During the COVID-19 pandemic, social scientists across the globe have been forced to abandon or postpone research projects that require face-to-face interaction, travel, or even simply leaving the house. Not surprisingly, the use of online surveys – a relatively low-cost form of empirical research that does not require in-person data collection – expanded dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, purchases by academic clients on Lucid – a widely used marketplace for survey respondents – nearly tripled between 2019 and 2020. Amid this boom in online research activity, concerns have been raised about the external validity of experiments conducted during this period (e.g., IJzerman et al., Reference IJzerman, Lewis, Przybylski, Weinstein, DeBruine, Ritchie, Vazire, Forscher, Morey and Ivory2020; Rosenfeld et al. Reference Rosenfeld, Balcetis, Bastian, Berkman, Bosson, Brannon, Burrow, Cameron, Serena and Cookforthcoming). Here we investigate whether extrapolations from studies conducted during the pandemic to other time periods will be misleading.
Empirically demonstrating that experiments conducted during the COVID era do or do not generalize to other times is straightforward in principle. Once the pandemic has passed and the social, economic, and political aftershocks have dissipated, replications of COVID era studies can settle the question of whether those results generalize to the post-crisis period. Unfortunately, it may be a while before normal times fully resume. In this paper, we take up a closely related question that we can answer much sooner: do experiments conducted prior to the pandemic generalize to COVID times?
We provide an answer using 33 replications fielded during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic of 12 previously published survey experiments. Consistent with the findings from recent replication attempts on different samples, we find strong evidence of correspondence. Our COVID era replication estimates nearly always agree with pre-COVID estimates in terms of sign and significance, but are somewhat smaller in magnitude at an average of 73% of the pre-COVID effect size. We argue that this pattern may be explained by lower levels of attentiveness among online survey respondents during the initial onset of the pandemic. Overall, the replication estimates presented here should mitigate concerns that results from survey experiments conducted during the pandemic will not generalize to other times and contexts.
Background
A common framework for understanding how results generalize from one sample to a target population is the “UTOS” framework, which stands for Units, Treatments, Outcomes, and Settings (Cronbach and Shapiro, Reference Cronbach and Shapiro1982). The framework predicts that results will exhibit greater correspondence (or generalizability or transportability) between a sample and the target population with increasing similarity of their UTOS components. A decade’s worth of studies in political science have invoked the UTOS framework to argue that survey experiments conducted with online samples generalize to the US national population (Berinsky, Huber and Lenz, Reference Berinsky, Huber and Lenz2012; Mullinix et al., Reference Mullinix, Leeper, Druckman and Freese2015; Coppock, Reference Coppock2019; Coppock, Leeper and Mullinix, Reference Coppock, Leeper and Mullinix2018; Coppock and McClellan, Reference Coppock and McClellan2019). Recent work by Findley, Kikuta and Denly (Reference Findley, Kikuta and Denly2020) elaborates the UTOS framework to differentiate the time dimension from other features of settings, pointing out that the mechanisms that link treatments to outcomes may change over time. Munger (Reference Munger2020) describes growing concerns about generalizability across time as a question of “temporal validity.”
The COVID-19 pandemic led to changes in at least two important factors relevant to online survey experiments. First, nearly everyone experienced massive disruptions to their daily lives. These changes may have affected how online survey participants respond to treatment. For example, Americans may have been in a heightened state of anxiety due to a variety of factors, including an unmitigated public health crisis, rising economic insecurity, and chronic political instability. Anxiety and other emotional state variables have been shown to affect information processing (e.g., Gadarian and Albertson, Reference Gadarian and Albertson2014), willingness to dissent (e.g., Young, Reference Young2019), and to condition effects of other treatments (e.g., Valentino et al., Reference Valentino, Banks, Hutchings and Davis2009).
Another important factor is that the pandemic altered, or was coincident with, changes in the composition of markets for online survey respondents. Arechar and Rand (Reference Arechar and Rand2020), for example, find that an influx of new workers to the Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) platform in March 2020 led to samples that were less attentive, but more demographically diverse and representative of the US population. On the Lucid platform, the demand for survey respondents in 2020 increased by roughly 40% among commercial clients and by 200% among academic clients (see Figure 1). In the immediate wake of the pandemic, Lucid suppliers – who furnish survey respondents for both academic and commercial clients – struggled to recruit enough new participants to meet this increased demand. Footnote 1 Consistent with the possibility that suppliers attempted to meet this increased demand with relatively lower-quality respondents, Aronow et al. (Reference Aronow, Kalla, Orr and Ternovski2020) find that respondent attentiveness on Lucid was declining over the period March–July 2020. This decline in attentiveness may also have reflected changes in the types of people who were previously attentive becoming less attentive because of COVID-19-related disruptions.
