IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Self-reported cheating in web surveys on political knowledge

Listed author(s):
  • Carsten Jensen


  • Jens Thomsen


Registered author(s):

    Measuring citizens’ political knowledge is important for understanding public opinion formation. In view of the increasing popularity of Web surveys, this paper examines the limitations of this interviewing facility when measuring factual political knowledge. We show that Web surveys contain a source of measurement error as respondents can “Google” the correct answers. This cheating activity is our principal concern. Past efforts are extended by: (1) offering a self-reported estimate of the share of Googling cheaters, (2) showing that the positive effect of education on factual political knowledge is most probably underestimated when cheating occurs, and (3) showing that self-reported cheating activity is inversely related to actual response time. In the concluding section, we discuss the implications of these results and the extent to which cheating can be reduced. The empirical analyses are based on a Danish Web sample from 2012 (N $$=$$ = 1,509). Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Springer in its journal Quality & Quantity.

    Volume (Year): 48 (2014)
    Issue (Month): 6 (November)
    Pages: 3343-3354

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:48:y:2014:i:6:p:3343-3354
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-013-9960-z
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Web:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. repec:cup:apsrev:v:95:y:2001:i:02:p:379-396_00 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Alvarez, R. Michael & Sherman, Robert P. & VanBeselaere, Carla, 2003. "Subject Acquisition for Web-Based Surveys," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(01), pages 23-43, December.
    3. Mondak, Jeffery J., 1999. "Reconsidering the Measurement of Political Knowledge," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(01), pages 57-82, January.
    4. Berrens, Robert P. & Bohara, Alok K. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank & Silva, Carol & Weimer, David L., 2003. "The Advent of Internet Surveys for Political Research: A Comparison of Telephone and Internet Samples," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(01), pages 1-22, December.
    5. Claudia Biancotti, 2006. "A polarization of inequality? The distribution of national Gini coefficients 1970–1996," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 4(1), pages 1-32, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:48:y:2014:i:6:p:3343-3354. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)

    or (Rebekah McClure)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.