IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/sieaea/305221.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is respondents’ inattention in online surveys a major issue for research?

Author

Listed:
  • Vecchio, Riccardo
  • Caso, Gerarda
  • Cembalo, Luigi
  • Borrello, Massimiliano

Abstract

Participant attentiveness may represent a major concern for all researchers using online self-report survey data, as findings from non-diligent participants add noise and can significantly decrease results reliability. Therefore, attention checks have become a popular method in survey design across social sciences to capture careless or insufficient-effort of respondents, thus increasing quality of samples and the internal validity of the research. The aim of this note is to offer an overview and categorization of the different techniques adopted to flag inattentive respondents and present the potential drawbacks of not considering the issue in social sciences research.

Suggested Citation

  • Vecchio, Riccardo & Caso, Gerarda & Cembalo, Luigi & Borrello, Massimiliano, 2020. "Is respondents’ inattention in online surveys a major issue for research?," Economia agro-alimentare / Food Economy, Italian Society of Agri-food Economics/Società Italiana di Economia Agro-Alimentare (SIEA), vol. 22(1), March.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:sieaea:305221
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.305221
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/305221/files/10069-40380-2-PB.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.305221?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Trey Malone & Jayson L. Lusk, 2019. "Releasing The Trap: A Method To Reduce Inattention Bias In Survey Data With Application To U.S. Beer Taxes," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 57(1), pages 584-599, January.
    2. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    3. Adam J. Berinsky & Michele F. Margolis & Michael W. Sances, 2014. "Separating the Shirkers from the Workers? Making Sure Respondents Pay Attention on Self‐Administered Surveys," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(3), pages 739-753, July.
    4. Alvarez, R. Michael & Atkeson, Lonna Rae & Levin, Ines & Li, Yimeng, 2019. "Paying Attention to Inattentive Survey Respondents," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 145-162, April.
    5. Tobias Börger, 2016. "Are Fast Responses More Random? Testing the Effect of Response Time on Scale in an Online Choice Experiment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(2), pages 389-413, October.
    6. Gao, Zhifeng & House, Lisa & Bi, Xiang, 2016. "Impact of satisficing behavior in online surveys on consumer preference and welfare estimates," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 26-36.
    7. Alessandro Liberati & Douglas G Altman & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Cynthia Mulrow & Peter C Gøtzsche & John P A Ioannidis & Mike Clarke & P J Devereaux & Jos Kleijnen & David Moher, 2009. "The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-28, July.
    8. Kostyk, Alena & Zhou, Wenkai & Hyman, Michael R., 2019. "Using surveytainment to counter declining survey data quality," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 211-219.
    9. Malone, Trey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2018. "Consequences of Participant Inattention with an Application to Carbon Taxes for Meat Products," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 218-230.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Riccardo Vecchio & Eva Parga-Dans & Pablo Alonso González & Azzurra Annunziata, 2021. "Why consumers drink natural wine? Consumer perception and information about natural wine," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-16, December.
    2. Fabio A. Madau & Brunella Arru & Roberto Furesi & Paola Sau & Pietro Pulina, 2022. "Public perception of ecosystem and social services produced by Sardinia extensive dairy sheep farming systems," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 10(1), pages 1-42, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Riccardo Vecchio & Gerarda Caso & Luigi Cembalo & Massimiliano Borrello, 2020. "Is respondents? inattention in online surveys a major issue for research?," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 22(1), pages 1-18.
    2. Haotian Cheng & Dayton M. Lambert & Karen L. DeLong & Kimberly L. Jensen, 2022. "Inattention, availability bias, and attribute premium estimation for a biobased product," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(2), pages 274-288, March.
    3. Erlend Dancke Sandorf, 2019. "Did You Miss Something? Inattentive Respondents in Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(4), pages 1197-1235, August.
    4. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    5. Jimin Pyo & Michael G. Maxfield, 2021. "Cognitive Effects of Inattentive Responding in an MTurk Sample," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 2020-2039, July.
    6. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga Jr., Rodolfo M., 2017. "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266327, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    7. Nguyen, Ly & Gao, Zhifeng & Anderson, James L., 2022. "Regulating menu information: What do consumers care and not care about at casual and fine dining restaurants for seafood consumption?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    8. Del Ponte, Alessandro & Li, Lianjun & Ang, Lina & Lim, Noah & Seow, Wei Jie, 2024. "Evaluating SoJump.com as a tool for online behavioral research in China," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    9. Bansak, Kirk & Paulson, Elisabeth, 2023. "Public Opinion on Fairness and Efficiency for Algorithmic and Human Decision-Makers," OSF Preprints pghmx, Center for Open Science.
    10. Lusk, Jayson L., 2019. "Income and (Ir) rational food choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 630-645.
    11. Héctor Tavárez & Alicia Barriga, 2023. "Economic Viability of Developing Passive Recreational Opportunities in Puerto Rico: Insights for Sustainable Forest Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-17, October.
    12. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    13. Sunjin Ahn & Jayson L. Lusk, 2021. "Non‐Pecuniary Effects of Sugar‐Sweetened Beverage Policies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(1), pages 53-69, January.
    14. Brittney Goodrich & Marieke Fenton & Jerrod Penn & John Bovay & Travis Mountain, 2023. "Battling bots: Experiences and strategies to mitigate fraudulent responses in online surveys," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 762-784, June.
    15. Zhou, Jiehong & Liu, Qing & Mao, Rui & Yu, Xiaohua, 2017. "Habit spillovers or induced awareness: Willingness to pay for eco-labels of rice in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 62-73.
    16. Regier, Dean A. & Sicsic, Jonathan & Watson, Verity, 2019. "Choice certainty and deliberative thinking in discrete choice experiments. A theoretical and empirical investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 235-255.
    17. Lusk, Jayson L. & Crespi, John M. & McFadden, Brandon R. & Cherry, J. Bradley C. & Martin, Laura & Bruce, Amanda, 2016. "Neural antecedents of a random utility model," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 132(PA), pages 93-103.
    18. Tripathy, Prajukta & Jena, Pabitra Kumar & Mishra, Bikash Ranjan, 2024. "Systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis of energy efficiency," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    19. Elizabeth T Cafiero-Fonseca & Andrew Stawasz & Sydney T Johnson & Reiko Sato & David E Bloom, 2017. "The full benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccination: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    20. Ludoviko Zirimenya & Fatima Mahmud-Ajeigbe & Ruth McQuillan & You Li, 2020. "A systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the association between urogenital schistosomiasis and HIV/AIDS infection," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-13, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:sieaea:305221. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sieaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.