Total weekly survey responses completed and sold to academic buyers by Lucid between January 2019 and March 2021.
Notes: Points denote weekly survey responses completed and sold to academic customers by Lucid (in thousands). Dark lines and 95% confidence bands from LOESS smoother. The WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic on 11 March 2020. Proprietary data provided by Lucid cover the period 1 January 2019 – 18 March 2021. In 2019, Lucid sold 729,284 completed survey responses to academic buyers, compared with 2,185,387 in 2020.
Design
Given the proliferation of online research conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, we can articulate concerns about external validity as an empirical question: would the results from an experiment conducted during the pandemic have been different if the experiment were instead conducted in a different period?
Between March and July 2020, we recruited weekly samples of approximately 1,000 US-based participants via Lucid. Each survey was between 10 and 15 min-long (median duration: 12.8 min) and was structured in discrete 3–5 min modules. Lucid collects demographic information from all respondents before they enter any particular survey, enabling the construction of quota samples that approximate US census margins (Coppock and McClellan, Reference Coppock and McClellan2019). Like previous investigations on the suitability of convenience samples for academic research, we focus on survey experiments in particular. Using online convenience samples for descriptive work is generally inadvisable because the samples may differ from target populations in both observable and unobservable ways. Footnote 2 However, for theoretical settings in which an average treatment effect (ATE) among a diverse (but nevertheless unrepresentative) sample would be informative, survey experiments with online convenience samples are an effective and widely used tool.
Selection criteria
We conducted 33 replications across 12 unique studies, chosen based on the following criteria:
-
1. Suitable for online survey environment. All replications were administered through a web browser using Qualtrics survey software, and the original studies must have been fielded in a similar format.
-
2. Length of study. Time constraints ruled out studies that could not be administered in a survey module of 3–5 min.
-
3. Design transparency. The original study design and outcome measures were clearly described in the published manuscript or supporting appendix.
-
4. Design complexity and effect size. Sample size constraints ruled out some two-arm studies with small effect sizes, as well as more complex studies with elaborate factorial designs.
-
5. Theoretical and political importance. The studies all considered theoretically important questions, with many being published in top journals.
These criteria are similar to those used in other meta-scientific replication projects (e.g., Klein et al., Reference Klein, Ratliff, Vianello, Adams, Bahník, Bernstein, Bocian, Brandt, Brooks and Brumbaugh2014; Klein et al., Reference Klein, Vianello, Hasselman, Adams, Adams, Alper, Aveyard, Axt, Babalola and Bahník2018). We also aimed for a mix of classic and contemporary studies, and for coverage across political science subfields. Our set of studies is not a random sample of all survey experiments conducted by social and political scientists, but they do cover a wide range of designs. The full set of studies is listed in Table 1. We conducted at least one direct replication of each study. Modified versions of studies 2, 3, 5, and 7 were also replicated using COVID-specific content. A description of each modified version and their corresponding replication estimates are provided in Online Appendix Section A.
Summary of 33 replications conducted across 12 original studies
We categorize each replication as a “success” if the COVID era estimate(s) are correctly signed and statistically distinguishable from zero. For studies with “null” results (studies 11–12), replication was declared successful if estimate(s) were indistinguishable from zero and their pre-COVID benchmarks. A replication “failure” occurs when estimate(s) are incorrectly signed, regardless of whether they are distinguishable from zero. For studies with multiple treatment arms/outcomes, we concluded replication was successful if the preponderance of evidence supports success. In one case, the preponderance of evidence was ambiguous and we concluded the replication attempt was a partial success. Additional details are available in Online Appendix Section A.
Results
We were able to obtain the original effect size(s) for each of the 12 pre-COVID studies listed in Table 1, and at least one pre-COVID replication estimate of the original effect size(s) for 7 of these studies. In total, we obtained 89 pre-COVID estimates and 101 replication estimates. Footnote 3 A detailed description of each study, their pre-COVID estimates, and the individual replication estimates that we obtained are provided in Section A of the Online Appendix. Here we provide an overall summary for each study by comparing the pooled estimates from our COVID era replications with the pooled estimates from the pre-COVID benchmarks (original estimates and any pre-COVID replications).
