The power of five more dollars

Exploring the influence of incentives and reminders on the response rate for an online survey of STEM majors

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32674/cnccbm96

Keywords:

Response Rate, STEM , Incentives, Reminder Notifications, Survey Reserach

Abstract

Survey research is widely used in STEM education. Low response rates may risk validity and representativeness. This study investigates the impact of monetary incentives, reminder notifications, and student demographics on survey response rates among STEM majors at a rural public university. An online survey was distributed to 2,046 STEM students, with key majors randomly assigned to the $0, $5, or $10 incentive condition and exposed to multiple reminder types. The results indicate that response rates increased by approximately 9% with each additional $5 incentive and were enhanced by personalized reminder messages. The combined use of modest incentives and targeted reminders increased response rates within targeted subgroups to as high as 71%. These findings offer practical methodological recommendations for researchers seeking to improve survey response rates within STEM populations.

Author Biographies

  • Dr. Brian Church, Stephen F. Austin State University

    BRIAN CHURCH, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Stephen F. Austin State University. His research interests include STEM teacher training/recruitment/retention and STEM student success. Email: Brian.Church@sfasu.edu

  • Dr. Keith Hubbard, Stephen F. Austin State University

    KEITH HUBBARD, PhD, is a Full Professor in the Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Stephen F. Austin State University. His research interests include student success, rural STEM educator preparation, and data analytics. Email: hubbardke@sfasu.edu

  • Dr. Lauren Brewer, Stephen F. Austin State University

    LAUREN E. BREWER, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology Sciences, Stephen F. Austin State University. Her research interests include experimental social psychology, motherhood studies, and the scholarship of teaching and learning. Email: brewerle@sfasu.edu

References

Abdelazeem, B., Hamdallah, A., Rizk, M. A., Abbas, K. S., El-Shahat, N. A., Manasrah, N., Mostofa, M. R., & Eltobgy, M. (2023). Does usage of monetary incentive impact the involvement in surveys? A systematic review and meta-analysis of 46 randomized controlled trials. PloS One, 18(1), e0279128. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279128

Chen, T., Johnson, T. P., Ma, J., Frandell, A., Michalegko, L., & Welch, E. W. (2025). Invitation appeals and STEM academic scientists research participation: Findings from six survey experiments. PLoS One, 20(6), e0326331. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326331

Church, A. H. (1993). Estimating the effect of incentives on mail survey response rates: A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57(1), 62–79. https://doi.org/10.1086/269355

Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web-or internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 821–836. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640021970934

Daikeler, J., Bošnjak, M., & Lozar Manfreda, K. (2020). Web versus other survey modes: an updated and extended meta-analysis comparing response rates. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 8(3), 513–539. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smz008

Daikeler, J., Silber, H., & Bošnjak, M. (2022). A meta-analysis of how country-level factors affect web survey response rates. International Journal of Market Research, 64(3), 306–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/14707853211050916

Dinh, J. M., Chrenka, E. A., Solberg, L., Andersen, J. A., Dehmer, S. P., Bergdall, A., Winger, M., & Jones, C. (2026). Impact of envelope teaser on mail and web research survey response rates and representation. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 26(72). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-026-02808-1

Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological bulletin, 100(3), 283–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.283

Fan, W., & Yan, Z. (2010). Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 132-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.015

Heerwegh, D., Vanhove, T., Matthijs, K., & Loosveldt, G. (2005). The effect of personalization on response rates and data quality in web surveys. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(2), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557042000203107

Homans, G. C. (1958). Social Behavior as Exchange. American Journal of Sociology 63(6), 597–606. https://doi.org/10.1086/222355

Jia, P., Furuya-Kanamori, L., Qin, Z. S., Jia, P. Y., & Xu, C. (2021). Association between response rates and monetary incentives in sample study: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 97(1150), 501–510. https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-137868

Kosakow, J., & Greenberg, P. (2026). Testing motivation-based vs. social exchange communication strategies in eMail survey recruitment. Social Science Computer Review, 44(2), 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393241308509

Manfreda, K. L., Bosnjak, M., Berzelak, J., Haas, I., & Vehovar, V. (2008). Web surveys versus other survey modes: A meta-analysis comparing response rates. International Journal of Market Research, 50(1), 79–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530805000107

Mistry, K., Merrick, S., Cabecinha, M., Daniels, S., Ragan, J., Epstein, M., Lever, L., Venables, Z. C., & Levell, N. J. (2026). Fraudulent participation in online qualitative studies: practical recommendations on an emerging phenomenon. Qualitative Health Research, 36(7), 647–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323241288181

Neal, Z., Neal, J. W., & Piteo, A. (2020). Call me maybe: Using incentives and follow-ups to increase principals’ survey response rates. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13(4), 784–793. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2020.1772423

Porter, S. R., & Umbach, P. D. (2006). Student survey response rates across institutions: Why do they vary?. Research in Higher Education, 47(2), 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-005-8887-1

Porter, S. R., & Whitcomb, M. E. (2003). The impact of contact type on web survey response rates. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 67(4), 579–588.

Saleh, A., & Bista, K. (2017). Examining factors impacting online survey response rates in educational research: Perceptions of graduate students. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 13(29), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v13i29.487

Singer, E. & Ye, C. (2013). The use and effects of incentives in surveys. The Analysis of American Academy of Political and Social Science, 645(1), 112–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212458082

Smith, M. G., Witte, M., Rocha, S., & Basner, M. (2019). Effectiveness of incentives and follow-up on increasing survey response rates and participation in field studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19(1), 230. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0868-8

Sobolewski, J., Rothschild, A., & Freeman, A. (2024). The impact of incentives on data collection for online surveys: Social media recruitment study. JMIR Formative Research, 8, e50240. https://doi.org/10.2196/50240

Stoffel, S. T., Chaki, B., & Vlaev, I. (2024). Testing a decoy donation incentive to improve online survey participation: Evidence from a field experiment. PLoS One, 19(2), e0299711. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299711

Wilson, A. B., Brooks, W. S., Edwards, D. N., Deaver, J., Surd, J. A., Pirlo, O. J., Byrd, W. A., Meyer, E. D., Beresheim, A., Cuskey, S. L., Tsintolas, J. G., Norrell, E. S., Fisher, H. C., Skaggs, C. W., Mysak, D., Levin, S. R., Escutia Rosas, C. E., Cale, A. S., ... & Lufler, R. S. (2024). Survey response rates in health sciences education research: a 10‐year meta‐analysis. Anatomical Sciences Education, 17(1), 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2345

Wu, M. J., Zhao, K., & Fils-Aime, F. (2022). Response rates of online surveys in published research: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 7, 100206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100206

Additional Files

Published

2026-07-05

Issue

Vol. 25 (2026): American Journal of STEM Education

Section

STEM Education (regular)

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Dr. Brian Church, Dr. Keith Hubbard, Dr. Lauren Brewer

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) [year] [author]
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

How to Cite

Church, B., Hubbard, K., & Brewer, L. (2026). The power of five more dollars: Exploring the influence of incentives and reminders on the response rate for an online survey of STEM majors. American Journal of STEM Education, 25, 240-258. https://doi.org/10.32674/cnccbm96

Most read articles by the same author(s)