Web Survey Bibliography
Title Answering Without Reading: IMCs and Strong Satisficing in Online Surveys
Author Anduiza, E.; Galais, C.
Source International Journal of Public Opinion Research; 29, 3, pp. 497-519
Year 2017
Database Oxford Journals
Access date 24.10.2017
Abstract Some respondents of online surveys click responses at random. Screeners or instructional manipulation checks (IMC) have become customary for identifying this strong form of satisficing. This research first analyzes the factors that condition IMC failures using an online panel survey carried out in Spain (2011–2015). Our data show that the probability of passing a screener depends mainly on the screener’s difficulty, the individuals’ intrinsic motivations for answering the survey, and past failures. We then address the substantive consequences of omitting those who fail to pass IMCs. We find that this strategy introduces an additional source of bias in descriptive analyses. The article ends with a discussion of the implications that these findings have for the use of IMCs.
Access/Direct link Journal Homepage (abstract) / (full text)
Year of publication2017
Bibliographic typeJournal article
Full text availabilityAvailable on request
Web survey bibliography - International Journal of Public Opinion Research (21)
- Answering Without Reading: IMCs and Strong Satisficing in Online Surveys; 2017; Anduiza, E.; Galais, C.
- When will Nonprobability Surveys Mirror Probability Surveys? Considering Types of Inference and Weighting...; 2016; Pasek, J.
- Reducing Underreports of Behaviors in Retrospective Surveys: The Effects of Three Different Strategies...; 2016; Lugtig, P. J.; Glasner, T.; Boeve, A.
- Why Do Respondents Break Off Web Surveys and Does It Matter? Results From Four Follow-up Surveys; 2014; Rossmann, J., Blumenstiel, J. E., Steinbrecher, M.
- Measuring Political Participation—Testing Social Desirability Bias in a Web-Survey Experiment; 2014; Persson, M., Solevid, M.
- Is it what you say, or how you say It? An experimental analysis of the effects of invitation wording...; 2014; Fazekas, Z., Wall, M. T., Krouwel, A.
- A Comparison of the Quality of Questions in a Face-to-face and a Web Survey; 2013; Revilla, M., Saris, W. E.
- Evaluation of an online (opt-in) panel for public participation geographic information systems surveys...; 2012; Brown, G., Weber, D., Zanon, D., de Bie, K.
- Assessing Cross-National Equivalence of Measures of Xenophobia: Evidence from Probing in Web Surveys; 2012; Behr, D., Braun, M., Kaczmirek, L.
- Efficiency of Different Recruitment Strategies for Web Panels; 2012; Hansen, K. M., Pedersen, R. T.
- Do Questions about Watching Internet Pornography Make People Watch Internet Pornography? A Comparison...; 2012; Peter, J., Valkenburg, P. M.
- Refining the Total Survey Error Perspective; 2011; Smith, T. W.
- Seeing Through the Eyes of the Respondent: An Eye-tracking Study on Survey Question Comprehension; 2011; Lenzner, A., Kaczmirek, L., Galesic, M.
- Should I Stay or Should I go: The Effects of Progress Feedback, Promised Task Duration, and Length of...; 2011; Yan, T., Conrad, F. G., Tourangeau, R., Couper, M. P.
- The Effect of Phrasing Scale Items in Low-Brow or High-Brow Language on Responses; 2009; Blasius, J., Friedrichs, J.
- Mode Differences Between Face-to-Face and Web Surveys: An Experimental Investigation of Data Quality...; 2009; Heerwegh, D.
- Cognitive Aspects of Survey Measurement and Mismeasurement; 2003; Tourangeau, R.
- Item Nonresponse: Distinguishing between don't Know and Refuse; 2002; Pamela J. Shoemaker, Martin Eichholz and Elizabeth A. Skewes
- New approaches to assessing opinion: The prospects for electronic mail surveys; 2002; Best, S. J., Krueger, B. S.
- Formal features of rating scales and their interpretation of question meaning; 1998; Schwarz, N., Grayson, C. E., Knauper, B.
- The numeric values of rating scales: A comparison of their impact in mail surveys and telephone interviews...; 1994; Schwarz, N., Hippler, H. J.