For each study, we calculate summary effect sizes for each treatment-outcome pair using a precision-weighted average, with weights based on the reciprocal of the variance. We can then compare the pre-COVID and replication estimates by taking the differences between their summary effect size estimates. For studies with one outcome and a simple experimental design, we compute a single difference; and for studies with multiple outcomes and/or treatments, we compute a difference for each unique treatment-outcome pair. Except for the conjoint experiment, all within-study estimates (binary and ordinal) are standardized using Glass’s, which scales outcomes by the standard deviation in the control group (Glass, Reference Glass1976).
Across the 12 studies, we obtained 138 summary effect size estimates – 82 for the conjoint studies and 56 for the remaining studies. For the non-conjoint studies, Figure 2 compares the 28 estimated summary effects from the pre-COVID studies (horizontal axis) with their 28 replications (vertical axis). All replication summary estimates were smaller in magnitude than their pre-COVID estimates, with 24 of 28 signed in the same direction. Of the 24 correctly signed estimates, 10 were significantly smaller in replication. Of the four incorrectly signed estimates, three were significantly different – the foreign aid misperceptions study and two of six estimates from the atomic aversion study. Figure 3 plots the analogous information for the 41 conjoint estimates and their 41 replications, all of which are signed in the same direction. Of these, 35 of 41 were smaller in replication (6 statistically significant differences) and 6 of 41 were larger in replication (1 of 6 significant differences).
Comparison of 28 summary effect sizes across 11 studies (conjoint excluded).
Notes: Estimated summary effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals from pre-COVID experiments (horizontal axis) and COVID era replications (vertical axis). Thirteen of 28 replication estimates were significantly different from their pre-COVID benchmark at P < 0.05.
Comparison of 41 summary effect sizes in conjoint experiments.
Notes: Estimated summary effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals from pre-COVID experiments (horizontal axis) and COVID era replications (vertical axis). Seven of 41 replication estimates were significantly different from their pre-COVID benchmark at P < 0.05.
Pooling across all 65 of 69 correctly signed pairs presented in Figures 2–3, the replication estimates were, on average, 73% as large as the pre-COVID estimates. The 41 correctly signed estimates from the conjoint replication were, on average, 87% as large as the original. The 24 of 28 correctly signed estimates from the other replications were, on average, 49% as large as the pre-COVID summary effect sizes.
When compared with other replication efforts, the correspondence for the conjoint experiment is high whereas the correspondence for the others is modest. For example, in one of the earliest large-scale replications, Open Science Collaboration (2015) replicated 100 experiments from 3 top psychology journals and found that about 40% replicated and effect sizes were, on average, about half the magnitude of the original effects. In economics, Camerer et al. (Reference Camerer, Dreber, Forsell, Ho, Huber, Johannesson, Kirchler, Almenberg, Altmejd and Chan2016) replicated 18 survey and lab-based experiments and found effect sizes in the 11 studies that successfully replicated were approximately 66% of the original. Coppock (Reference Coppock2019) replicated 40 treatment effect estimates from 12 survey experiments, finding that the median MTurk estimate was 66% of the original effect size.
Common explanations for somewhat diminished effect sizes in replication studies include imperfect adherence to the original experimental protocol on the part of replicators and publication pressures that systematically select for larger effect sizes in original study journal submissions. These mechanisms may be operative here as well. At the same time, we do not think they are the main reasons for the smaller effect sizes we find because the experimental protocols are relatively straightforward and the bulk of these studies had been successfully replicated by others before us with larger effect sizes than we find. Prior replications of studies 7 and 8, for example, have found effect sizes at least as large as the original (see Klein et al., Reference Klein, Vianello, Hasselman, Adams, Adams, Alper, Aveyard, Axt, Babalola and Bahník2018; Aronow, Baron and Pinson, Reference Aronow, Baron and Pinson2019).
Can inattention explain attenuated replication estimations?
In this section, we consider declining attentiveness among survey respondents during the COVID era as a potential explanation for attenuated treatment effect estimates. This decline in attention – as measured by increased failure rates on Attention Check Questions (ACQs) in Aronow et al. (Reference Aronow, Kalla, Orr and Ternovski2020) and Arechar and Rand (Reference Arechar and Rand2020) – might reflect a genuine decline in attention among online survey respondents, underlying changes in the types of people who participate in online research, or both. Although we cannot distinguish among these possibilities, prior work has demonstrated that inattention leads to measurement error in self-administered surveys. Berinsky, Margolis and Sances (Reference Berinsky, Margolis and Sances2014), for example, replicated the gain versus loss framing experiment from Tversky and Kahneman (Reference Tversky and Kahneman1981) and found an estimated treatment effect of approximately zero among respondents that failed a pretreatment attention screener.
