Economic Exchange Theory

As it applies to survey research, economic exchange theory provides a possible explanation for why certain types and levels of survey incentives do or do not work to (a) raise the response propensity of a sampled respondent to participate in a survey, (b) improve the quality of the data provided by the respondent, (c) reduce nonresponse bias, and/or (d) lower total survey costs. The central premise in economic exchange theory, as it relates to survey research, is that respondents make at least a partially rational decision about whether or not they will participate in a survey, and the rational part of this decision takes into account the “costs” of participating versus the “benefits” gained from participating. One of those presumed benefits is the value to the respondent of any incentive that may be given her or him by the researchers. Economic exchange theory suggests that if the perceived benefits are equal to or exceed the perceived costs, then the sampled respondent will be positively disposed to participating because she or he will perceive that she or he is being treated equitably by the researchers.

Past research on why people do not want to participate in a survey consistently has shown that “no time” and “no interest” are the two most frequently mentioned reasons for not participating. Consistent anecdotal feedback from survey interviewers indicates that some respondents specifically complain that their time is worth much more than whatever incentive is being offered to them. Thus, some portion of the “No Time/No Interest” constellation of refusal reasons appear to be linked to respondents who rationally are calculating the cost of their time and effort to cooperate versus what is in it for them in return. In most cases the monetary value of survey incentives that have been used throughout the history of survey research has been far too small to approach what most respondents would perceive as an equitable economic exchange for financially offsetting the costs to them for participating.

This reasoning notwithstanding, there are no consistent empirical data that support economic exchange theory as being a driving force in explaining whether certain types of survey incentives will work to raise respondent cooperation and compliance. Part of the reason for this may be that the unconfounded and robust experiments that are required to adequately test economic exchange theory have not been conducted as yet.

That such rigorous research should be conducted is indicated by the results of a provocative study on this topic that was reported by P. M. Biner and H. J. Kidd in the 1990s. This research provided evidence that the manner in which an incentive is framed (i.e. explained to respondents) will affect response rates beyond the mere value of the incentives. Following from personal equity theory, Biner and Kidd used an experimental design that showed that telling sampled respondents that they were being given a small, non-contingent cash incentive as “payment” for participation in the survey—that is, the respondents reasonably were assumed to perceive that they were being “undercompensated” for their time and effort—led to significantly lower response rates than telling another group of respondents that the same low-value incentive was being given as a “token of appreciation.” In contrast, with larger value noncontingent incentives—especially ones that a respondent likely would view as overcompensation for the time and effort involved in performing the survey task—respondents who were told that they were being given the larger value non-contingent cash incentive as “payment” for participation in the study had significantly higher response rates than other randomly assigned respondents who were told that the higher-value incentives were being given as a “token of appreciation.”

...