Caring about carelessness: Participant inattention and its effects on research.

By Michael R. Maniaci, Ronald D. Rogge. 2014

764 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/844b890cdb1c948bddd194460faf7d2bb1bee417

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

No Harm in Checking: Using Factual Manipulation Checks to Assess Attentiveness in Experiments (2018, background): “More generally, researchers also use MCs to assess respondent attentiveness during a study, such as via specific questions given to participants to judge whether they are reading carefully (e.g., Anduiza and Galais 2016; Crump, McDonnell, and Gureckis 2013; Maniaci and Rogge 2014).”
Evaluating the Domain Specificity of Mental Health–Related Mind-Sets (2016, background): “Although mind-set specificity has been investigated for broad attributes such as personality and intelligence, less is known about mental health mind-sets (e.g., beliefs about anxiety) that have greater relevance to clinical science.”
Dirty Data: The Effects of Screening Respondents Who Provide Low-Quality Data in Survey Research (2017, methodology): “Recent work has focused on comparing or categorizing screening techniques for use in survey data (Bowling et al., 2016; Credé, 2010; DeSimone, Harms, & DeSimone, 2015; Huang et al., 2012; Huang, Liu, & Bowling, 2015; Maniaci & Rogge, 2014; Meade & Craig, 2012).”
The scales of general well-being (SGWB) (2017, neutral): “(Maniaci & Rogge, 2014).”
Old Wine in New Bottles? The Case of Self–Compassion and Neuroticism (2017, methodology): “We excluded participants from analyses on the basis of the following a priori set criteria to decrease noise in data (cf. Maniaci & Rogge, 2014; Oppenheimer, Meyvis, & Davidenko, 2009): Participants (i) answered incorrectly one or more of the four attention check items (the items read like, ‘This…”
Are Attention Check Questions a Threat to Scale Validity? (2018, background): “These careless responses directly challenge the validity of any scale measurement, and as a result, can lead to misleading findings and conclusions (e.g. Bowling et al., 2016; Huang, Liu, & Bowling, 2015; Maniaci & Rogge, 2014).”
Careless responding in questionnaire measures: Detection, impact, and remedies (2020, background): “…effects on observed item correlations (Credé, 2010; McGonagle et al., 2016; McGrath et al., 2010), reliability estimates (Huang et al., 2012; Maniaci & Rogge, 2014), and factor loadings (Kam & Meyer, 2015; Meade & Craig, 2012) and may also distort the construct dimensionality (Huang et al.,…”
How Careless Responding and Acquiescence Response Bias Can Influence Construct Dimensionality (2015, background): “Second, consistent with the recommendation by Meade and Craig (2012), researchers should consider using a combination of direct and indirect methods. Too many direct-check questions might annoy respondents: Hence, unobtrusive indirect methods could be a useful supplement. Third, when direct measures”
Will the Questions Ever End? Person-Level Increases in Careless Responding During Questionnaire Completion (2020, methodology): “They could, for example, use methods to deter participants from responding carelessly (e.g., provide a warning message; Huang et al., 2012), or they could omit data from participants they suspect have responded carelessly (e.g., Maniaci & Rogge, 2014).”
MTurk Research: Review and Recommendations (2020, background): “MTurkers who score higher on self-reports of response effort or fail to comply with directed questions are more likely to have engaged in careless responding or IER (Berinsky, Margolis, & Sances, 2014; Maniaci & Rogge, 2014).”
Openness to experience and awe in response to nature and music: Personality and profound aesthetic experiences. (2015, background): “…people had been excluded from the final sample of 103: 8 because they did not speak English natively, 2 because of technical failures mid-study, and 2 because of elevated scores on an infrequency scale that indicates likely inattentiveness (see Maniaci & Rogge, 2014; McKibben & Silvia, in press).”
The Appeal of Challenge in the Perception of Art: How Ambiguity, Solvability of Ambiguity, and the Opportunity for Insight Affect Appreciation (2015, result): “One additional dataset was excluded from the analysis because of monotonous response behavior to avoid higher error variance of the experimental result, an effect recently reported in regard to participants’ inattention (Maniaci & Rogge, 2014).”
The quality of data collected online: An investigation of careless responding in a crowdsourced sample (2020, background): “, 2017), or they assessed carelessness in student samples or mixed online samples (Maniaci and Rogge, 2014; Meade and Craig, 2012).”