#surveyresearch — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #surveyresearch, aggregated by home.social.
-
DATE: September 21, 2026 at 08:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Support for political violence drops across the board, though MAGA supporters remain the most likely to justify it
A recent nationally representative survey suggests that American public support for political violence decreased heading into the 2026 midterm elections, contrary to popular fears. The findings indicate that while partisan tensions remain high, an overwhelming majority of adults in the United States unconditionally reject the idea of using physical force to achieve political goals. The research was published as a preprint on SocArXiv, meaning it has not yet been peer-reviewed.
Political violence involves the use of physical force to advance a political agenda. This can range from damaging property to threatening, injuring, or killing individuals for ideological reasons. Aside from the immediate physical harm, political violence has long-term effects on public mental health and social stability. As the 2026 midterm elections approached, many political observers and citizens alike expressed concern that a highly polarized environment might lead to a spike in violent behavior.
These fears are sometimes amplified by public opinion polls, but survey design can play a large role in how these attitudes are measured. A 2022 study suggested that poorly designed polling questions often inflate apparent support for partisan violence, pointing out that Americans’ actual willingness to commit physical harm is much narrower than some surveys imply.
To accurately track these attitudes over time, a research team led by Garen J. Wintemute, a distinguished professor of emergency medicine, the Baker-Teret Chair in Violence Prevention, and director of the Centers for Violence Prevention at the University of California, Davis, launched an annual, nationally representative survey project in 2022.
“Political violence poses a serious threat to the United States,” Wintemute told PsyPost. “We are seeking to understand factors associated with justification for and willingness to commit political violence.”
As part of this ongoing monitoring effort, a study covered by PsyPost in 2025 found that individuals who identify as “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) Republicans were more likely to view political violence as justified compared to other Americans, though they were not necessarily more willing to personally carry out such acts. With the 2026 midterms looming and several recent high-profile incidents of government-initiated violence in the news, the researchers anticipated that public appetite for political violence might increase. They conducted the mid-2026 wave of their survey to test whether this expectation matched reality.
The researchers analyzed data from the fifth wave of their annual survey, which was administered online between May 15 and June 15, 2026. The sample included 7,752 adult participants drawn from the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a probability-based panel designed to reflect the demographic makeup of the noninstitutionalized U.S. population.
The survey measured three main concepts: respondents’ beliefs about the potential for future civil war, their justification for using political violence, and their personal willingness to engage in it. For these questions, the survey explicitly defined violence as physical force strong enough that it could cause pain or injury to a person.
Respondents first indicated whether they felt violence was ever justified in general or to achieve any of 21 specific political goals. These goals included preserving a certain American way of life, stopping police violence, preventing voter fraud, or stopping illegal immigration. A new question in the 2026 survey asked those who said violence was “never justified” to clarify their stance, checking to see if their rejection of violence was unconditional.
Those who said violence could be justified were then asked how willing they would be to personally damage property, threaten people, injure someone, or kill someone to advance a political objective. They were also asked about their willingness to target specific populations, such as elected officials, police officers, election workers, or members of an opposing political party. Finally, all participants were asked how likely they were to use a firearm in a situation where they felt political violence was justified.
The results point to a broad rejection of political violence across the ideological spectrum. Out of 53 survey items measuring anticipation of, justification for, and willingness to commit political violence, 51 showed small average decreases between mid-2025 and mid-2026.
“The general perception is that political violence is common and increasing,” Wintemute noted. “Neither of those things is true. And in our survey respondents, support for political violence fell from 2025 to 2026, across the political spectrum.”
Overall, high levels of support for violence were quite rare. In 2026, the belief that violence was “usually or always” justified to advance any specific political objective never exceeded 13 percent of the sample. Additionally, among the nearly one-quarter of respondents who said violence was never justified for any of the listed objectives, over 91 percent clarified that their rejection was absolute and unconditional.
