Survey Quality and Acquiescence Bias: A Cautionary Tale

Abstract In this note, we offer a cautionary tale on the dangers of drawing inferences from low-quality online survey datasets. We reanalyze and replicate a survey experiment studying the effect of acquiescence bias on estimates of conspiratorial beliefs and political misinformation. Correcting a minor data coding error yields a puzzling result: respondents with a postgraduate education appear to be the most prone to acquiescence bias. We conduct two preregistered replication studies to better understand this finding. In our first replication, conducted using the same survey platform as the original study, we find a nearly identical set of results. But in our second replication, conducted with a larger and higher-quality survey panel, this apparent effect disappears. We conclude that the observed relationship was an artifact of inattentive and fraudulent responses in the original survey panel, and that attention checks alone do not fully resolve the problem. This demonstrates how “survey trolls” and inattentive respondents on low-quality survey platforms can generate spurious and theoretically confusing results.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Political Analysis
Published
2026-01-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2025.10030
Primary Topic
Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Survey Quality and Acquiescence Bias: A Cautionary Tale

Andres Cristobal Cruz, Joseph T. Ornstein, Adam Bouyamourn
Political Analysis
Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
article

Survey Quality and Acquiescence Bias: A Cautionary Tale

Andres Cristobal Cruz, Joseph T. Ornstein, Adam Bouyamourn
article en

Abstract

Abstract In this note, we offer a cautionary tale on the dangers of drawing inferences from low-quality online survey datasets. We reanalyze and replicate a survey experiment studying the effect of acquiescence bias on estimates of conspiratorial beliefs and political misinformation. Correcting a minor data coding error yields a puzzling result: respondents with a postgraduate education appear to be the most prone to acquiescence bias. We conduct two preregistered replication studies to better understand this finding. In our first replication, conducted using the same survey platform as the original study, we find a nearly identical set of results. But in our second replication, conducted with a larger and higher-quality survey panel, this apparent effect disappears. We conclude that the observed relationship was an artifact of inattentive and fraudulent responses in the original survey panel, and that attention checks alone do not fully resolve the problem. This demonstrates how “survey trolls” and inattentive respondents on low-quality survey platforms can generate spurious and theoretically confusing results.

Political Analysis
Princeton University (US), The University of Texas at Austin (US)
University of Cambridge
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 93%
Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Survey Quality and Acquiescence Bias: A Cautionary Tale — Andres Cristobal Cruz, Joseph T. Ornstein, et al. · Political Analysis (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS