Gender and Survey Participation: An Event History Analysis of the Gender Effects of Survey Participation in a Probability-based Multi-wave Panel Study with a Sequential Mixed-mode Design
Open accessAbstract
In cross-sectional surveys, as well as in longitudinal panel studies, systematic gender differences in survey participation are routinely observed. Since there has been little research on this issue, this study seeks to reveal this association for web-based online surveys and computer-assisted telephone interviews in the context of a sequential mixed-mode design with a push-to-web method. Based on diverse versions of benefit–cost theories relating to deliberative and heuristic decision-making, several hypotheses are deduced and then tested by longitudinal data in the context of a multi-wave panel study on the educational and occupational trajectories of juveniles. Employing event history data on the survey participation of young panelists living in German-speaking cantons in Switzerland and matching them with geographical data at the macro level and panel characteristics at the meso level, none of the hypotheses is confirmed empirically. It is concluded that indirect measures of an individual’s perceptions of a situation, and of the benefits and costs as well as the process and mechanisms of the decision relating to survey participation, are insufficient to explain this gender difference. Direct tests of these theoretical approaches are needed in future.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Limitations include an overrepresentation of women and individuals with a higher level of education, likely due to the voluntary online survey format.
“Limitations of this study include an overrepresentation of women and individuals with a higher level of education, likely due to the voluntary online survey format [46,47]”
From Sociodemographic differences in dementia prevention knowledge in Germany: Implications for targeted health communication (2026) · cites this paper as [46]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pharmacovigilance study of GLP-1 receptor agonists for metabolic and nutritional adverse events
He, L., Li, Q., Yang, Y., Li, J., Luo, W., Huang, Y., & Zhong, X. (2024) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2024.1416985 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Müller, V., Mellor, D., & Pikó, B. F. (2024) · Learning Disabilities Research & Practice · doi:10.1177/09388982241271511 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Albus, P., Folkerts, A.-K., Kessler, J., Köhler, S., & Kalbe, E. (2026) · The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease · doi:10.1016/j.tjpad.2026.100517 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Becker, R.
- Corresponding author
- Becker, Rolf
- ORCID
- Becker, Rolf
- Venue
- GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
- Publisher
- GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
- Published
- 2022
- Pages
- 29
- OpenAlex
- W3213550748
- Cited by
- 176
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 26 · 2025: 66 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 5
- FWCI
- 29.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- boris.unibe.ch
- Licence
- Locations
- Social Science Open Access Repository (GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences) (publishedVersion)
- Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- Methoden, Daten, Analysen (mda) (cc-by)
- Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
- methods, data, analyses
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Survey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Census and Population Estimation
- Keywords
- gender differences, survey participation, event history analysis, online surveys, computer-assisted telephone interviewing, juveniles
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review