ArticlePloS one2024
Testing a decoy donation incentive to improve online survey participation: Evidence from a field experiment.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study introduces a new randomized field experiment exploring the impact of offering a decoy charity donation incentive together with a monetary reward to increase response rates in an online survey about coronavirus fears. The study used a two-stage approach, starting with a preliminary survey to investigate participant attitudes toward different types of donations. Subsequently, an experiment was conducted wherein a less desirable £2 donation (the decoy) was introduced as an alternative to a £2 Amazon voucher (the target) within the choice set. The study sample consisted of 431 university students. They were split into three groups: a control group with a standard £2 Amazon voucher incentive (216 participants), a decoy group with the target shown first (108 participants), and a decoy group with the decoy shown first (107 participants). We found significantly higher survey completion rates in the decoy than in the control condition (82.3% vs. 74.5%). Notably, an order effect was observed-presenting the target before the decoy led to a higher completion rate (89.8%) compared to presenting the decoy first (74.8%). Importantly, the inclusion of the decoy incentive did not introduce any response bias. This study offers a proof of principle that incorporating a decoy charity donation incentive into the choice set can have a positive impact on survey participation without adversely affecting response behaviour. It demonstrates the potential of such incentives to encourage participants to complete online surveys, even when a small monetary reward is offered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.