Cited by 29Survey Methodology and NonresponseSurvey Sampling and Estimation TechniquesElectoral Systems and Political Participation

The consequences of personality biases in online panels for measuring public opinion

Valentino, Nicholas A., Zhirkov, Kirill, Hillygus, D. Sunshine, Guay, Brian·2021·Public Opinion Quarterly

Abstract

Online surveys, particularly those that draw samples from online panels of experienced respondents, now comprise a large segment of the academic and commercial opinion research markets due to their low cost and flexibility. A growing literature examines the implications of online surveys for data quality, most commonly by comparing demographic and political characteristics of different samples. In this paper, we explore the possibility that personality may differentially influence the likelihood of participation in online and face-to-face surveys. We argue that individuals high in extraversion and openness to experience may be underrepresented, and those low in these traits overrepresented, in professionalized online panels given the solitary nature of repeated survey-taking. Since openness to experience in particular is associated with liberal policy positions, differences in this trait may bias estimates of public opinion derived from professionalized online panels. Using data from the 2012 and 2016 dual-mode American National Election Studies, we compare political preferences and personality traits across parallel face-to-face and online samples. Respondents in the online samples were, on average, less open to experience and more politically conservative on a variety of issues compared to their face-to-face counterparts. This was true especially in 2012, when online respondents were drawn from a large panel of experienced respondents. We also find openness to be negatively…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/poq/nfaa026

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The 2012 ANES data were not a fresh probability draw but came from a probability-based internet panel, making it difficult to interpret the impact of mode versus sample.

    “Additionally, the 2012 data were different than subsequent online collections: it was not a fresh probability draw (but rather came from a probability-based internet panel) and thus it is difficult to interpret the impact of mode versus sample (seeValentino et al., 2020).”

    From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Valentino et al., 2020

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Valentino, N. A., Zhirkov, K., Hillygus, D. S., & Guay, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Valentino, Nicholas A.
Venue
Public Opinion Quarterly
Published
2020-07-01
Volume
84
Issue
2
Pages
446-468
ISSN
  • 0033-362X (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5331
OpenAlex
W3117503005
Cited by
29
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2
FWCI
4.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Public Opinion Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Survey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Keywords
online panels, extraversion, openness to experience, survey participation, face-to-face surveys, political preferences, survey response rates, public opinion measurement, American National Election Studies

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