Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The optimum prepaid monetary incentives for mail surveys

  • Theoretical Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Operational Research Society

Abstract

Increasing mail-survey response using monetary incentives is a proven, but not always cost-effective method in every population. This paper tackles the questions of whether it is worth using monetary incentives and the size of the inducement by testing a logit model of the impact of prepaid monetary incentives on response rates in consumer and organizational mail surveys. The results support their use and show that the inducement value makes a significant impact on the effect size. Importantly, no significant differences were found between consumer and organizational populations. A cost–benefit model is developed to estimate the optimum incentive when attempting to minimize overall survey costs for a given sample size.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Armstrong JS (1975). Monetary incentives in mail surveys. Public Opin Q 39: 111–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong JS and Yokum JT (1994). Effectiveness of monetary incentives: mail surveys to members of multinational professional groups. Ind Market Mngt 23: 133–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balakrishnan PV, Chawla SK, Smith MF, and Micholski BP (1992). Mail survey response rates using a lottery prize giveaway incentive. J Direct Market 6: 54–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellizzi J and Hite RE (1986). Face-to-face advance contact and monetary incentive effects on mail survey return rates, responses differences and survey costs. J Bus Res 14: 99–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolstein R and James JM (1990). The effect of monetary incentives and follow-up mailings on the response rate and response quality in mail surveys. Public Opin Q 54: 346–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braunsberger K, Gates R and Ortinau DJ (2005). Prospective respondent integrity behavior in replying to direct mail questionnaires: a contribution in overestimating nonresponse rates. J Bus Res 58: 260–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan M (1992). The effect of a monetary incentive on mail survey response rates new data. J Marketing Res Soc 34: 173–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan M, Hoek J and Astridge CA (1991). The effects of monetary incentives on the response rate and cost-effectiveness of a mail survey. J Marketing Res Soc 33: 229–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns AC and Hair JF (1980). Analysis of mail survey response from a commercial sample. Proceedings of American Institute for Decision Science, 12th Meeting (November), Vol. 1, Decision Sciences Institute, Atlanta, GA, pp 227–229.

  • Church AH (1993). Estimating the effect of incentives on mail survey response rates: a meta-analysis. Public Opin Q 57: 62–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cycyota CS and Harrison DA (2002). Enhancing survey response rates at the executive level: are employee- or consumer-level techniques effective? J Mngt 28: 151–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis Jr WJ (2003). Raising response rates in mail surveys of small business owners: results of an experiment. J Small Bus Mngt 41: 278–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Díaz de Rada V (2005). Measure and control of non-response in a mail survey. Eur J Marketing 39: 16–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA (1972). Increasing mail questionnaire response in large samples of the general public. Public Opin Q 36: 254–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dommeyer CJ (1988). How form of the monetary incentive affects mail survey response. J Marketing Res Soc 30: 379–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards P et al (2002). Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. Br Med J 324 (7347): 1183–1186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erwin WJ and Wheelright LA (2002). Improving mail survey response rates through the use of a monetary incentive. J Mental Health Counsel 24: 247–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • ESOMAR (2005). Industry Report 2003. European Society for Opinion and Marketing Research: Amsterdam.

