4.7 Article

Making energy surveys more impactful: Testing material and non-monetary response strategies

期刊

ENERGY RESEARCH & SOCIAL SCIENCE
卷 63, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2019.101409

关键词

Consumer; Survey; Response rate; Incentives; Randomized controlled trial; Experiment

资金

  1. Australian Government's Department of the Environment and Energy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent years have seen a growth in energy research that integrates social and behavioural sciences. A core component of this work involves collecting human data, commonly via surveys and field experiments. But there are often barriers to recruiting large and representative samples of participants, with sampling bias and non-response error posing threats to validity. Identifying cost-effective ways to increase participation in energy research is therefore important for strengthening the rigor, utility and generalisability of studies in this area. To this end, the current study harnesses an experimental design to test pathways for making energy surveys more impactful - specifically by improving response rates and times, lowering sampling bias, and enhancing overall cost-effectiveness. As part of a postal survey on household energy use in Australia, a set of randomised controlled trials were conducted to test the impact of four strategies: incentives, an envelope message, a handwritten sticky note, and a reminder postcard. A 3 x 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design was applied to assess both individual and interactive effects. While material incentives in the form of an upfront token gift and prize draw were ineffective in improving response relative to the control survey, results revealed that a handwritten sticky note expressing upfront thanks for participating - designed to serve as an intrinsically motivating attentional cue - improved both the rate and timeliness of response. Three combinations of strategies yielded significantly higher response rates than the control, but they were more expensive on a 'dollar cost per response' basis. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据