IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bbr/workpa/13.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Impact of Repeated Lying on Survey Results

Author

Abstract

A Monte Carlo simulation study is carried out to examine the effects on study results of subjects completing a survey more than once. Three strategies subjects might use to do this - which is known as farming - are studied. Findings show that farming influences results and can cause both statistical hypothesis testing Type I (false positive) and Type II (false negative) errors in unpredictable ways. A literature review from one management sub-discipline (marketing) was undertaken to investigate how common problem farming might be. Results suggest that while the incentivised survey method which might encourage farming is popular and some approaches to data collection make it difficult to prevent farming altogether, it is unlikely to be commonplace as many research methods prevent it.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Chesney & Kay Penny, 2010. "The Impact of Repeated Lying on Survey Results," ICBBR Working Papers 13, International Centre for Behavioural Business Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:bbr:workpa:13
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~lizecon/RePEc/bbr/pdf/13.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Survey; Incentive; Online;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:bbr:workpa:13. 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: Laure Cabantous (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/smnotuk.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.