No Harm in Checking: Using Factual Manipulation Checks to Assess Attentiveness in Experiments

Kane, John; Barabas, Jason

doi:10.1111/ajps.12396

Cited by 177 publications

(120 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

118

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We included this check immediately after the treatment before the outcome questions. Research indicates that the placement of factual manipulation checks before outcome measures is of little consequence for treatment effects (Kane and Barabas ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Administrative Burden Influence Public Support for Government Programs? Evidence from a Survey Experiment

Keiser

Miller

2019

Public Administration Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research indicates that administrative burden influences the behaviors and views of clients and potential clients of government programs. However, administrative burden may also shape mass attitudes toward government programs. Taking a behavioral public administration approach, the authors consider whether and how exposure to information about administrative burden embedded within eligibility-based programs influences citizen favorability toward those programs. It is hypothesized that if information about the existing screening mechanisms is highlighted and made salient, this will lead to greater approval of eligibility-based programs. This expectation is evaluated using a survey experiment that explores administrative burden in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. The evidence shows that being exposed to information about administrative burden increases favorability toward TANF and its recipients, though these effects are conditional on party identification. The results provide insight into a potential consequence of administrative burden, showing the way in which information regarding burden can shape citizens' support for eligibility-based programs. Evidence for Practice• Public managers in social welfare programs face challenges in gaining public support because of the stigma associated with these programs. • The evidence suggests that giving the public information about program screening improves views toward welfare programs. • Increasing awareness about program screening processes may be beneficial. However, public officials should consider potential trade-offs, such as discouraging applications. Susan M. Miller is associate professor of political science at the University of South Carolina. Broadly, her research explores the consequences of institutional and program design for policy implementation and outcomes.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Administrative Burden Influence Public Support for Government Programs? Evidence from a Survey Experiment

Keiser

Miller

2019

Public Administration Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…38 Estimated treatment effects in survey experiments are most valid for the sample of respondents who successfully receive treatment (compliers), but less reliable among respondents who are not properly treated (noncompliers). As prior work on experiments suggests, I find heterogeneous treatment effects between compliers and noncompliers (Kane and Barabas 2019). Models interacting treatment assignment with manipulation check success/failure reduce concerns that observed coefficients are biased due to either: (1) distorting estimated treatment effects by aggregating compliers and noncompliers; or (2) restricting the sample by dropping respondents who failed the manipulation check (Aronow et al 2019).…”

Section: Results From An Empirical Analysis Of Lawful Resistancementioning

confidence: 69%

“…T2: Judicial Deference (n = 508)-"Are you aware that the Egyptian/Jordanian Administrative Court recently issued an important ruling in favor of the government, saying that one of the government's new policies was legal?" Next, I assessed whether respondents were properly treated using a factual manipulation check that asked how the court ruled in the question they just read (Kane and Barabas 2019). 34 Subsequently, all respondents were prompted with an identical vignette where a state official invoked eminent domain on their property: 35…”

Section: Demographic Information and Balance Tests About The Sample Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Contentious Politics in the Courthouse: Law as a Tool for Resisting Authoritarian States in the Middle East

Schaaf¹

2021

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Under what conditions will individuals mobilize law to resist states that operate above the law? In authoritarian countries, particularly in the Middle East, law is a weapon the state wields for social control, centralizing power, and legitimation. Authoritarian legal codes are overwhelmingly more deferential to state authority than protective of citizens' rights. Nevertheless, people throughout the Arab world deploy law to contest a broad array of state abuses: land expropriations, unlawful arrests, denials of jobs and welfare, and so on. Using detailed interviews in Jordan and Palestine, I outline a theory of law as a tool for resisting authoritarian state actors. Integrating qualitative insights with survey experiments fielded in Egypt and Jordan, I test this theory and show that aggrieved individuals mobilize law when they expect courts are powerful and attainable allies in contentious politics. My results further demonstrate that judicial independence does not uniformly increase authoritarian publics' willingness to access courts. Authori tarian political systems are characterized by an absence of electoral accountability for public officials (Geddes et al. 2014; Przeworski 1991). But the inability to hold state actors accountable through democratic elections does not mean that authoritarian publics acquiesce to state abuse. When authoritarian states cause individuals injury-through violence, arrest, expropriating land, depriving citizenship, or denying jobs and welfare-many avenues of resistance and contestation exist outside the electoral arena. This paper examines law as a tool for resistance under authoritarianism, asking: under what conditions will individuals use litigation to pursue grievances against authoritarian state actors? Much research on resistance to authoritarian states focuses on large-scale instances of political violence (Petersen 2001) and

show abstract

“…is useful for detecting survey satisficers (Kane & Barabas, 2019). We used this question as a robustness check of the results of our experiments:…”

Section: Manipulation Checkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making the Veil of Ignorance Work: Evidence from Survey Experiments (forthcoming in Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy, Vol.4)

Inoue¹,

Zenkyo²,

Sakamoto³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper provides empirical feedback on impartial reasoning to justice derived from data obtained using online survey experiments. Specifically, our study focused on whether and how different conceptions of the veil of ignorance and John Rawls’s method of reflective equilibrium affect people’s impartial reasoning to justice. Our findings revealed that ordinary people tend to support the difference principle, but their endorsement echoes neither John Harsanyi’s nor Rawls’s reasoning. The results illuminate that findings in human psychology, such as the principles of loss aversion and “perceived luckiness,” cannot be disregarded for denoting relevant impartial reasoning to justice.

show abstract

No Harm in Checking: Using Factual Manipulation Checks to Assess Attentiveness in Experiments

Cited by 177 publications

References 33 publications

Does Administrative Burden Influence Public Support for Government Programs? Evidence from a Survey Experiment

Does Administrative Burden Influence Public Support for Government Programs? Evidence from a Survey Experiment

Contentious Politics in the Courthouse: Law as a Tool for Resisting Authoritarian States in the Middle East

Making the Veil of Ignorance Work: Evidence from Survey Experiments (forthcoming in Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy, Vol.4)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About