, and Web Surveys,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 72 (5), 847–865.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krosnick, Jon A. (1991), “Response Strategies for Coping with the Cognitive Demands of Attitude Measures in Surveys,” Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 213–236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krosnick, Jon A. (1999), “Survey Research,” Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537–567.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leeper, Mark R., and David Greene (1978). The Hidden Costs of Reward: New Perspectives on the Psychology of Human Motivation. New York: Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Manzo, Amber N., and Jennifer M. Burke (2012), “Increasing Response Rate in Web-Based/Internet Surveys,” in Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences, Lior Gideon, ed., New York: Springer, 337–343.
   Google Scholar
• Marcus, Bernd et al. (2007), “Compensating for Low Topic Interest and Long Surveys,” Social Science Computer Review, 25 (3), 372–383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mavletova, Aigul, and Mick P. Couper (2013), “Sensitive Topics in PC Web and Mobile Web Surveys: Is There a Difference?” Survey Research Methods, 7 (3), 191–205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeeley, Susan (2012), “Sensitive Issues in Surveys: Reducing Refusals While Increasing Reliability and Quality of Response to Survey Items,” in Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences, Lior Gideon, ed., New York: Springer, 377–396.
   Google Scholar
• Paulhus, Delroy L. (1991), “Measurement and Control of Response Bias,” in Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes,” J.P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, and L. S. Wrightsman, eds., San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 17–59.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, Robert A., Pablo Rhi-Perez, and Gerald Albaum (2014), “A Cross-National Comparison of Extreme Response Style Measures,” International Journal of Market Research, 56 (1), 89–110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roster, Catherine A., Gerald Albaum, and Scott M. Smith (2014), “Topic Sensitivity and Internet Survey Design: A Cross-Cultural/National Study,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 22 (1), 91–102.
   Google Scholar
• Sakshaug, Joseph W., Ting Yan, and Roger Tourangeau (2010), “Nonresponse Error, Measurement Error, and Mode of Data Collection: Tradeoffs in a Multi-mode Survey of Sensitive and Non-sensitive Items,” Public Opinion Quarterly 74 (5), 907–933.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaeffer, Nora Cate, and Jennifer Dykema (2011), “Questions for Surveys: Current Trends and Future Directions,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 75 (5), 909–961.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shropshire, Kevin O., James E. Hawdon, and James C. Witte (2009), “Web Survey Design: Balancing Measurement, Response, and Topical Interest,” Sociological Methods & Research, 37 (3), 344–370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torres van Grinsven, Vanessa, Irena Bolko, and Mojca Bavdaz (2012), “Sources of Motivation in Business Surveys,” in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Establishment Surveys, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, June 11–14.
   Google Scholar
• Tourangeau, Roger, et al. (2009), “The Presentation of a Web Survey, Nonresponse and Measurement Error Among Members of Web Panel,” Journal of Official Statistics, 25 (3), 299–321.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tourangeau, Roger, Robert M. Groves, and Cleo D. Redline (2010), “Sensitive Topics and Reluctant Respondents: Demonstrating a Link Between Nonresponse Bias and Measurement Error,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 74 (3), 413–432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tourangeau, Roger, Lance J. Rips, and Kenneth Rasinski (2000), “Editing of Responses: Reporting about Sensitive Topics,” in The Psychology of Survey Response, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 255–288.
   Google Scholar
• Tourangeau, Roger, and Tom W. Smith (1996), “Asking Sensitive Questions: The Impact of Data Collection Mode, Question Format, and Question Context,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 60 (2), 275–304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tourangeau, Roger, and Ting Yan, T. (2007), “Sensitive Questions in Surveys,” Psychological Bulletin, 133 (5), 859–883.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tular, William L., Milton M. Pressley, and Dwight L. Gentry (1979), “Toward a Theoretical Framework for Mail Survey Response,” in Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Academy of Marketing Science, Miami, FL: Academy of Marketing Science, 243–247.
   Google Scholar
• United States Census Bureau (2011), “Age and Sex Composition: 2010,” 2010 Census Briefs, May, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Vocino, Andrea, Michael J. Polonsky, and Sara Dolniocar (2015), “Segmenting Australian Online Panelists Based on Volunteering Motivations,” Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 27 (1), 4–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wenemark, Marika, Asa Vernby, and Annika Lindahl Norberg (2010), “Can Incentives Undermine Intrinsic Motivation to Participate in Epidemiologic Surveys?” European Journal of Epidemiology, 25 (4), 231–235.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wyer, Robert S., Jr. (1969), “The Effects of General Response Style on Measurements of Own Attitude and the Interpretation of Attitude-Relevant Messages,” British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 8 (2), 104–115.
   Google Scholar