Measurement error induced by inattention is nonrandom, so the correlations across covariates and survey outcomes can be overstated or understated in descriptive survey work. In the experimental setting, however, inattention generates a form of treatment noncompliance. To fix ideas, suppose that an experimental sample can be partitioned into two types of individuals: the “attentive” and the “inattentive”. Imagine the average effect among the attentive is positive and the average effect among the inattentive is zero, because these subjects do not engage with treatment and are therefore unaffected by it. The ATE in the full sample is therefore a weighted average of two quantities: the average effect among the attentive and the average effect among the inattentive. The ATE estimated for the full sample will therefore be closer to zero than the average effect among the attentive. Estimates for the overall ATE attenuate towards zero as the share of inattentive subjects in the sample grows.
For ease of exposition, we have dichotomized subjects as attentive or inattentive, but respondent attention in online surveys is both continuous and dynamic (Berinsky, Margolis and Sances, Reference Berinsky, Margolis and Sances2016; Berinsky et al., Reference Berinsky, Margolis, Sances and Warshaw2019). It is continuous because subjects may be more or less attentive and it is dynamic because attention may change during a survey. Accounting for these subtleties is important, but the core argument is that estimated treatment effects will attenuate towards zero as inattention increases. If subjects can be classified as one type or the other, then we expect smaller effects where the share of the inattentive is higher. If subjects pay partial attention, we expect that estimated treatment effects among the partially attentive will be smaller what they would have been had these subjects paid closer attention. Given that the proportion of inattentive subjects in online samples appears to have increased during the period in which our replications were conducted (see Aronow et al., Reference Aronow, Kalla, Orr and Ternovski2020; Arechar and Rand, Reference Arechar and Rand2020), this may partly explain why our replication estimates are smaller when compared to pre-COVID estimates.
We can examine this possibility by estimating effects among the attentive and inattentive separately. The most straightforward approach is to include pretreatment ACQs (see Oppenheimer, Meyvis and Davidenko, Reference Oppenheimer, Meyvis and Davidenko2009; Paolacci et al., Reference Paolacci, Chandler and Ipeirotis2010). Footnote 4 However, only two of our surveys included ACQs, so we consider alternative approaches as well.
A second approach is to rely on individual-level meta-data. One possibility is that increased inattention during the COVID era stems from an increasing proportion of respondents arriving to the survey environment from mobile games. Footnote 5 The “User Agent” string captured from the end user’s browser by online survey software like Qualtrics provides detailed information about how respondents arrive at the survey. We offer two approaches for classifying respondents as inattentive on the basis of this information: 1) if they come from a web application rather than a web browser and 2) if they come from a mobile phone rather than a tablet or desktop.
Applying this approach across the 13 surveys used for the replication studies, we estimate that the proportion of participants coming from web applications (rather than internet browsers) ranged from 0.19 to 0.61, and the proportion of participants coming from mobiles (rather than desktops or tablets) ranged from 0.31 to 0.73. Based on an additional sample of 63,245 respondents obtained from Lucid surveys fielded prior to March 2020, we observe that the proportion of participants from both web applications and mobiles was trending upward prior to the COVID-19 outbreak. In the 2020 surveys, approximately 41% of respondents came from web applications (56% from mobiles), an increase from 33% (56% from mobiles) in 2019 and just 13% (33% from mobiles) in 2018. These results, reported in Figure 4, are consistent with the declining data quality documented by Aronow et al. (Reference Aronow, Kalla, Orr and Ternovski2020).
Respondents from mobile devices and web applications from June 2018 to July 2020.
Notes: Points denote percentage of respondents in each Lucid survey, sized in proportion to sample size. Dark lines and 95% confidence bands from LOESS smoother. Estimates are based on individual-level browser meta-data and come from a combination of surveys conducted by the authors and UserAgent data shared by Antonio Arechar, Matt Graham, Patrick Tucker, Chloe Wittenberg, and Baobao Zhang.
Pooling across the 13 surveys used for our replication studies, 97% of participants from web applications were also on mobile devices and 72% on mobile devices arrived from web applications. Those from web applications spent approximately 7 min less time completing surveys than those from web browsers, who spent an average of 21.5 min. Respondents from mobile devices spent roughly 6 min less time completing surveys than subjects from nonmobile devices. Additionally, in 2 of the 13 surveys we included ACQs of varying difficulty and found those on web applications (or mobiles) were significantly less likely to pass the ACQs, compared to those coming from browsers (or nonmobiles). These results are reported in Table 2.
ACQ pass rates by attentiveness and level of difficulty
Notes: The “Easy” and “Medium” questions were novel ACQs that subjects completed after reading a short news article (see Fig. C.9–C.10). The “Hard” ACQ comes from Peyton (Reference Peyton2020) and was included with the direct replication of the original study in Week 9. This ACQ is analogous to an “Instructional Manipulation Check” (see Oppenheimer, Meyvis and Davidenko, Reference Oppenheimer, Meyvis and Davidenko2009) and was passed by 87% of respondents in the original study (see Fig. C.11). Standard errors in parentheses P < 0.05*.
While most of our surveys did not include pretreatment ACQs, we did include one in the direct replication of Peyton (Reference Peyton2020), allowing for a direct comparison of estimates among the attentive using both the ACQ and meta-data approaches. Figure 5 shows that regardless of the approach used to classify subjects as attentive, estimated treatment effects among the attentive are positive and significant. Among those who passed the ACQ, the average effect of treatment was 0.39 (SE: 0.15). Among those coming from browsers, the estimate was 0.33 (SE: 0.10), and among nonmobile users it was 0.52 (SE: 0.12). Among those who failed the ACQ (estimate: 0.08, SE: 0.09), came from a web application (estimate: −0.03, SE: 0.12), or used a mobile phone (estimate: −0.04, SE: 0.10), estimated treatment effects were all close to zero and nonsignificant.
Reanalysis of estimated treatment effects on trust in government for Peyton (Reference Peyton2020) replication.
Notes: Estimates for the Lucid replication, fielded in May 2020, are presented for the full sample, and each subgroup partition created by three different methods for classifying attentive versus inattentive respondents. Pairwise correlations between these methods: 0.67 for nonmobile and browsers, 0.10 for non-mobiles and ACQ pass, and 0.09 for browsers and ACQ pass. Estimates for the original experiments come from the replication archive for Peyton (Reference Peyton2020) at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/L3NT6P. The Qualtrics sample was a quota sample that, like our Lucid replication sample, approximates US census margins on respondents demographics. In the MTurk sample from March 2017, Peyton (Reference Peyton2020) Appendix S5.8 reports 87% of respondents passed their pretreatment ACQ. In our direct replication, 19% of respondents passed this same ACQ.
A final approach is to reason about the plausible scope for inattention to explain the attenuated treatment effects we find. If we assume that treatments do not affect outcomes among inattentive respondents, we can recover the effect among attentive respondents by dividing the overall estimates by the proportion of attentive respondents. If this assumption is incorrect, either because treatment effects among the inattentive are nonzero or because certain treatments affect attention, then this adjustment could be biased upward or downward.
Pooling across all replication studies, we find effect sizes were, on average, 73% their pre-COVID magnitude. If 73% of respondents were attentive and 26% inattentive, our replication estimate would, on average, match our pre-COVID benchmarks. Empirical estimates of inattention suggest this rate is not unreasonable. Aronow et al. (Reference Aronow, Kalla, Orr and Ternovski2020) report that approximately 70% of respondents passed ACQs in surveys fielded between March and July 2020. Dividing each of the COVID era summary estimates that we obtained by 0.70 yields an estimated replication correspondence of 104% the pre-COVID effect sizes.
Of course, it is unlikely the case that pre-COVID samples were entirely attentive, in which case we would also need to adjust those estimates upward, implying that even accounting for growing inattention cannot fully explain smaller effect sizes during COVID-19. We emphasize that this does not constitute proof that inattention explains the attenuated effect sizes across our replications. Instead, we offer it as a partial explanation that is consistent with the evidence provided in Figure 5 and the broader trend of declining attentiveness among online survey respondents during the early onset of the pandemic.
Discussion
Our goal in this replication study was to understand whether online experiments conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic would generalize to other periods. We investigated by conducting 33 replications during the early COVID era of 12 published experimental studies. Overall, we find strong evidence that these experiments replicated in terms of sign and significance, but at reduced magnitudes. Because these pre-COVID experiments were, with one exception, successfully replicated, we infer that the pandemic does not pose a fundamental threat to the generalizability of results from online experiments conducted during this period.
