注意检查问题的不服从问题:指示反应项目的误报

IF 1.1 3区 社会学 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY
Henning Silber, Joss Roßmann, Tobias Gummer
{"title":"注意检查问题的不服从问题:指示反应项目的误报","authors":"Henning Silber, Joss Roßmann, Tobias Gummer","doi":"10.1177/1525822X221115830","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Attention checks detect inattentiveness by instructing respondents to perform a specific task. However, while respondents may correctly process the task, they may choose to not comply with the instructions. We investigated the issue of noncompliance in attention checks in two web surveys. In Study 1, we measured respondents’ attitudes toward attention checks and their self-reported compliance. In Study 2, we experimentally varied the reasons given to respondents for conducting the attention check. Our results showed that while most respondents understand why attention checks are conducted, a nonnegligible proportion of respondents evaluated them as controlling or annoying. Most respondents passed the attention check; however, among those who failed the test, 61% seem to have failed the task deliberately. These findings reinforce that noncompliance is a serious concern with attention check instruments. The results of our experiment showed that more respondents passed the attention check if a comprehensible reason was given.","PeriodicalId":48060,"journal":{"name":"Field Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Issue of Noncompliance in Attention Check Questions: False Positives in Instructed Response Items\",\"authors\":\"Henning Silber, Joss Roßmann, Tobias Gummer\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1525822X221115830\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Attention checks detect inattentiveness by instructing respondents to perform a specific task. However, while respondents may correctly process the task, they may choose to not comply with the instructions. We investigated the issue of noncompliance in attention checks in two web surveys. In Study 1, we measured respondents’ attitudes toward attention checks and their self-reported compliance. In Study 2, we experimentally varied the reasons given to respondents for conducting the attention check. Our results showed that while most respondents understand why attention checks are conducted, a nonnegligible proportion of respondents evaluated them as controlling or annoying. Most respondents passed the attention check; however, among those who failed the test, 61% seem to have failed the task deliberately. These findings reinforce that noncompliance is a serious concern with attention check instruments. The results of our experiment showed that more respondents passed the attention check if a comprehensible reason was given.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48060,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Field Methods\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Field Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X221115830\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Field Methods","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X221115830","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

注意力检查通过指示受访者执行特定任务来检测注意力不集中。然而,尽管受访者可以正确处理任务,但他们可能会选择不遵守指示。我们在两次网络调查中调查了注意力检查中的违规问题。在研究1中,我们测量了受访者对注意力检查的态度以及他们自我报告的依从性。在研究2中,我们通过实验改变了受访者进行注意力检查的原因。我们的研究结果表明,虽然大多数受访者理解为什么要进行注意力检查,但不可忽略的比例的受访者认为他们控制欲强或令人讨厌。大多数受访者通过了注意力检查;然而,在那些没有通过测试的人中,61%的人似乎是故意不及格的。这些发现强化了不遵守是注意力检查工具的一个严重问题。我们的实验结果表明,如果给出了一个可以理解的原因,更多的受访者通过了注意力检查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Issue of Noncompliance in Attention Check Questions: False Positives in Instructed Response Items
Attention checks detect inattentiveness by instructing respondents to perform a specific task. However, while respondents may correctly process the task, they may choose to not comply with the instructions. We investigated the issue of noncompliance in attention checks in two web surveys. In Study 1, we measured respondents’ attitudes toward attention checks and their self-reported compliance. In Study 2, we experimentally varied the reasons given to respondents for conducting the attention check. Our results showed that while most respondents understand why attention checks are conducted, a nonnegligible proportion of respondents evaluated them as controlling or annoying. Most respondents passed the attention check; however, among those who failed the test, 61% seem to have failed the task deliberately. These findings reinforce that noncompliance is a serious concern with attention check instruments. The results of our experiment showed that more respondents passed the attention check if a comprehensible reason was given.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Field Methods
Field Methods Multiple-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
5.90%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Field Methods (formerly Cultural Anthropology Methods) is devoted to articles about the methods used by field wzorkers in the social and behavioral sciences and humanities for the collection, management, and analysis data about human thought and/or human behavior in the natural world. Articles should focus on innovations and issues in the methods used, rather than on the reporting of research or theoretical/epistemological questions about research. High-quality articles using qualitative and quantitative methods-- from scientific or interpretative traditions-- dealing with data collection and analysis in applied and scholarly research from writers in the social sciences, humanities, and related professions are all welcome in the pages of the journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信