When it came to personal willingness to carry out violence, the numbers were even lower. Among the subset of respondents who felt political violence was at least sometimes justified, only about 2 percent said they were “very or completely willing” to damage property, threaten, injure, or kill another person. Willingness to act in a group or as a lone actor also declined from the previous year. Similarly, fewer than 4 percent of all respondents expected that they would shoot or threaten someone with a firearm to advance a political goal.
The only measure that increased from 2025 to 2026 was the public’s expectation of a civil war. In 2025, 7.1 percent of respondents strongly agreed that a civil war would happen in the next few years; in 2026, that figure rose to 8.0 percent. However, the belief that a civil war was actually needed to “set things right” remained mostly flat at less than 4 percent.
The researchers also examined differences among political groups. MAGA Republicans and MAGA supporters who do not identify as Republicans tended to report higher levels of justification for political violence compared to Democrats and non-MAGA Republicans. For instance, roughly half of MAGA-affiliated respondents considered violence justified to advance at least one political objective. Among the small group of respondents who were willing to engage in violence, non-Republican MAGA supporters expressed the highest willingness to target specific populations. Despite these differences, the general trend of declining support for violence was observed among nearly all political groups.
“We found, as others have, that support for political violence is generally stronger on the political right than on the political left,” Wintemute explained. “Willingness to commit political violence is another matter; it is rare across the board. The vast majority of respondents in our surveys reject political violence altogether, and most of those who consider it acceptable are not willing to become involved in it themselves.”
These findings are in line with research covered by PsyPost in 2024, which found a similar nationwide decrease in support for political violence and belief in an imminent civil war between 2022 and 2023. Together, the data suggest a resilient public aversion to political violence, even during periods of intense political stress.
In a statement accompanying the research, the study authors emphasized the power of public norms. “These findings are clear,” they wrote. “Entrapment in a spiral of escalating political violence is not inevitable in the United States. Those who promote political violence should recognize that they do not have the public’s support and that promoting violence may exact a political cost.”
“We who reject political violence must make our rejection known to our families, friends, and larger social networks,” the researchers added. “A public climate of non-acceptance for violence can help reduce the likelihood of it occurring.”
There are a few things to keep in mind when interpreting these findings. First, survey responses about hypothetical willingness to commit violence do not perfectly predict how people will behave in real life. Some respondents might overstate their willingness to fight for a cause, while others might underreport their aggressive intentions because they know violence is socially unacceptable.
Also, the survey only asked about willingness to commit violence to the subset of people who first agreed that violence could be justified. Because different political groups passed this initial filter at different rates, the follow-up comparisons about personal willingness are based on varied sample proportions. For example, fewer Democrats than Republicans met the initial criteria, meaning the follow-up percentages for Democrats represent a smaller, more specific subset of that group. Finally, the survey was fielded over a single month in mid-2026, and rapidly unfolding political events or news stories could quickly shift public sentiment in unpredictable ways.
Moving forward, the research team hopes to translate these findings into proactive solutions. “Next year we hope to launch a randomized trial of an intervention to prevent political violence,” Wintemute said.
The study, “Decreased Support for Political Violence in the United States in Mid-2026: Findings from a Nationally Representative Survey,” was authored by Garen J. Wintemute, Sonia L. Robinson, Daniel J. Tancredi, Krista Neumann, Shaina Sta. Cruz, Aaron B. Shev, Elizabeth A. Tomsich, Bradley Velasquez, Mona A. Wright, and Veronica A. Pear.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #PoliticalViolence #PublicOpinion #MidtermElection2026 #MAGA #ViolencePrevention #PublicSafety #SurveyResearch #CivilDiscourse #PoliticalViolenceReduction #PublicNorms
-
DATE: September 21, 2026 at 08:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Support for political violence drops across the board, though MAGA supporters remain the most likely to justify it
A recent nationally representative survey suggests that American public support for political violence decreased heading into the 2026 midterm elections, contrary to popular fears. The findings indicate that while partisan tensions remain high, an overwhelming majority of adults in the United States unconditionally reject the idea of using physical force to achieve political goals. The research was published as a preprint on SocArXiv, meaning it has not yet been peer-reviewed.
