Vote Buying,Norms,Context,and Trust in Elections

Abstract

Conventional wisdom says vote buying undermines trust in elections, but few have examined this systematically. We identify why this relationship ought to hold, on average. We also derive two conditioning hypotheses: vote buying will be less consequential among citizens who view these exchanges as positive and in contexts marred by electoral irregularities. We test these three expectations with analyses of cross-national survey data and an original survey experiment. We find only a small and inconsistent relationship between vote buying and electoral trust. We find weak evidence on the role of norms and more support for the notion that context matters. We conclude that a modest connection between vote buying and electoral trust is driven less by approval of vote buying practices and more by variation in how elections are actually conducted and, related, the relative novelty of being exposed to vote buying.

Keywords

elections public opinion voting behavior Latin American politics experimental research

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agerberg

(2020). The lesser evil? Corruption voting and the importance of clean alternatives. Comparative Political Studies, 53(2), 253–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414019852697

Aidt

Asatryan

Badalyan

Heinemann

(2020). Vote buying or (political) business (cycles) as usual? The Review of Economics and Statistics, 102(3), 409–425. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00820

Amador Leal González

(2021). La movilización clientelar y la brecha socioeconómico-electoral. [Doctoral dissertation. Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas]. https://repositorio-digital.cide.edu/handle/11651/4469.

Angrist

J. D.

Pischke

(2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist's companion: Princeton University Press.

Aspinall

Berenschot

(2019). Democracy for sale: Elections, clientelism, and the state in Indonesia: Cornell University Press.

Auerbach

A. M.

Thachil

(2018). How clients select brokers: Competition and choice in India’s slums. American Political Science Review, 112(4), 775–791. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305541800028X

Auyero

(2001). Poor people’s politics: Peronist survival networks and the legacy of Evita: Duke University Press.

Baldwin

(2013). Why vote with the chief? Political connections and public goods provision in Zambia. American Journal of Political Science, 57(4), 794–809. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12023

Becerra Mizuno

E. L.

(2012). Does everyone have a price? The demand side of clientelism and vote-buying in an emerging democracy. Duke Dissertations. [Doctoral dissertation, Duke University]. https://hdl.handle.net/10161/6185

10.

Birch

(2008). Electoral institutions and popular confidence in electoral processes: A cross-national analysis. Electoral Studies, 27(2), 305–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2008.01.005

11.

Birch

(2010). Perceptions of electoral fairness and voter turnout. Comparative Political Studies, 43(12), 1601–1622. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414010374021

12.

Blair

Coppock

Moor

(2020). When to worry about sensitivity bias: A social reference theory and evidence from 30 years of list experiments. American Political Science Review, 114(4), 1297–1315. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000374

13.

Boas

T. C.

Hidalgo

F. D.

Melo

M. A.

(2019). Norms versus action: Why voters fail to sanction malfeasance in Brazil. American Journal of Political Science, 63(2), 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12413

14.

Bowler

Brunell

Donovan

Gronke

(2015). Election administration and perceptions of fair elections. Electoral Studies, 38, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.01.004.

15.

Bratton

(2008). Vote buying and violence in Nigerian election campaigns. Electoral Studies, 27(4), 621–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2008.04.013

16.

Brinkerhoff

D. W.

Goldsmith

A. A.

(2004). Good governance, clientelism, and patrimonialism: New perspectives on old problems. International Public Management Journal, 7(2), 163–185.

17.

Brusco

Nazareno

Stokes

S. C.

(2004). Vote buying in Argentina. Latin American Research Review, 39(2), 66–88. https://doi.org/10.1353/lar.2004.0022, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1555401

18.

Calvo

Murillo

M. V.

(2019). Non-policy politics: Richer voters, poorer voters, and the diversification of electoral strategies: Cambridge University Press.

19.

Canare

T. A.

Mendoza

R. U.

Lopez

M. A.

(2018). An empirical analysis of vote buying among the poor: Evidence from elections in the Philippines. South East Asia Research, 26(1), 58–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967828X17753420

20.

Cantú

(2019). Groceries for votes: The electoral returns of vote buying. The Journal of Politics, 81(3), 790–804. https://doi.org/10.1086/702945

21.

Cantú

García-Ponce

(2015). Partisan losers’ effects: Perceptions of electoral integrity in Mexico. Electoral Studies, 39, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.03.004.

22.

Çarkoğlu

Aytaç

S. E.

(2015). Who gets targeted for vote-buying? Evidence from an augmented list experiment in Turkey. European Political Science Review, 7(4), 547–566. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773914000320

23.

Carlin

R. E.

(2013) Violations of the rule of law fuel tolerance of bribery in the Americas. AmericasBarometer Insights (Vol. 88). LAPOP. https://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/insights/IO888en.pdf

24.

Carlin

R. E.

Moseley

(2015). Good democrats, bad targets: Democratic values and clientelistic vote buying. The Journal of Politics, 77(1), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1086/678307

25.

Carlin

R. E.

Moseley

M. W.

(2022). When clientelism backfires: Vote buying, democratic attitudes, and electoral retaliation in Latin America. Political Research Quarterly, 75(3), 766–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129211020126

26.

Carreras

Irepoğlu

(2013). Trust in elections, vote buying, and turnout in Latin America. Electoral Studies, 32(4), 609–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2013.07.012

27.

Castorena

(2021). Survey weights in AmericasBarometer data. LAPOP methodological note. 007. Lapop. https://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/insights/IMN007en.pdf

28.

Castorena

Lupu

Schade

Zechmeister

E. J.

(2023). Online surveys in Latin America. PS: Political Science & Politics, 56(2), 273–280. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096522001287

29.

Chubb

(1982). Patronage, power, and poverty in southern Italy: A tale of two cities: Cambridge University Press.

30.

Cleary

M. R.

Stokes

S. C.

(2006). Democracy and the culture of skepticism: Political trust in Argentina and Mexico: Russell Sage.

31.

Cohen

(2021). Citizen approval of monetary- vs goods-for-votes exchanges. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 8(1), 85–89. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2020.4

32.

Cohen

Noh

Zechmeister

(2024). Replication data for: Vote buying, norms, context, and trust in elections. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/HVSEBL

33.

Conroy-Krutz

Logan

(2012). Museveni and the 2011 Ugandan election: Did the money matter? The Journal of Modern African Studies, 50(4), 625–655. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022278X12000377

34.

Corstange

(2012). Vote trafficking in Lebanon. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 44(3), 483–505. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020743812000438

35.

Cox

G. W.

Kousser

J. M.

(1981). Turnout and rural corruption: New York as a test case. American Journal of Political Science, 25(4), 646–663. https://doi.org/10.2307/2110757

36.

Cruz

Keefer

Labonne

(2021). Buying informed voters: New effects of information on voters and candidates. The Economic Journal, 131(635), 1105–1134. https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueaa112

37.

Curini

(2010). Experts’ political preferences and their impact on ideological bias: An unfolding analysis based on a Benoit-Laver expert survey. Party Politics, 16(3), 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068809341051

38.

Daxecker

Fjelde

(2022). Electoral violence, partisan identity, and perceptions of election quality: A survey experiment in West Bengal, India. Comparative Politics, 55(1), 47–69. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041522X16430324169141

39.

Debs

Helmke

(2010). Inequality under democracy: Explaining the left decade in Latin America. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 5(3), 209–241. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00009074

40.

de Sousa

(2008). Clientelism and the quality(ies) of democracy: Public and policy aspects (2008/2; DISC working paper). Center for the study of imperfections in democracy. Central European University. https://pdc.ceu.hu/archive/00004462

41.

Díaz-Cayeros

Estévez

Magaloni

(2016). The political logic of poverty relief: Electoral strategies and social policy in Mexico. Cambridge University Press.

42.

Fergusson

Molina

Riaño

J. F.

(2018). I sell my vote, and so what? Incidence, social bias, and correlates of clientelism in Colombia. Economia, 19(1), 181–218. https://doi.org/10.1353/eco.2018.0011

43.

Fernández-Vázquez

Barberá

Rivero

(2016). Rooting out corruption or rooting for corruption? The heterogeneous electoral consequences of scandals. Political Science Research and Methods, 4(2), 379–397. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2015.8

44.

Finan

Schechter

(2012). Vote-buying and reciprocity. Econometrica, 80(2), 863–881. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA9035

45.

Gaines

B. J.

Kuklinski

J. H.

Quirk

P. J.

(2007). The logic of the survey experiment reexamined. Political Analysis, 15(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpl008

46.

Gay

(1999). The broker and the thief: A parable (Reflections on popular politics in Brazil). Luso-Brazilian Review, 36(1), 49–70.

47.

Gonzalez-Ocantos

de Jonge

C. K.

Meléndez

Osorio

Nickerson

D. W.

(2012). Vote buying and social desirability bias: Experimental evidence from Nicaragua. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 202–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00540.x

48.

Gonzalez Ocantos

de Jonge

C. K.

Nickerson

D. W.

(2014). The conditionality of vote-buying norms: Experimental evidence from Latin America. American Journal of Political Science, 58(1), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12047

49.

González-Ocantos

Kiewiet de Jonge

Nickerson

D. W.

(2015). Legitimacy buying: The dynamics of clientelism in the face of legitimacy challenges. Comparative Political Studies, 48(9), 1127–1158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414015574882

50.

Gonzalez-Ocantos

Oliveros

(2019). Clientelism in Latin American politics. In Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

51.

Greene

K. F.

(2021). Campaign effects and the elusive swing voter in modern machine politics. Comparative Political Studies, 54(1), 77–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414020919919

52.

Greene

K. F.

(2022). Money can't buy you love: Partisan responses to vote‐buying offers. American Journal of Political Science, 68(2), 644–660. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12738

53.

Guardado

Wantchekon

(2018). Do electoral handouts affect voting behavior? Electoral Studies, 53, 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2017.11.002

54.

Hainmueller

(2012). Entropy balancing for causal effects: A multivariate reweighting method to produce balanced samples in observational studies. Political Analysis, 20(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr025

55.

Hicken

(2011). Clientelism. Annual Review of Political Science, 14(1), 289–310. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.031908.220508

56.

Hicken

Leider

Ravanilla

Yang

(2015). Measuring vote-selling: Field evidence from the Philippines. The American Economic Review, 105(5), 352–356. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20151033

57.

Hiskey

J. T.

Moseley

M. W.

(2017). Severed linkages: Distorted accountability in uneven regimes. Comparative Political Studies, 51(10), 1314–1350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414017740603

58.

Hiskey

J. T.

Moseley

M. W.

(2020). Life in the political machine: Dominant-party enclaves and the citizens they produce. Oxford University Press.

59.

Johnson

(2020). Electoral discrimination: The relationship between skin color and vote buying in Latin America. World Politics, 72(1), 80–120. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887119000145

60.

Karp

J. A.

Nai

Norris

(2018). Dial ‘F’ for fraud: Explaining citizens suspicions about Elections. Electoral Studies, 53, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2018.01.010

61.

Kerr

(2013). Popular evaluations of election quality in Africa: Evidence from Nigeria. Electoral Studies, 32(4), 819–837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2013.02.010

62.

Kerr

Luhrmann

(2017). Public trust in manipulated elections: The role of election administration and media freedom. Electoral Studies, 50, 50–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2017.08.003.

63.

Kerr

N. N.

(2018). Election-day experiences and evaluations of electoral integrity in unconsolidated democracies: Evidence from Nigeria. Political Studies, 66(3), 667–686. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321717724932

64.

Kiewiet de Jonge

C. P.

(2015). Who lies about electoral gifts? Experimental evidence from Latin America. Public Opinion Quarterly, 79(3), 710–739. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfv024

65.

Kitschelt

(2000). Linkages between citizens and politicians in democratic polities. Comparative Political Studies, 33(6-7), 845–879. https://doi.org/10.1177/001041400003300607

66.

Kitschelt

Wilkinson

S. I.

(Eds.), (2007). Patrons, clients and policies: Patterns of democratic accountability and political competition: Cambridge University Press.

67.

Klašnja

Lupu

Tucker

(2021). When do voters sanction corrupt politicians? Journal of Experimental Political Science, 8(2), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2020.13

68.

Kramon

(2009). Vote buying and political behavior: Estimating and explaining vote-buying’s effect on turnout in Kenya (No. 114; Afrobarometer Working Paper). Afrobarometer. https://www.afrobarometer.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/AfropaperNo114.pdf

69.

Kramon

(2016). Where is vote buying effective? Evidence from a list experiment in Kenya. Electoral Studies, 44, 397–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2016.09.006.

70.

Lawson

Greene

K. F.

(2014). Making clientelism work: How norms of reciprocity increase voter compliance. Comparative Politics, 47(1), 61–85. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041514813623173

71.

Lehoucq

(2003). Electoral fraud: Causes types, and consequences. Annual Review of Political Science, 6(1), 233–256. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085655

72.

Leight

Foarta

Pande

Ralston

(2020). Value for money? Vote-Buying and politician accountability. Journal of Public Economics, 190, Article 104227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104227

73.

Letki

Górecki

Gendźwiłł

(2023). ‘They accept bribes; We accept bribery’: Conditional effects of corrupt encounters on the evaluation of public institutions. British Journal of Political Science, 53(2), 690–697. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123422000047

74.

Levick

Olavarria-Gambi

(2020). Hindsight bias in expert surveys: How democratic crises influence retrospective evaluations. Politics, 40(4), 494–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263395720914571

75.

Lindberg

S. I.

Morrison

M. K. C.

(2008). Are African voters really ethnic or clientelistic? Survey evidence from Ghana. Political Science Quarterly, 123(1), 95–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165X.2008.tb00618.x

76.

Linos

Twist

(2018). Diverse pre-treatment effects in survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 5(2), 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2017.29

77.

Linthicum

(2018). Mexico, voters are wooed with gift cards, washing machines and cheap tortillas. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-mexico-tortilla-war-20180228-story.html

78.

Lyne

M. M.

(2008). The voter’s dilemma and democratic accountability: Latin America and beyond. Penn State University Press.

79.

Manzetti

Wilson

C. J.

(2007). Why do corrupt governments maintain public support? Comparative Political Studies, 40(8), 949–970. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414005285759

80.

Mares

Young

(2016). Buying, expropriating, and stealing votes. Annual Review of Political Science, 19(1), 267–288. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-060514-120923

81.

Martínez i Coma

Trinh

(2016). How electoral integrity affects voter turnout in democracies. Australian Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2016.1238869

82.

McAllister

White

(2015). Electoral integrity and support for democracy in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties, 25(1), 78–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2014.911744

83.

Miratrix

Sekhon

Theodoridis

Campos

(2018). Worth weighting? How to think about and use weights in survey experiments. Political Analysis, 26(3), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2018.1

84.

Moseley

M. W.

(2018). Protest state: The rise of everyday contention in Latin America. Oxford University Press.

85.

Muñoz

(2018). Buying Audiences: Clientelism and electoral campaigns when parties are weak. Cambridge University Press.

86.

Murillo

M. V.

Oliveros

Zarazaga

(2021). The most vulnerable poor: Clientelism among slum dwellers. Studies in Comparative International Development, 56(3), 343–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-021-09324-x

87.

Nicas

(2023). One secret to a Latin American party’s dominance: Buying votes. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/world/americas/paraguay-election-colorado-party.html

88.

Nichter

(2008). Vote buying or turnout buying? Machine politics and the secret ballot. American Political Science Review, 102(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055408080106

89.

Nichter

(2018). Votes for survival: Relational clientelism in Latin America. Cambridge University Press.

90.

Nichter

Peress

(2017). Request fulfilling: When citizens demand clientelist benefits. Comparative Political Studies, 50(8), 1086–1117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414016666838

91.

Norris

(2013). The new research agenda studying electoral integrity. Electoral Studies, 32(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2013.07.015

92.

Norris

(2014). Why electoral integrity matters. Cambridge University Press.

93.

Norris

(2019). Do perceptions of electoral malpractice undermine democratic satisfaction? The US in comparative perspective. International Political Science Review, 40(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512118806783

94.

Oliveros

(2016). Making it personal: Clientelism, favors, and the personalization of public administration in Argentina. Comparative Politics, 48(3), 373–391. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041516818254437

95.

Oliveros

(2019). Perceptions of ballot integrity and clientelism. In Lupu

Oliveros

Schiumerini

(Eds.), Campaigns and voters in developing democracies: Argentina in comparative perspective (pp. 213–238). University of Michigan Press.

96.

Oliveros

Weitz-Shapiro

Winters

M. S.

(2023). Credit claiming by labeling. Comparative Political Studies, 56(13), 2099–2127. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140231169016

97.

Pavão

(2018). Corruption as the only option: The limits to electoral accountability. The Journal of Politics, 80(3), 996–1010. https://doi.org/10.1086/697954

98.

Pellicer

Wegner

Bayer

Tischmeyer

(2022). Clientelism from the client’s perspective: A meta-analysis of ethnographic literature. Perspectives on Politics, 20(3), 931–947. https://doi.org/10.1017/S153759272000420X

99.

Powell

G. B.

(2000). Elections as instruments of democracy: Majoritarian and proportional visions. Yale University Press.

100.

Przeworski

Stokes

S. C.

Manin

(Eds.), (1999). Democracy, accountability, and representation. Cambridge University Press.

101.

Rizzo

(2022). Breaking the clientelist feedback loop: Evidence from a field experiment in the Yucatan Peninsula. [Working Paper]. https://www.tesaliarizzo.com/research

102.

Roniger

Briquet

J. L.

Sawicki

Auyero

Piattoni

(2004). Political clientelism, democracy, and market economy. Comparative Politics, 36(3), 353–375. https://doi.org/10.2307/4150135

103.

Schaffer

F. C.

(2005). Clean elections and the great unwashed: Vote buying and voter education in the Philippines (21; Papers of the School of Social Science). Institute for Advanced Study. https://www.ias.edu/sites/default/files/sss/papers/paper21.pdf

104.

Schedler

(2002). Elections without democracy: The menu of manipulation. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2002.0031

105.

Scheiner

(2007). Clientelism in Japan: The importance and limits of institutional explanations. In Kitschelt

Wilkinson

S. M.

(Eds.), Patrons, clients, and policies: Patterns of democratic accountability and political competition (pp. 276–297). Cambridge University Press.

106.

Seligson

M. A.

(2002). The renaissance of political culture or the renaissance of the ecological fallacy? Comparative Politics, 34(3), 273–292. https://doi.org/10.2307/4146954

107.

Shah

(2015). Free and fair? Citizens’ assessments of the 2013 general election in Kenya. Review of African Political Economy, 42(143), 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/03056244.2014.995162

108.

Shami

(2012). Collective action, clientelism, and connectivity. American Political Science Review, 106(3), 588–606. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000251

109.

Školník

(2022). Gifts for votes? Vote buying as a predictor of turnout in Latin America. Latin American Policy, 13(1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/lamp.12245

110.

Slothuus

(2016). Assessing the influence of political parties on public opinion: The challenge from pretreatment effects. Political Communication, 33(2), 302–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2015.1052892

111.

Stokes

S. C.

(2005). Perverse accountability: A formal model of machine politics with evidence from Argentina. American Political Science Review, 99(3), 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055405051683

112.

Stokes

S. C.

(2007). Is vote buying undemocratic? In Schaffer

F. C.

(Ed.), Elections for sale: The causes and consequences of vote buying (pp. 81–100). Lynne Rienner Press.

113.

Stokes

S. C.

(2011). Political clientelism. In Goodin

R. E.

(Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of political science. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.013.0031

114.

Stokes

S. C.

Dunning

Nazareno

Brusco

(2013). Brokers, voters, and clientelism: The puzzle of distributive politics. Cambridge University Press.

115.

Szwarcberg

(2013). Building a following: Local candidates’ political careers and clientelism in Argentine municipalities. Latin American Politics and Society, 55(03), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-2456.2013.00200.x

116.

Van de Walle

(2003). Presidentialism and clientelism in Africa's emerging party systems. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 41(2), 297–321. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022278X03004269

117.

Vera

S. B.

(2020). Accepting or resisting? Citizen responses to corruption across varying levels of competence and corruption prevalence. Political Studies, 68(3), 653–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719868210

118.

Vicente

P. C.

(2014). Is vote buying effective? Evidence from a field experiment in west Africa. The Economic Journal, 124(574), 356–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12086

119.

Wang

(2020). Clientelistic parties and satisfaction with democracy. Party Politics, 26(4), 135406881878496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068818784965

120.

Weitz-Shapiro

(2014). Curbing clientelism in Argentina: Politics, poverty, and social policy. Cambridge University Press.

121.

Wellman

E. I.

Hyde

S. D.

Hall

T. E.

(2018). Does fraud trump partisanship? The impact of contentious elections on voter confidence. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties, 28(3), 330–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2017.1394865

122.

Zechmeister

E. J.

Zizumbo-Colunga

(2013). The varying political toll of concerns about corruption in good versus bad economic times. Comparative Political Studies, 46(10), 1190–1218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414012472468

123.

Zhang

Conrad

(2014) (In press). Speeding in web surveys: the tendency to answer very fast and its association with straightlining. Survey Research Methods, 8(2), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2014.v8i2.5453

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

1.80 MB