  • Festinger L (1957). The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman H and San Augustine A (1979). The effects of a monetary incentive and the ethnicity of the sponsor's signature on the rate and quality of response to a mail survey. J Acad Market Sci 7: 95–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furse DH and Stewart DW (1982). Monetary incentives versus promised contribution to charity new evidence on mail survey response. J Marketing Res 19: 375–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furse DH, Stewart DW and Rados DL (1981). Effects of foot-in-the-door, cash incentives and follow-ups on survey response. J Marketing Res 18: 473–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gajaraj A, Faria A and Dickinson J (1990). A comparison of the effect of promised and provided lotteries, monetary and gift incentives on mail survey response speed and cost. J Marketing Res Soc 32: 141–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbart E and Kreiger N (1998). Improvement in cumulative response rates following implementation of a financial incentive. Am J Epidemiol 148: 97–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilpatrick TR, Harmon RR and Tseng LPD (1994). The effect of a nominal monetary gift and different contacting approaches on mail survey response among engineers. IEEE T Eng Mngt 41: 285–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodstadt MS, Chung L, Kranitz R and Cook G (1977). Mail survey response rates: their manipulation and impact. J Marketing Res 14: 391–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gouldner AW (1960). The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. Am Sociol Rev 25: 161–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves RM and Couper MP (1998). Nonresponse in Household Interview Surveys. John Wiley & Sons: New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen RA (1980). A self-perception interpretation of the effect of monetary and non-monetary incentives on mail survey respondent behaviour. J Marketing Res 17: 77–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helgeson JG, Voss KE and Terpening WD (2002). Determinants of mail-survey response: survey design factors and respondent factors. Psychol Market 19: 303–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornik J (1981). Time cue and time perception effect on response to mail surveys. J Marketing Res 18: 243–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard R and Little EL (1988). Cash prizes and mail survey response rates: a threshold analysis. J Acad Market Sci 16 (42): 42–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James JH and Bolstein R (1992). Large monetary incentives and their effects on mail survey response rates. Public Opin Q 56: 442–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jobber D (1986). Increasing response rates to industrial mail surveys. Ind Market Mngt 15: 183–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jobber D and Saunders J (1988). Modelling the effects of prepaid monetary incentives on mail-survey response. J Opl Res Soc 39: 365–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jobber D, Birro K and Sanderson SM (1988). A factorial investigation of methods of stimulating response to mail surveys. Eur J Opl Res 37: 158–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotler P, Armstrong G, Saunders J and Wong V (2001). Principles of Marketing: Third European Edition. Prentice Hall: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson PD and Chow G (2003). Total cost/response rate trade-offs in mail survey research: impact of follow-up mailings and monetary incentives. Ind Market Mngt 37: 533–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson PD and Poist RF (2004). Improving response rates to mail surveys: a research note. Transportation J 42 (4): 67–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • London SU and Dommeyer CJ (1990). Increasing response to industrial mail surveys. Ind Market Mngt 19: 235–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel SW and Rao CP (1980). The effect of monetary inducement on mailed questionnaire response quality. J Marketing Res 17: 265–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moser C and Kalton G (1976). Survey Methods in Social Investigation. Heineman: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Keefe T and Homer PM (1987). Selecting cost-effective survey methods: foot-in-door and prepaid monetary incentives. J Bus Res 15: 365–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paolillo JGP and Lorenzi P (1984). Monetary incentives and mail questionnaire response rates. J Advertising 13: 46–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkes R, Kreiger N, James B and Johnson KC (2000). Effects on subject response of information brochures and small cash incentives in a mail-based case-control study. AEP 10: 117–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peck J and Dresch S (1981). Financial incentives, survey response and sample representativeness: does money matter. Rev Public Data Use 9: 245–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley MM and Tullar W (1977). A factor interactive investigation of mail survey response rates from a commercial population. J Marketing Res 14: 108–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robin D and Walters G (1976). The effect on return rate of messages explaining monetary incentives in mail questionnaire studies. J Bus Commun 13 (3): 49–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth PL and BeVier CA (1998). Response rates in HRM/OB survey research: norms and correlates, 1990–1994. J Mngt 24: 97–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahr RS (2005). Consumer price index (CPI) conversion factors 1800 to estimated 2015 to convert to dollars of estimated 2005. http://www.oregonstate.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/sahrhome.html (17 May).

  • Schneider KC and Johnson JC (1995). Stimulating response to market surveys of business professionals. Ind Market Mngt 24: 265–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer E, Groves RM and Corning AD (1999). Differential incentives: beliefs about practices, perceptions of equity, and effects on survey participation. Public Opin Q 63: 251–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Summers J and Price JH (1997). Increasing return rates to a mail survey among health educators. Psychol Rep 81: 551–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tedin K and Hofstetter C (1982). The effect of cost and importance factors on the return rate for single and multiple mailings. Public Opin Quart 46: 122–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tullar W, Pressley MM and Gentry D (1979). Towards a theoretical framework for mail survey response. Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Academy of Marketing Science. Vol. 11. Academy of Marketing Science, pp 243–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Department of Labor (2004). Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet (June 10).

  • Weathers PL, Furlong MJ and Solórzano D (1993). Mail survey research in counseling psychology: current practice and suggested guidelines. J Counsel Psychol 40: 238–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aston University, Birmingham, UK

    J Saunders

  2. Bradford University, Bradford, UK

    D Jobber

  3. City University, London, UK

    V Mitchell

Authors
  1. J Saunders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D Jobber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. V Mitchell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J Saunders.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Saunders, J., Jobber, D. & Mitchell, V. The optimum prepaid monetary incentives for mail surveys. J Oper Res Soc 57, 1224–1230 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602053

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602053

Keywords

Search

Navigation