Satisficing response behavior can be a threat to the quality of survey responses. Past research has provided broad empirical evidence on the existence of satisficing and its consequences on data quality, however, relatively little is known about the extent of satisficing over the course of a panel study and its impact on response quality in later waves. Drawing on panel conditioning research, we use question design experiments to investigate whether learning effects across waves of a panel study cause changes in the extent of satisficing and if so, whether general survey experience (process learning) or familiarity with specific question content (content learning) accounts for those changes. We use data from a longitudinal survey experiment comprising six panel waves administered within a German non-probability online access panel. To investigate the underlying mechanism of possible learning effects, the experimental study randomly assigned respondents to different frequencies of receiving identical question content over the six panel waves. Our results show the existence of satisficing in every panel wave, which is in its magnitude similar to the extent of satisficing in the probability-based GESIS Panel that we use as a benchmark study. However, we did not find changes in the extent of satisficing across panel waves, nor did we find moderation effects of the interval between the waves, respondents’ cognitive ability, or motivation. Additional validity analyses showed that satisficing does not only affect the distribution of individual estimates by 15 percent or more but also can have an effect on associations between variables.

No abstract

Learning effects due to repeated interviewing, also known as panel conditioning, are a major threat to response quality in later waves of a panel study. To date, research has not provided a clear picture regarding the circumstances, mechanisms, and dimensions of potential panel conditioning effects. In particular, the effects of conditioning frequency, that is, different levels of experience within a panel, on response quality are underexplored. Against this background, we investigated the effects of panel conditioning by using data from the GESIS Panel, a German mixed-mode probability-based panel study. Using two refreshment samples, we compared three panel cohorts with differing levels of experience on several response quality indicators related to the mechanisms of reflection, satisficing, and social desirability. Overall, we find evidence for both negative (i.e., disadvantageous for response quality) and positive (i.e., advantageous for response quality) panel conditioning. Highly experienced respondents were more likely to satisfice by speeding through the questionnaire. They also had a higher probability of refusing to answer sensitive questions than less experienced panel members. However, more experienced respondents were also more likely to optimize the response process by needing less time compared to panelists with lower experience levels (when controlling for speeding). In contrast, we did not find significant differences with respect to the number of “don’t know” responses, nondifferentiation, the selection of first response categories and mid-responses, and the number of nontriggered filter questions. Of the observed differences, speeding showed the highest magnitude with an average increase of 6.0 percentage points for highly experienced panel members compared to low experienced panelists.

Learning effects due to repeated interviewing, which are referred to as panel conditioning, are a major threat to response quality in later waves of a panel study. Up to date, research has not provided a clear picture regarding the circumstances, mechanisms, and dimensions of potential panel conditioning effects. Especially the effects of conditioning frequency, that is, different levels of experience within a panel, on response quality are underexplored. Against this background, we investigated the effects of panel conditioning by using data from the GESIS Panel, a German mixed-mode probability-based panel study. Using two refreshment samples, we compared three panel cohorts with differing levels of experience with respect to several response quality indicators related to the mechanisms of reflection, satisficing, and social desirability. Overall, we find evidence for both negative (i.e., disadvantageous for response quality) as well as positive (i.e., advantageous for response quality) panel conditioning. Highly experienced respondents were more likely to satisfice by selecting mid-point responses or by speeding through the questionnaire. They also had a higher probability of refusing to answer sensitive questions than less experienced panel members. However, more experienced respondents were also more likely to optimize the response processes by needing less time compared to panelists with lower experience levels (when controlling for speeding). In contrast, we did not find significant differences with respect to the number of “don’t know” responses, non-differentiation, the selection of first response categories, and the number of non-triggered filter questions. Of the observed differences, speeding showed the highest magnitude with an average increase of 5.9 percentage points for highly experienced panel members compared to low experienced panelists.