Political violence involves the use of physical force to advance a political agenda. This can range from damaging property to threatening, injuring, or killing individuals for ideological reasons. Aside from the immediate physical harm, political violence has long-term effects on public mental health and social stability. As the 2026 midterm elections approached, many political observers and citizens alike expressed concern that a highly polarized environment might lead to a spike in violent behavior.
These fears are sometimes amplified by public opinion polls, but survey design can play a large role in how these attitudes are measured. A 2022 study suggested that poorly designed polling questions often inflate apparent support for partisan violence, pointing out that Americans’ actual willingness to commit physical harm is much narrower than some surveys imply.
To accurately track these attitudes over time, a research team led by Garen J. Wintemute, a distinguished professor of emergency medicine, the Baker-Teret Chair in Violence Prevention, and director of the Centers for Violence Prevention at the University of California, Davis, launched an annual, nationally representative survey project in 2022.
“Political violence poses a serious threat to the United States,” Wintemute told PsyPost. “We are seeking to understand factors associated with justification for and willingness to commit political violence.”
As part of this ongoing monitoring effort, a study covered by PsyPost in 2025 found that individuals who identify as “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) Republicans were more likely to view political violence as justified compared to other Americans, though they were not necessarily more willing to personally carry out such acts. With the 2026 midterms looming and several recent high-profile incidents of government-initiated violence in the news, the researchers anticipated that public appetite for political violence might increase. They conducted the mid-2026 wave of their survey to test whether this expectation matched reality.
The researchers analyzed data from the fifth wave of their annual survey, which was administered online between May 15 and June 15, 2026. The sample included 7,752 adult participants drawn from the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a probability-based panel designed to reflect the demographic makeup of the noninstitutionalized U.S. population.
The survey measured three main concepts: respondents’ beliefs about the potential for future civil war, their justification for using political violence, and their personal willingness to engage in it. For these questions, the survey explicitly defined violence as physical force strong enough that it could cause pain or injury to a person.
Respondents first indicated whether they felt violence was ever justified in general or to achieve any of 21 specific political goals. These goals included preserving a certain American way of life, stopping police violence, preventing voter fraud, or stopping illegal immigration. A new question in the 2026 survey asked those who said violence was “never justified” to clarify their stance, checking to see if their rejection of violence was unconditional.
Those who said violence could be justified were then asked how willing they would be to personally damage property, threaten people, injure someone, or kill someone to advance a political objective. They were also asked about their willingness to target specific populations, such as elected officials, police officers, election workers, or members of an opposing political party. Finally, all participants were asked how likely they were to use a firearm in a situation where they felt political violence was justified.
The results point to a broad rejection of political violence across the ideological spectrum. Out of 53 survey items measuring anticipation of, justification for, and willingness to commit political violence, 51 showed small average decreases between mid-2025 and mid-2026.
“The general perception is that political violence is common and increasing,” Wintemute noted. “Neither of those things is true. And in our survey respondents, support for political violence fell from 2025 to 2026, across the political spectrum.”
Overall, high levels of support for violence were quite rare. In 2026, the belief that violence was “usually or always” justified to advance any specific political objective never exceeded 13 percent of the sample. Additionally, among the nearly one-quarter of respondents who said violence was never justified for any of the listed objectives, over 91 percent clarified that their rejection was absolute and unconditional.
When it came to personal willingness to carry out violence, the numbers were even lower. Among the subset of respondents who felt political violence was at least sometimes justified, only about 2 percent said they were “very or completely willing” to damage property, threaten, injure, or kill another person. Willingness to act in a group or as a lone actor also declined from the previous year. Similarly, fewer than 4 percent of all respondents expected that they would shoot or threaten someone with a firearm to advance a political goal.
