IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/polals/v34y2026i3p471-478_10.html

Survey Quality and Acquiescence Bias: A Cautionary Tale

Author

Listed:
  • Cruz, Andrés
  • Bouyamourn, Adam
  • Ornstein, Joseph T.

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Cruz, Andrés & Bouyamourn, Adam & Ornstein, Joseph T., 2026. "Survey Quality and Acquiescence Bias: A Cautionary Tale," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(3), pages 471-478, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:34:y:2026:i:3:p:471-478_10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1047198725100302/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:34:y:2026:i:3:p:471-478_10. 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.