The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Is There a Cost to Convenience? An Experimental Comparison of Data Quality in Laboratory and Online Studies
Abstract
Increasingly, experimental research is being conducted on the Internet in addition to the laboratory. Online experiments are more convenient for subjects and researchers, but we know little about how the choice of study location affects data quality. To investigate whether respondent behavior differs across study location, we randomly assign subjects to participate in a study in a laboratory or in an online setting. Contrary to our expectations, we find few differences between participants in terms of the level of attention and socially desirable responding. However, we find significant differences in two areas: the degree of self-reported distractions while completing the questionnaire and the tendency to consult outside sources for answers to political knowledge questions. We conclude that when the greater convenience (and higher response rates) of online experiments outweighs these disadvantages, Internet administration of randomized experiments represent an alternative to laboratory administration.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057 · Cited by 4,008
Identifying careless responses in survey data.
Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0028085 · Cited by 3,865
Sensitive questions in surveys.
Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.859 · Cited by 3,057
Data collection in a flat world: the strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples
Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.1753 · Cited by 2,242
Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2013) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139032490 · Cited by 1,281
Berinsky, A. J., Margolis, M. F., & Sances, M. W. (2014) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12081 · Cited by 951 · cited 2×
“4 Whereas IMCs are considered a general measure of attention (Berinsky, Margolis, and Sances 2014), substantive manipulation checks determine whether a particular experimental treatment was received (Mutz 2011).”
BackgroundResultPopulation-Based Survey Experiments
Mutz, D. C. (2011) · doi:10.1515/9781400840489 · Cited by 674
Population-Based Survey Experiments
Mutz, D. C. (2011) · doi:10.23943/princeton/9780691144511.001.0001 · Cited by 104
Cited by
Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2016) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z · Cited by 1,739
Conducting Clinical Research Using Crowdsourced Convenience Samples
Chandler, J., & Shapiro, D. (2016) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093623 · Cited by 1,072
Does Counter-Attitudinal Information Cause Backlash? Results from Three Large Survey Experiments
Guess, A., & Coppock, A. (2020) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0007123418000327 · Cited by 372
Realistic precision and accuracy of online experiment platforms, web browsers, and devices
Anwyl-Irvine, A., Dalmaijer, E. S., Hodges, N., & Evershed, J. K. (2021) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-020-01501-5 · Cited by 341
Comparing attentional disengagement between prolific and MTurk samples
Albert, D. A., & Smilek, D. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-46048-5 · Cited by 166
Metadata
- Authors
- Clifford, S., & Jerit, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Political Science
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2014
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 120-131
- ISSN
- 2052-2630 (ISSN-L)
- 2052-2649
- OpenAlex
- W2131691843
- Cited by
- 206
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 38.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Is There a Cost to Convenience? An Experimental Comparison of Data Quality in Laboratory and Online Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/xps.2014.5
- The paper
- Clifford, S., & Jerit, J. (2014). Is There a Cost to Convenience? An Experimental Comparison of Data Quality in Laboratory and Online Studies. Journal of Experimental Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2014.5
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
