IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v95y2019icp211-219.html

Using surveytainment to counter declining survey data quality

Author

Listed:
  • Kostyk, Alena
  • Zhou, Wenkai
  • Hyman, Michael R.

Abstract

One continuing problem for survey researchers is self-reports submitted by inattentive, disengaged, or mischievous respondents. Embedding entertainment-based interruptions—surveytainment—into a questionnaire may improve data quality. After proposing affect regulation and process interruption as the theoretical basis for surveytainment's efficacy, findings from four associated empirical studies are summarized. Collectively, these results suggest survey researchers consider adding surveytainment elements to their questionnaires. In closing, conclusions and implications for future research are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Kostyk, Alena & Zhou, Wenkai & Hyman, Michael R., 2019. "Using surveytainment to counter declining survey data quality," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 211-219.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:95:y:2019:i:c:p:211-219
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296318305058
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.024?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paolacci, Gabriele & Chandler, Jesse & Ipeirotis, Panagiotis G., 2010. "Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(5), pages 411-419, August.
    2. Tian, Kelly Tepper & Bearden, William O & Hunter, Gary L, 2001. "Consumer's Need for Uniqueness: Scale Development and Validation," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(1), pages 50-66, June.
    3. Fleischer, Avi & Mead, Alan D. & Huang, Jialin, 2015. "Inattentive Responding in MTurk and Other Online Samples," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 196-202, June.
    4. Smith, Scott M. & Roster, Catherine A. & Golden, Linda L. & Albaum, Gerald S., 2016. "A multi-group analysis of online survey respondent data quality: Comparing a regular USA consumer panel to MTurk samples," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 3139-3148.
    5. Amos, Clinton & Holmes, Gary R. & Keneson, William C., 2014. "A meta-analysis of consumer impulse buying," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 86-97.
    6. Gabriele Paolacci & Jesse Chandler & Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis, 2010. "Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(5), pages 411-419, August.
    7. Peterson, Robert A, 2001. "On the Use of College Students in Social Science Research: Insights from a Second-Order Meta-analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(3), pages 450-461, December.
    8. Leif D. Nelson & Tom Meyvis & Jeff Galak, 2009. "Enhancing the Television-Viewing Experience through Commercial Interruptions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(2), pages 160-172.
    9. Eduardo B. Andrade, 2005. "Behavioral Consequences of Affect: Combining Evaluative and Regulatory Mechanisms," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 32(3), pages 355-362, December.
    10. Chan Jean Lee & Eduardo B. Andrade & Stephen E. Palmer, 2013. "Interpersonal Relationships and Preferences for Mood-Congruency in Aesthetic Experiences," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 40(2), pages 382-391.
    11. Leonard J. Paas & Meike Morren, 2018. "PLease do not answer if you are reading this: respondent attention in online panels," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 13-21, March.
    12. Rajagopal, 2014. "The Human Factors," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Architecting Enterprise, chapter 9, pages 225-249, Palgrave Macmillan.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aubert, Alice H. & Schmid, Sara & Lienert, Judit, 2024. "Can online interfaces enhance learning for public decision-making? Eliciting citizens’ preferences for multicriteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 314(2), pages 760-775.
    2. Riccardo Vecchio & Gerarda Caso & Luigi Cembalo & Massimiliano Borrello, 2020. "Is respondents? inattention in online surveys a major issue for research?," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 22(1), pages 1-18.
    3. Takumi Kato & Taro Miura, 2021. "The impact of questionnaire length on the accuracy rate of online surveys," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(2), pages 83-98, June.
    4. Vecchio, Riccardo & Caso, Gerarda & Cembalo, Luigi & Borrello, Massimiliano, . "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).

    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. Lutz, Christoph & Newlands, Gemma, 2018. "Consumer segmentation within the sharing economy: The case of Airbnb," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 187-196.
    2. Shabnam H. A. Zanjani & George R. Milne & Elizabeth G. Miller, 2016. "Procrastinators’ online experience and purchase behavior," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 568-585, September.
    3. 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).
    4. Maier, Michael F. & Viete, Steffen & Ody, Margard, 2017. "Plattformbasierte Erwerbsarbeit: Stand der empirischen Forschung," IZA Research Reports 81, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Orazi, Davide C. & Johnston, Allen C., 2020. "Running field experiments using Facebook split test," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 189-198.
    6. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & James Murphy & Jason F. Shogren, 2019. "Lying and Shirking Under Oath," Working Papers 19-19, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
      • Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & James J. Murphy & Jason F. Shogren, 2019. "Lying and Shirking Under Oath," Working Papers 2019-02, University of Alaska Anchorage, Department of Economics.
    7. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander G James & Stéphane Luchini & James J Murphy & Jason F Shogren, 2021. "Do truth-telling oaths improve honesty in crowd-working?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-18, January.
    8. Burdea, Valeria & Woon, Jonathan, 2022. "Online belief elicitation methods," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    9. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Kujal, Praveen & Lenkei, Balint, 2019. "Cognitive reflection test: Whom, how, when," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    10. Christoph Bartneck & Andreas Duenser & Elena Moltchanova & Karolina Zawieska, 2015. "Comparing the Similarity of Responses Received from Studies in Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to Studies Conducted Online and with Direct Recruitment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23, April.
    11. Kumar, Minu & Noble, Charles H., 2016. "Beyond form and function: Why do consumers value product design?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 613-620.
    12. Ina Garnefeld & Andreas Eggert & Markus Husemann-Kopetzky & Eva Böhm, 2019. "Exploring the link between payment schemes and customer fraud: a mental accounting perspective," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 595-616, July.
    13. Sayooran Nagulendra & Julita Vassileva, 2016. "Providing awareness, explanation and control of personalized filtering in a social networking site," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 145-158, February.
    14. Arndt, Aaron D. & Ford, John B. & Babin, Barry J. & Luong, Vinh, 2022. "Collecting samples from online services: How to use screeners to improve data quality," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 117-133.
    15. Sung, Billy & Crawford, Robert & Teah, Min & Stankovic, Michelle & Phau, Ian, 2020. "The “timber box†effect for premium wines," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    16. Martin Bruder & Anja S. Göritz & Ulf-Dietrich Reips & Ramon K. Gebhard, 2014. "Ein national gefördertes Onlinelabor als Infrastruktur für die psychologische Forschung," RatSWD Working Papers 240, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    17. Han, Min Chung, 2023. "Checkout button and online consumer impulse-buying behavior in social commerce: A trust transfer perspective," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    18. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    19. Pengji Wang & Adrian T. H. Kuah & Qinye Lu & Caroline Wong & K. Thirumaran & Emmanuel Adegbite & Wesley Kendall, 2021. "The impact of value perceptions on purchase intention of sustainable luxury brands in China and the UK," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 28(3), pages 325-346, May.
    20. Frederiks, Arjan J. & Englis, Basil G. & Ehrenhard, Michel L. & Groen, Aard J., 2019. "Entrepreneurial cognition and the quality of new venture ideas: An experimental approach to comparing future-oriented cognitive processes," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 327-347.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:jbrese:v:95:y:2019:i:c:p:211-219. 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: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres .

    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.