ArticleNature human behaviour2026
Representativeness and response validity across nine opt-in online samples.
Article in Nature human behaviour, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Seeing Oneself in the Feed: Racialized Targeting in Food Marketing and Its Impact on Adolescents' Visual Interest and Unhealthy Food Preferences.Journal of experimental social psychology · 2026Article
- Status quo bias drives public support for drug policy in the USA.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- Comparing age differences in cognition, personality, and political orientation across six online recruitment platforms.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Risky-choice framing effects persist when option descriptions are matched and complete: A replication and extension of DeKay and Dou (2024).Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Biased AI writing assistants shift users' attitudes on societal issues.Science advances · 2026Article
- Messaging Impacts Public Perspectives Towards Fur Farming in the Northeastern United States.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Reflective thinking predicts disbelief in God across 19 countries.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study of human behaviour has shifted in the past 15 years. It increasingly relies on opt-in non-probability online data sources. Here we offer an analysis of nine such sources (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 (demographics, attitude representativeness and experimental treatment effects) and professionalism (number and frequency of studies taken and modality of device on which studies are taken). We document substantial variation across samples on each dimension. Samples using demographic quotas display relatively higher amounts of representativeness across multiple indicators (beyond demographics) but often exhibit less response validity. However, inclusion of two attention checks early in a survey can enhance response validity without negatively impacting representativeness. We offer guidance for choosing opt-in samples, depending on the purpose of the research and resource constraints.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.