IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/beexfi/v41y2024ics2214635024000200.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating SoJump.com as a tool for online behavioral research in China

Author

Listed:
  • Del Ponte, Alessandro
  • Li, Lianjun
  • Ang, Lina
  • Lim, Noah
  • Seow, Wei Jie

Abstract

SoJump.com (wjx.cn; in short: SoJump) is a survey company that allows researchers to build and deploy inexpensive online surveys in China. Here we evaluate SoJump’s data quality and similarity to the national benchmark. In the first study, we compare SoJump’s performance in China to MTurk’s performance against national benchmarks in the United States and India. In the second study, we compare three Chinese platforms in two-wave panel studies. We conducted the panels on SoJump, Credamo (SoJump’s major competitor), and Cint (national benchmark). We included attention and comprehension checks, economic games, cognitive tasks, and a framing experiment. We find that SoJump’s sample is younger, better educated, more urban, higher-income, and more female than Cint, similar to MTurk in the U.S. and India. Compared to Credamo, SoJump is more similar to Cint both for data quality and behavior. We conclude that SoJump is appropriate to inexpensively access nationally diverse samples in China.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:beexfi:v:41:y:2024:i:c:s2214635024000200
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbef.2024.100905
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214635024000200
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jbef.2024.100905?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. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    2. Joseph Henrich & Steve J. Heine & Ara Norenzayan, 2010. "The Weirdest People in the World?," RatSWD Working Papers 139, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    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. Ying, Shiyi & Huang, Youlin & Qian, Lixian & Song, Jinzhu, 2023. "Privacy paradox for location tracking in mobile social networking apps: The perspectives of behavioral reasoning and regulatory focus," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Kevin E. Levay & Jeremy Freese & James N. Druckman, 2016. "The Demographic and Political Composition of Mechanical Turk Samples," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(1), pages 21582440166, March.
    7. Fournier, Patrick & Soroka, Stuart & Nir, Lilach, 2020. "Negativity Biases and Political Ideology: A Comparative Test across 17 Countries," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 114(3), pages 775-791, August.
    8. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    9. Rong Zhu & Xinyu Zhang & Alan T. K. Wan & Guohua Zou, 2022. "Kernel Averaging Estimators," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(1), pages 157-169, December.
    10. John V. Kane & Jason Barabas, 2019. "No Harm in Checking: Using Factual Manipulation Checks to Assess Attentiveness in Experiments," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 63(1), pages 234-249, January.
    11. Daly, Timothy M. & Nataraajan, Rajan, 2015. "Swapping bricks for clicks: Crowdsourcing longitudinal data on Amazon Turk," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2603-2609.
    12. Palan, Stefan & Schitter, Christian, 2018. "Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 22-27.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. 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(01), March.
    3. Lude, Maximilian & Prügl, Reinhard, 2021. "Experimental studies in family business research," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 12(1).
    4. Haas, Nicholas & Hassan, Mazen & Mansour, Sarah & Morton, Rebecca B., 2021. "Polarizing information and support for reform," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 883-901.
    5. John Hulland & Jeff Miller, 2018. "“Keep on Turkin’”?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 789-794, September.
    6. Gandullia, Luca & Lezzi, Emanuela & Parciasepe, Paolo, 2020. "Replication with MTurk of the experimental design by Gangadharan, Grossman, Jones & Leister (2018): Charitable giving across donor types," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    7. Prissé, Benjamin & Jorrat, Diego, 2022. "Lab vs online experiments: No differences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    8. Marco Catola & Simone D'Alessandro & Pietro Guarnieri & Veronica Pizziol, 2020. "Multilevel Public Goods Game: an Online Experiment," Discussion Papers 2020/263, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    9. Valerio Capraro & Hélène Barcelo, 2021. "Punishing defectors and rewarding cooperators: Do people discriminate between genders?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(1), pages 19-32, September.
    10. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Diego Jorrat & Antonio M. Espín & Angel Sánchez, 2023. "Paid and hypothetical time preferences are the same: lab, field and online evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(2), pages 412-434, April.
    11. Michele Garagnani, 2023. "The predictive power of risk elicitation tasks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 165-192, October.
    12. Alexsandros Cavgias & Raphael Corbi, Luis Meloni, Lucas M. Novaes, 2019. "EDITED DEMOCRACY: Media Manipulation and the News Coverage of Presidential Debates," Working Papers, Department of Economics 2019_17, University of São Paulo (FEA-USP).
    13. Eugene Y. Chan & Jack Lin, 2022. "Political ideology and psychological reactance: how serious should climate change be?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 172(1), pages 1-22, May.
    14. Carola Binder, 2020. "Coronavirus Fears and Macroeconomic Expectations," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(4), pages 721-730, October.
    15. Le Maux, Benoît & Necker, Sarah, 2023. "Honesty nudges: Effect varies with content but not with timing," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 207(C), pages 433-456.
    16. Chandler, Dana & Kapelner, Adam, 2013. "Breaking monotony with meaning: Motivation in crowdsourcing markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 123-133.
    17. Irene Scopelliti & Carey K. Morewedge & Erin McCormick & H. Lauren Min & Sophie Lebrecht & Karim S. Kassam, 2015. "Bias Blind Spot: Structure, Measurement, and Consequences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(10), pages 2468-2486, October.
    18. Carola Binder, 2021. "Presidential antagonism and central bank credibility," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 244-263, July.
    19. Sönke Ehret & Sara M. Constantino & Elke U. Weber & Charles Efferson & Sonja Vogt, 2022. "Group Identities Make Fragile Tipping Points," CESifo Working Paper Series 9737, CESifo.
    20. Michael N. Stagnaro & Robert M. Ross & Gordon Pennycook & David G. Rand, 2019. "Cross-cultural support for a link between analytic thinking and disbelief in God: Evidence from India and the United Kingdom," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(2), pages 179-186, March.

    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:eee:beexfi:v:41:y:2024:i:c:s2214635024000200. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-behavioral-and-experimental-finance .

    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.