The only measure that increased from 2025 to 2026 was the public’s expectation of a civil war. In 2025, 7.1 percent of respondents strongly agreed that a civil war would happen in the next few years; in 2026, that figure rose to 8.0 percent. However, the belief that a civil war was actually needed to “set things right” remained mostly flat at less than 4 percent.
The researchers also examined differences among political groups. MAGA Republicans and MAGA supporters who do not identify as Republicans tended to report higher levels of justification for political violence compared to Democrats and non-MAGA Republicans. For instance, roughly half of MAGA-affiliated respondents considered violence justified to advance at least one political objective. Among the small group of respondents who were willing to engage in violence, non-Republican MAGA supporters expressed the highest willingness to target specific populations. Despite these differences, the general trend of declining support for violence was observed among nearly all political groups.
“We found, as others have, that support for political violence is generally stronger on the political right than on the political left,” Wintemute explained. “Willingness to commit political violence is another matter; it is rare across the board. The vast majority of respondents in our surveys reject political violence altogether, and most of those who consider it acceptable are not willing to become involved in it themselves.”
These findings are in line with research covered by PsyPost in 2024, which found a similar nationwide decrease in support for political violence and belief in an imminent civil war between 2022 and 2023. Together, the data suggest a resilient public aversion to political violence, even during periods of intense political stress.
In a statement accompanying the research, the study authors emphasized the power of public norms. “These findings are clear,” they wrote. “Entrapment in a spiral of escalating political violence is not inevitable in the United States. Those who promote political violence should recognize that they do not have the public’s support and that promoting violence may exact a political cost.”
“We who reject political violence must make our rejection known to our families, friends, and larger social networks,” the researchers added. “A public climate of non-acceptance for violence can help reduce the likelihood of it occurring.”
There are a few things to keep in mind when interpreting these findings. First, survey responses about hypothetical willingness to commit violence do not perfectly predict how people will behave in real life. Some respondents might overstate their willingness to fight for a cause, while others might underreport their aggressive intentions because they know violence is socially unacceptable.
Also, the survey only asked about willingness to commit violence to the subset of people who first agreed that violence could be justified. Because different political groups passed this initial filter at different rates, the follow-up comparisons about personal willingness are based on varied sample proportions. For example, fewer Democrats than Republicans met the initial criteria, meaning the follow-up percentages for Democrats represent a smaller, more specific subset of that group. Finally, the survey was fielded over a single month in mid-2026, and rapidly unfolding political events or news stories could quickly shift public sentiment in unpredictable ways.
Moving forward, the research team hopes to translate these findings into proactive solutions. “Next year we hope to launch a randomized trial of an intervention to prevent political violence,” Wintemute said.
The study, “Decreased Support for Political Violence in the United States in Mid-2026: Findings from a Nationally Representative Survey,” was authored by Garen J. Wintemute, Sonia L. Robinson, Daniel J. Tancredi, Krista Neumann, Shaina Sta. Cruz, Aaron B. Shev, Elizabeth A. Tomsich, Bradley Velasquez, Mona A. Wright, and Veronica A. Pear.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #PoliticalViolence #PublicOpinion #MidtermElection2026 #MAGA #ViolencePrevention #PublicSafety #SurveyResearch #CivilDiscourse #PoliticalViolenceReduction #PublicNorms
-
DATE: September 21, 2026 at 08:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Support for political violence drops across the board, though MAGA supporters remain the most likely to justify it
A recent nationally representative survey suggests that American public support for political violence decreased heading into the 2026 midterm elections, contrary to popular fears. The findings indicate that while partisan tensions remain high, an overwhelming majority of adults in the United States unconditionally reject the idea of using physical force to achieve political goals. The research was published as a preprint on SocArXiv, meaning it has not yet been peer-reviewed.
Political violence involves the use of physical force to advance a political agenda. This can range from damaging property to threatening, injuring, or killing individuals for ideological reasons. Aside from the immediate physical harm, political violence has long-term effects on public mental health and social stability. As the 2026 midterm elections approached, many political observers and citizens alike expressed concern that a highly polarized environment might lead to a spike in violent behavior.
