Representativeness and Response Validity Across Nine Opt-In Online Samples
Open accessAbstract
The study of human behavior has shifted in the last fifteen years, with increasing reliance on opt-in non-probability online data sources. We offer an analysis of nine such data sources (total N = 13,053), aiming to inform researchers conducting experiments or correlational studies. We assess response validity (attentiveness, effort, honesty, speeding, and attrition), the extent to which samples represent the underlying population (observable demographics, measured attitude representativeness, and responding to experimental treatments), and professionalism (number of studies taken, frequency of taking studies, and modality of device on which the study is taken). We document substantial variation across these samples on each dimension. Samples that employ demographic quotas display relatively higher amounts of representativeness across multiple indicators (beyond demographics) but often exhibit less response validity. However, the inclusion of two attention checks early in a study enhances response validity without negatively impacting representativeness. We offer guidance for choosing opt-in samples, depending on the purpose of the research and resource constraints.
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
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.
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 sample was a nationally representative, quota-matched sample of N = 1011 participants from Bovitz, Inc.
“In Wave 1 of the study, we recruited a nationally representative, quota-matched sample of N = 1011 participants from Bovitz, Inc.32.”
From Factual knowledge can reduce attitude polarization (2025) · cites this paper as [32]
The Breakdown of the samples section describes Bovitz-Forthright as a source of samples quota-matched to national distributions for age, gender, ethnicity, and region. The Representativeness section says its sample was more representative than convenience samples, not that it was nationally representative. The cited paper reports 1,115 Bovitz participants; it does not verify the citing authors’ Wave 1 count of 1,011. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 44 · Cited by 68
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Druckman, J. N., & Kam, C. D. (2011). Students as experimental participants. Cambridge handbook of experimental political science, 1, 41-57.
- Jefferson, H. (2020). The curious case of Black conservatives: construct validity and the 7-point liberal-conservative scale. Available at SSRN 3602209.
- Malhotra, N., & Popp, E. (2012). Bridging partisan divisions over antiterrorism policies: The role of threat perceptions. Political Research Quarterly, 65(1), 34-47.
- Miratrix, L. W., Sekhon, J. S., Theodoridis, A. G., & Campos, L. F. (2018). Worth weighting? How to think about and use weights in survey experiments. Political Analysis, 26(3), 275- 291.
- Rand, D. G., Peysakhovich, A., Kraft-Todd, G. T., Newman, G. E., Wurzbacher, O., Nowak, M. A., & Greene, J. D. (2014). Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation. Nature communications, 5(1), 3677.
- Franco, Annie, Neil Malhotra, Gabor Simonovits, and L. J. Zigerell. "Developing standards for post-hoc weighting in population-based survey experiments." Journal of Experimental Political Science 4, no. 2 (2017): 161-172.
- Kolenikov, Stanislav. "Updates to the ipfraking ecosystem." The Stata Journal 19.1 (2019): 143- 184.
- Winship, Christopher, and Larry Radbill. "Sampling weights and regression analysis." Sociological Methods & Research 23.2 (1994): 230-257. · DOI
- Authors
- Stagnaro, M. N., Druckman, J., Berinsky, A. J., Arechar, A. A., Willer, R., & Rand, D. G.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- University of Rochester (US)
- Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (MX)
- Stanford University (US)
- ORCID
- Publisher
- Center for Open Science
- Published
- 2024-02-22
- OpenAlex
- W4392056515
- Cited by
- 68
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 19
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Survey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
- Keywords
- non-probability samples, sample representativeness, response validity, attention checks, sample attrition, response effort
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
