IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/polals/v24y2016i03p356-373_01.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Survey Experiments with Google Consumer Surveys: Promise and Pitfalls for Academic Research in Social Science

Author

Listed:
  • Santoso, Lie Philip
  • Stein, Robert
  • Stevenson, Randy

Abstract

In this article, we evaluate the usefulness of Google Consumer Surveys (GCS) as a low-cost tool for doing rigorous social scientific work. We find that its relative strengths and weaknesses make it most useful to researchers who attempt to identify causality through randomization to treatment groups rather than selection on observables. This finding stems, in part, from the fact that the real cost advantage of GCS over other alternatives is limited to short surveys with a small number of questions. Based on our replication of four canonical social scientific experiments and one study of treatment heterogeneity, we find that the platform can be used effectively to achieve balance across treatment groups, explore treatment heterogeneity, include manipulation checks, and that the provided inferred demographics may be sufficiently sound for weighting and explorations of heterogeneity. Crucially, we successfully managed to replicate the usual directional finding in each experiment. Overall, GCS is likely to be a useful platform for survey experimentalists.

Suggested Citation

  • Santoso, Lie Philip & Stein, Robert & Stevenson, Randy, 2016. "Survey Experiments with Google Consumer Surveys: Promise and Pitfalls for Academic Research in Social Science," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(3), pages 356-373, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:24:y:2016:i:03:p:356-373_01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S104719870001408X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Austin M Strange & Ryan D Enos & Mark Hill & Amy Lakeman, 2019. "Online volunteer laboratories for human subjects research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-13, August.
    2. Dhaval Dave & Daniel Dench & Donald Kenkel & Alan Mathios & Hua Wang, 2020. "News that takes your breath away: risk perceptions during an outbreak of vaping-related lung injuries," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 60(3), pages 281-307, June.
    3. Charles M. Kahn & Maarten van Oordt & Yu Zhu, 2021. "Best Before? Expiring Central Bank Digital Currency and Loss Recovery," Staff Working Papers 21-67, Bank of Canada.
    4. Ahmad, Syed Zamberi & Khalid, Khalizani, 2017. "The adoption of M-government services from the user’s perspectives: Empirical evidence from the United Arab Emirates," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 367-379.
    5. Erik Brynjolfsson & John J. Horton & Adam Ozimek & Daniel Rock & Garima Sharma & Hong-Yi TuYe, 2020. "COVID-19 and Remote Work: An Early Look at US Data," NBER Working Papers 27344, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Joshua Robison & Randy T. Stevenson & James N. Druckman & Simon Jackman & Jonathan N. Katz & Lynn Vavreck, 2018. "An Audit of Political Behavior Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(3), pages 21582440187, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cup:polals:v:24:y:2016:i:03:p:356-373_01. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pan .

    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.