These fears are sometimes amplified by public opinion polls, but survey design can play a large role in how these attitudes are measured. A 2022 study suggested that poorly designed polling questions often inflate apparent support for partisan violence, pointing out that Americans’ actual willingness to commit physical harm is much narrower than some surveys imply.
To accurately track these attitudes over time, a research team led by Garen J. Wintemute, a distinguished professor of emergency medicine, the Baker-Teret Chair in Violence Prevention, and director of the Centers for Violence Prevention at the University of California, Davis, launched an annual, nationally representative survey project in 2022.
“Political violence poses a serious threat to the United States,” Wintemute told PsyPost. “We are seeking to understand factors associated with justification for and willingness to commit political violence.”
As part of this ongoing monitoring effort, a study covered by PsyPost in 2025 found that individuals who identify as “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) Republicans were more likely to view political violence as justified compared to other Americans, though they were not necessarily more willing to personally carry out such acts. With the 2026 midterms looming and several recent high-profile incidents of government-initiated violence in the news, the researchers anticipated that public appetite for political violence might increase. They conducted the mid-2026 wave of their survey to test whether this expectation matched reality.
The researchers analyzed data from the fifth wave of their annual survey, which was administered online between May 15 and June 15, 2026. The sample included 7,752 adult participants drawn from the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a probability-based panel designed to reflect the demographic makeup of the noninstitutionalized U.S. population.
The survey measured three main concepts: respondents’ beliefs about the potential for future civil war, their justification for using political violence, and their personal willingness to engage in it. For these questions, the survey explicitly defined violence as physical force strong enough that it could cause pain or injury to a person.
Respondents first indicated whether they felt violence was ever justified in general or to achieve any of 21 specific political goals. These goals included preserving a certain American way of life, stopping police violence, preventing voter fraud, or stopping illegal immigration. A new question in the 2026 survey asked those who said violence was “never justified” to clarify their stance, checking to see if their rejection of violence was unconditional.
Those who said violence could be justified were then asked how willing they would be to personally damage property, threaten people, injure someone, or kill someone to advance a political objective. They were also asked about their willingness to target specific populations, such as elected officials, police officers, election workers, or members of an opposing political party. Finally, all participants were asked how likely they were to use a firearm in a situation where they felt political violence was justified.
The results point to a broad rejection of political violence across the ideological spectrum. Out of 53 survey items measuring anticipation of, justification for, and willingness to commit political violence, 51 showed small average decreases between mid-2025 and mid-2026.
“The general perception is that political violence is common and increasing,” Wintemute noted. “Neither of those things is true. And in our survey respondents, support for political violence fell from 2025 to 2026, across the political spectrum.”
Overall, high levels of support for violence were quite rare. In 2026, the belief that violence was “usually or always” justified to advance any specific political objective never exceeded 13 percent of the sample. Additionally, among the nearly one-quarter of respondents who said violence was never justified for any of the listed objectives, over 91 percent clarified that their rejection was absolute and unconditional.
When it came to personal willingness to carry out violence, the numbers were even lower. Among the subset of respondents who felt political violence was at least sometimes justified, only about 2 percent said they were “very or completely willing” to damage property, threaten, injure, or kill another person. Willingness to act in a group or as a lone actor also declined from the previous year. Similarly, fewer than 4 percent of all respondents expected that they would shoot or threaten someone with a firearm to advance a political goal.
The only measure that increased from 2025 to 2026 was the public’s expectation of a civil war. In 2025, 7.1 percent of respondents strongly agreed that a civil war would happen in the next few years; in 2026, that figure rose to 8.0 percent. However, the belief that a civil war was actually needed to “set things right” remained mostly flat at less than 4 percent.
The researchers also examined differences among political groups. MAGA Republicans and MAGA supporters who do not identify as Republicans tended to report higher levels of justification for political violence compared to Democrats and non-MAGA Republicans. For instance, roughly half of MAGA-affiliated respondents considered violence justified to advance at least one political objective. Among the small group of respondents who were willing to engage in violence, non-Republican MAGA supporters expressed the highest willingness to target specific populations. Despite these differences, the general trend of declining support for violence was observed among nearly all political groups.
“We found, as others have, that support for political violence is generally stronger on the political right than on the political left,” Wintemute explained. “Willingness to commit political violence is another matter; it is rare across the board. The vast majority of respondents in our surveys reject political violence altogether, and most of those who consider it acceptable are not willing to become involved in it themselves.”
These findings are in line with research covered by PsyPost in 2024, which found a similar nationwide decrease in support for political violence and belief in an imminent civil war between 2022 and 2023. Together, the data suggest a resilient public aversion to political violence, even during periods of intense political stress.
In a statement accompanying the research, the study authors emphasized the power of public norms. “These findings are clear,” they wrote. “Entrapment in a spiral of escalating political violence is not inevitable in the United States. Those who promote political violence should recognize that they do not have the public’s support and that promoting violence may exact a political cost.”
“We who reject political violence must make our rejection known to our families, friends, and larger social networks,” the researchers added. “A public climate of non-acceptance for violence can help reduce the likelihood of it occurring.”
There are a few things to keep in mind when interpreting these findings. First, survey responses about hypothetical willingness to commit violence do not perfectly predict how people will behave in real life. Some respondents might overstate their willingness to fight for a cause, while others might underreport their aggressive intentions because they know violence is socially unacceptable.
Also, the survey only asked about willingness to commit violence to the subset of people who first agreed that violence could be justified. Because different political groups passed this initial filter at different rates, the follow-up comparisons about personal willingness are based on varied sample proportions. For example, fewer Democrats than Republicans met the initial criteria, meaning the follow-up percentages for Democrats represent a smaller, more specific subset of that group. Finally, the survey was fielded over a single month in mid-2026, and rapidly unfolding political events or news stories could quickly shift public sentiment in unpredictable ways.
Moving forward, the research team hopes to translate these findings into proactive solutions. “Next year we hope to launch a randomized trial of an intervention to prevent political violence,” Wintemute said.
The study, “Decreased Support for Political Violence in the United States in Mid-2026: Findings from a Nationally Representative Survey,” was authored by Garen J. Wintemute, Sonia L. Robinson, Daniel J. Tancredi, Krista Neumann, Shaina Sta. Cruz, Aaron B. Shev, Elizabeth A. Tomsich, Bradley Velasquez, Mona A. Wright, and Veronica A. Pear.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #PoliticalViolence #PublicOpinion #MidtermElection2026 #MAGA #ViolencePrevention #PublicSafety #SurveyResearch #CivilDiscourse #PoliticalViolenceReduction #PublicNorms
-
DATE: September 12, 2026 at 12:08PM
SOURCE: SOCIALPSYCHOLOGY.ORGTITLE: Studies May Promise Anonymity, But the Promise Is Often Broken
Source: Science
Economist Abel Brodeur was leading a group of colleagues examining a survey-research study when they noticed something that stunned them. Its data set, available in a public repository, contained names of people who had admitted to crimes and identified their accomplices, information never provided to police. This broken promise of anonymity, it turns out, was far from an isolated case, according to a new study released last week.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #StudiesMayPromiseAnonymity #AnonymityBroken #DataPrivacy #PublicDataRisks #SurveyResearch #DataSecurity #CriminalRecords leakage #ResearchEthics #SocialScience #ScienceNews
-
DATE: September 12, 2026 at 12:08PM
SOURCE: SOCIALPSYCHOLOGY.ORGTITLE: Studies May Promise Anonymity, But the Promise Is Often Broken
Source: Science
Economist Abel Brodeur was leading a group of colleagues examining a survey-research study when they noticed something that stunned them. Its data set, available in a public repository, contained names of people who had admitted to crimes and identified their accomplices, information never provided to police. This broken promise of anonymity, it turns out, was far from an isolated case, according to a new study released last week.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #StudiesMayPromiseAnonymity #AnonymityBroken #DataPrivacy #PublicDataRisks #SurveyResearch #DataSecurity #CriminalRecords leakage #ResearchEthics #SocialScience #ScienceNews
-
DATE: September 12, 2026 at 12:08PM
SOURCE: SOCIALPSYCHOLOGY.ORGTITLE: Studies May Promise Anonymity, But the Promise Is Often Broken
Source: Science
Economist Abel Brodeur was leading a group of colleagues examining a survey-research study when they noticed something that stunned them. Its data set, available in a public repository, contained names of people who had admitted to crimes and identified their accomplices, information never provided to police. This broken promise of anonymity, it turns out, was far from an isolated case, according to a new study released last week.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #StudiesMayPromiseAnonymity #AnonymityBroken #DataPrivacy #PublicDataRisks #SurveyResearch #DataSecurity #CriminalRecords leakage #ResearchEthics #SocialScience #ScienceNews
-
Is #Amazon going to sunset #mTurk?
