Linking survey and administrative data offers the possibility of combining the strengths, and mitigating the weaknesses, of both. Such linkage is therefore an extremely promising basis for future empirical research in social science. For ethical and legal reasons, linking administrative data to survey responses will usually require obtaining explicit consent. It is well known that not all respondents give consent. Past research on consent has generated many null and inconsistent findings. A weakness of the existing literature is that little effort has been made to understand the cognitive processes of how respondents make the decision whether or not to consent. The overall aim of this project was to improve our understanding about how to pursue the twin goals of maximizing consent and ensuring that consent is genuinely informed. The ultimate objective is to strengthen the data infrastructure for social science and policy research in the UK. Specific aims were: 1. To understand how respondents process requests for data linkage: which factors influence their understanding of data linkage, which factors influence their decision to consent, and to open the black box of consent decisions to begin to understand how respondents make the decision. 2. To develop and test methods of maximising consent in web surveys, by understanding why web respondents are less likely to give consent than face-to-face respondents. 3. To develop and test methods of maximising consent with requests for linkage to multiple data sets, by understanding how respondents process multiple requests. 4. As a by-product of testing hypotheses about the previous points, to test the effects of different approaches to wording consent questions on informed consent. Our findings are based on a series of experiments conducted in four surveys using two different studies: The Understanding Society Innovation Panel (IP) and the PopulusLive online access panel (AP). The Innovation Panel is part of Understanding Society: the UK Household Longitudinal Study. It is a probability sample of households in Great Britain used for methodological testing, with a design that mirrors that of the main Understanding Society survey. The Innovation Panel survey was conducted in wave 11, fielded in 2018. The Innovation Panel data are available from the UK Data Service (SN: 6849, http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-6849-12). Since the Innovation Panel sample size (around 2,900 respondents) constrained the number of experimental treatment groups we could implement, we fielded a parallel survey with additional experiments, using a different sample. PopulusLive is a non-probability online panel with around 130,000 active sample members, who are recruited through web advertising, word of mouth, and database partners. We used age, gender and education quotas to match the sample composition of the Innovation Panel. A total of nine experiments were conducted across the two sample sources. Experiments 1 to 5 all used variations of a single consent question, about linkage to tax data (held by HM Revenue and Customs, HMRC). Experiments 6 and 7 also used single consent questions, but respondents were either assigned to questions on tax or health data (held by the National Health Service, NHS) linkage. Experiments 8 and 9 used five different data linkage requests: tax data (held by HMRC), health data (held by the NHS), education data (held by the Department for Education in England, DfE, and equivalent departments in Scotland and Wales), household energy data (held the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, BEIS), and benefit and pensions data (held by the Department for Work and Pensions, DWP). The experiments, and the survey(s) on which they were conducted, are briefly summarized here: 1. Easy vs. standard wording of consent request (IP and AP). Half the respondents were allocated to the ‘standard’ question wording, used previously in Understanding Society. The balance was allocated to an ‘easy’ version, where the text was rewritten to reduce reading difficulty and to provide all essential information about the linkage in the question text rather than an additional information leaflet. 2. Early vs. late placement of consent question (IP). Half the respondents were asked for consent early in the interview, the other half were asked at the end. 3. Web vs. face-to-face interview (IP). This experiment exploits the random assignment of IP cases to explore mode effects on consent. 4. Default question wording (AP). Experiment 4 tested a default approach to giving consent, asking respondents to “Press ‘next’ to continue” or explicitly opt out, versus the standard opt-in consent procedure. 5. Additional information question wording (AP).

Topics: