Detecting Careless Respondents in Survey Data: Floodlight Detection of Careless Respondents

  • Volkan Dogan
Conference paper
Part of the Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science book series (DMSPAMS)


The current paper introduces a novel method for detecting careless respondents, namely, floodlight detection of careless respondents. This novel method is composed of two steps: (1) creating a nonsense regression model and then (2) testing a moderator role of response time on the nonsense regression model with Johnson-Neyman technique. An illustration of the floodlight detection of careless respondents method was performed with online survey data collected from 148 Turkish participants.


Careless responding Careless respondents Floodlight detection Response time 


  1. Anduiza, E., & Galais, C. (2017). Answering without reading: IMCs and strong satisficing in online surveys. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 29(3), 497–519.Google Scholar
  2. Berinsky, A. J., Margolis, M. F., & Sances, M. W. (2014). Separating the shirkers from the workers? Making sure respondents pay attention on self-administered surveys. American Journal of Political Science, 58(3), 739–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dogan, V., Ozkara, B. Y., & Dogan, M. (2016). Luxury consumption tendency: Conceptualization, scale development, and validation. In B. Jaworski, & N. Morgan (Eds.), Regaining relevance: Doing research that reshapes the practice of marketing. 2016 summer AMA conference proceedings American Marketing Association: Atlanta, GA. (Vol. 27, pp. C11–C12).Google Scholar
  4. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  5. Huang, J. L., Bowling, N. A., Liu, M., & Li, Y. (2015a). Detecting insufficient effort responding with an infrequency scale: Evaluating validity and participant reactions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 299–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Huang, J. L., Curran, P. G., Keeney, J., Poposki, E. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2012). Detecting and deterring insufficient effort responding to surveys. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(1), 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Huang, J. L., Liu, M., & Bowling, N. A. (2015b). Insufficient effort responding: Examining an insidious confound in survey data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 828–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 213–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Maniaci, M. R., & Rogge, R. D. (2014). Caring about carelessness: Participant inattention and its effects on research. Journal of Research in Personality, 48, 61–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Niessen, A. S. M., Meijer, R. R., & Tendeiro, J. N. (2016). Detecting careless respondents in web-based questionnaires: Which method to use? Journal of Research in Personality, 63, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Spiller, S. A., Fitzsimons, G. J., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & McClelland, G. H. (2013). Spotlights, floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(2), 277–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tourangeau, R. (1984). Cognitive sciences and survey methods. In T. Jabine, M. Straf, J. Tanur, & R. Tourangeau (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of survey methodology: Building a bridge between disciplines (pp. 73–100). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  15. Tourangeau, R., & Rasinski, K. A. (1988). Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 299–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Woods, C. M. (2006). Careless responding to reverse-worded items: Implications for confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 28(3), 186–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Eskisehir Osmangazi UniversityEskisehirTurkey

Personalised recommendations