Caring about carelessness: Participant inattention and its effects on research
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Attention check items were used to screen out inattentive participants to improve data quality, as recommended by Maniaci and Rogge (2014).
“As online questionnaires are especially vulnerable to inattentive responding (which could be increased even further by the monetary compensation), we used attention check items, as recommended by Maniaci and Rogge (2014). We used a total of 4 items throughout the questionnaire to screen out inattentive participants to improve data quality”
From Effects of Explainable Artificial Intelligence on trust and human behavior in a high-risk decision task (2023) · cites this paper as Maniaci and Rogge (2014)
Data quality was ensured by excluding inattentive or careless responses using a Directed Question Scale attention check and extreme response duration criteria.
“To ensure data quality, responses from inattentive or careless individuals were excluded from the analysis through multiple criteria.”
From Development and validation of the Japanese version of the psychological preparedness for disaster threat scale (2026) · cites this paper as [24]
Cites
Society and the Adolescent Self-Image
Rosenberg, M. (1965) · doi:10.1515/9781400876136 · Cited by 30,126 · see citing works
Identifying careless responses in survey data.
Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0028085 · Cited by 3,865 · see citing works
Two-component models of socially desirable responding.
Paulhus, D. L. (1984) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598 · Cited by 3,013 · see citing works
Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007) · Journal of Family Psychology · doi:10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572 · Cited by 1,806 · see citing works
Self-citationSchmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168 · Cited by 1,391 · see citing works
Personality Assessment Inventory
Morey, L. C. (2011) · PsycTESTS Dataset · doi:10.1037/t03903-000 · Cited by 537 · see citing works
Saavedra, M. C., Chapman, K. E., & Rogge, R. D. (2010) · Journal of Family Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0019872 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Methods for the detection of carelessly invalid responses in survey data
Curran, P. G. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.07.006 · Cited by 1,356 · see citing works
Brinker, T. J., Hekler, A., Enk, A. H., Klode, J., Hauschild, A., Berking, C., Schilling, B., Haferkamp, S., Schadendorf, D., Holland-Letz, T., et al. (2019) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2019.04.001 · Cited by 605 · see citing works
Martela, F., Ryan, R. M., & Steger, M. F. (2018) · Journal of Happiness Studies · doi:10.1007/s10902-017-9869-7 · Cited by 363 · see citing works
Man versus machine: Complex estimates and auditor reliance on artificial intelligence
COMMERFORD, B. P., DENNIS, S. A., JOE, J. R., & ULLA, J. W. (2022) · Journal of Accounting Research · doi:10.1111/1475-679x.12407 · Cited by 270 · see citing works
Kreitchmann, R. S., Abad, F. J., Ponsoda, V., Nieto, M. D., & Morillo, D. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02309 · Cited by 269 · see citing works
Gardner, B., Phillips, L. A., & Judah, G. (2016) · British Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjhp.12189 · Cited by 232 · see citing works
Careless responding in questionnaire measures: Detection, impact, and remedies
Goldammer, P., Annen, H., Stöckli, P. L., & Jonas, K. (2020) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101384 · Cited by 200 · see citing works
Leichtmann, B., Humer, C., Hinterreiter, A., Streit, M., & Mara, M. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107539 · Cited by 200 · see citing works
Brühlmann, F., Petralito, S., Aeschbach, L. F., & Opwis, K. (2020) · Methods in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.metip.2020.100022 · Cited by 168 · see citing works
When every day is a high school reunion: Social media comparisons and self-esteem.
Midgley, C., Thai, S., Lockwood, P., Kovacheff, C., & Page-Gould, E. (2021) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspi0000336 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
Martela, F., & Ryan, R. M. (2020) · Motivation and Emotion · doi:10.1007/s11031-019-09800-x · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Perceived partner responsiveness promotes intellectual humility
Reis, H. T., Lee, K. Y., O'Keefe, S. D., & Clark, M. S. (2018) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2018.05.006 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Rogge, R. D., Lin, Y.-Y., Swanson, D. P., & Amaro, A. (2024) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-022-01886-8 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Self-citationFlynn, M. K., Bordieri, M. J., & Berkout, O. V. (2019) · Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science · doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.12.002 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Plohl, N., Mlakar, I., Aquilino, L., Bisconti, P., & Smrke, U. (2025) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2384821 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Kubo, T., Takamoto, M., Suzuki, M., Takenouchi, K., & Sadamitsu, C. (2026) · BMC Psychology · doi:10.1186/s40359-026-05639-3 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Maniaci, M. R., & Rogge, R. D.
- Affiliations
- University of Rochester (US)
- Corresponding author
- Rogge, Ronald D.
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Personality
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-02
- Volume
- 48
- Pages
- 61-83
- ISSN
- 0092-6566 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1991966247
- Cited by
- 852
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 89 · 2025: 110 · 2024: 114 · 2023: 101 · 2022: 90 · 2021: 64 · 2020: 73 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 57 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 5
- FWCI
- 52.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Research in Personality (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Keywords
- statistical power, effect size estimation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
