Abstract In this note, we offer a cautionary tale on the dangers of drawing inferences from low-quality online survey datasets. We reanalyze and replicate a survey experiment studying the effect of acquiescence bias on estimates of conspiratorial beliefs and political misinformation. Correcting a minor data coding error yields a puzzling result: respondents with a postgraduate education appear to be the most prone to acquiescence bias. We conduct two preregistered replication studies to better understand this finding. In our first replication, conducted using the same survey platform as the original study, we find a nearly identical set of results. But in our second replication, conducted with a larger and higher-quality survey panel, this apparent effect disappears. We conclude that the observed relationship was an artifact of inattentive and fraudulent responses in the original survey panel, and that attention checks alone do not fully resolve the problem. This demonstrates how “survey trolls” and inattentive respondents on low-quality survey platforms can generate spurious and theoretically confusing results.
Cruz et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: