Comparing respondents who passed versus failed an Instructional Manipulation Check: A case study about support for climate change policies

Abstract

The presence of satisficers among survey respondents threatens survey data quality. To identify such respondents, Oppenheimer et al. developed the Instructional Manipulation Check (IMC), which has been used as a tool to exclude observations from the analyses. However, this practice has raised concerns regarding its effects on the external validity and the substantive conclusions of studies excluding respondents who fail an IMC. Thus, more research on the differences between respondents who pass versus fail an IMC regarding sociodemographic and attitudinal variables is needed. This study compares respondents who passed versus failed an IMC both for descriptive and causal analyses based on structural equation modeling (SEM) using data from an online survey implemented in Spain in 2019. These data were analyzed by Rubio Juan and Revilla without taking into account the results of the IMC. We find that those who passed the IMC do differ significantly from those who failed for two sociodemographic and five attitudinal variables, out of 18 variables compared. Moreover, in terms of substantive conclusions, differences between those who passed and failed the IMC vary depending on the specific variables under study.