We considered two ways in which treatment effects might have been different during this period. First, we considered the possibility that the pandemic and the significant changes it brought to all aspects of daily life changed individuals’ attitudes and patterns of information processing. If so, then the same experiment conducted on otherwise similar groups of people (online survey takers) before and during the pandemic might yield fundamentally different results. We do not find support for this idea. Second, it is possible that the pandemic changed, or occurred alongside changes to, the online survey respondent pool. Decreased attentiveness, as documented by others (Arechar and Rand, Reference Arechar and Rand2020; Aronow et al., Reference Aronow, Kalla, Orr and Ternovski2020), provides some indication that the composition of online samples changed, at least during the early onset of the pandemic.
Using a variety of means – ACQs, subject meta-data, and external estimates of attentiveness – we conclude that declining attentiveness in online samples may at least partly explain why the replication estimates presented here are, on average, smaller than pre-COVID benchmarks. Inattention can reduce respondents’ compliance with experimental stimuli (shrinking ATE estimates toward zero) and it adds nonrandom measurement error to outcome variables (decreasing the precision of treatment effect estimates). One important implication is that rising inattention in online samples can decrease the false-positive rate at the cost of increasing the false-negative rate. That is, inattention can bias estimates in the conservative direction such that small but substantively important treatment effects may be harder to detect.
Ultimately, answering the empirical question of whether treatment effects are equivalent among those who are attentive and those who are not requires a design that induces the inattentive to pay attention. Unfortunately, prior research has shown that inducing attentiveness among inattentive subjects is difficult (Berinsky, Margolis and Sances, Reference Berinsky, Margolis and Sances2016). We experienced these same challenges in our own work. In a separate Lucid study, we attempted to induce attentiveness by randomly assigning some respondents who failed an initial attention check to a condition in which we told them that they failed and gave them a second chance to pass. Only 17 of the 410 subjects (4%) in this treatment group passed when specifically reminded to re-read the prompt carefully because they had missed something, suggesting it is still difficult to induce attentiveness.
We therefore recommend that researchers concerned about inattention in online samples include pretreatment attention checks (Berinsky, Margolis and Sances, Reference Berinsky, Margolis and Sances2014; Permut, Fisher and Oppenheimer, Reference Permut, Fisher and Oppenheimer2019). Posttreatment attention checks can induce bias (Montgomery, Nyhan and Torres, Reference Montgomery, Nyhan and Torres2018; Aronow, Baron and Pinson, Reference Aronow, Baron and Pinson2019), but pretreatment attention checks allow researchers to either terminate the interview without paying for inattentive respondents at the design stage or retain them and use attention checks to compare estimates between attentive and inattentive subgroups at the analysis stage. We caution, however, that the former strategy necessarily restricts inferences to the subgroup of respondents that passed an attention check task, and these respondents may differ from those that failed on other dimensions as well (see Berinsky, Margolis and Sances, Reference Berinsky, Margolis and Sances2014, Online Appendix C).
In sum, we conclude that the pandemic does not pose a fundamental threat to the generalizability of online experiments, provided respondents pay attention to treatment content and outcome questions. People still prefer riskier options for responding to unusual disease outbreaks when in a loss frame – even when the real-world analog could hardly be more salient. People still believe misinformation, but can be corrected with fact checks. People still have preferences over immigrants that can be measured via a conjoint experiment. People still prefer funding “aid to the poor” more than “welfare.” Even in extraordinary times, we find mostly ordinary treatment effects in online samples.
Supplementary Material
To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2021.17
Data Availability
The data, code, and any additional materials required to replicate analyses in this article and Online Appendix are available at the Journal of Experimental Political Science Dataverse within the Harvard Dataverse Network (Peyton, Coppock & Huber, Reference Peyton, Coppock and Huber2021).
Acknowledgments
Thanks to the Center for the Study of American Politics and the Institution for Social and Policy Studies for research support, to Peter Aronow, Josh Kalla, Lilla Orr, John Ternovski, and Baobao Zhang for helpful comments and feedback, to Ethan Porter for sharing replication materials, to Antonio Arechar, Matt Graham, David Rand, Patrick Tucker, Chloe Wittenberg, and Baobao Zhang for sharing pre-COVID survey data. We thank Allison St. Martin and Patrick Comer of Lucid for enlightening conversations and providing aggregate data on purchases made by academic clients. Previous versions of the manuscript were presented and benefited from feedback at Université de Montréal, Australian National University, UMass Amherst, and York University.
Financial Support
This research was approved by the Yale University Institutional Review Board (Protocol number 1312013102).
Conflicts of Interest
This research was funded by the Center for the Study of American Politics and the Institution for Social and Policy Studies at Yale University. No conflicts of interests pertain to this research.