As of July 30 2026, #AWS will no longer accept new customers (requestors).
"Existing customers can continue to use the service as normal."
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/sagemaker/latest/dg/sms-workforce-management-public.html
#cogSci #psychology #xPhi #AI #tech #news #crowdWork #gigWork #surveyResearch
-
Is #Amazon going to sunset #mTurk?
As of July 30 2026, #AWS will no longer accept new customers (requestors).
"Existing customers can continue to use the service as normal."
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/sagemaker/latest/dg/sms-workforce-management-public.html
#cogSci #psychology #xPhi #AI #tech #news #crowdWork #gigWork #surveyResearch
-
Is #Amazon going to sunset #mTurk?
As of July 30 2026, #AWS will no longer accept new customers (requestors).
"Existing customers can continue to use the service as normal."
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/sagemaker/latest/dg/sms-workforce-management-public.html
#cogSci #psychology #xPhi #AI #tech #news #crowdWork #gigWork #surveyResearch
-
Is #Amazon going to sunset #mTurk?
As of July 30 2026, #AWS will no longer accept new customers (requestors).
"Existing customers can continue to use the service as normal."
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/sagemaker/latest/dg/sms-workforce-management-public.html
#cogSci #psychology #xPhi #AI #tech #news #crowdWork #gigWork #surveyResearch
-
Is #Amazon going to sunset #mTurk?
As of July 30 2026, #AWS will no longer accept new customers (requestors).
"Existing customers can continue to use the service as normal."
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/sagemaker/latest/dg/sms-workforce-management-public.html
#cogSci #psychology #xPhi #AI #tech #news #crowdWork #gigWork #surveyResearch
-
Going back to the original question: does response to the "difficulty for men to conform to societal expectations" question vary by political leaning? Mostly no.
Now that sayDvoteR and sayRvoteD have been pulled out of all other groups GOP & Dem respondents don't seem very different from each other on this item.
Unaffiliated ('Oth') men have, by far, the highest response here. This is the part of the data story that is consistent with the first glance, a few days ago. Unaffiliated women have a good deal of variability but their average is everyone else's average. There doesn't seem to be much insight from the sayDvoteR group, and the sayRvoteD group has a potential gender split (men lower) though less dramatic than Oth and hovering around the overall mean.
Men in the 'Oth' group responded, on average, with significantly greater agreement with the item ("men have a harder time...") than Oth women (t=2.53, p<.05). There was no significant difference between men and women in the sayRvoteD group.
I think I'll stop here. I found that the patterns apparent in the first graph were due to at least one underlying factor, and partly disappeared when that was accounted for. I have more analyses to do with this quirky dataset, but I also have like a job or something. And a kid. You know, other things on the to-do list (some of which are far less fun than this).
/end (for now)
#uspol #survey #surveyresearch #gender #democrats #republicans
-
Going back to the original question: does response to the "difficulty for men to conform to societal expectations" question vary by political leaning? Mostly no.
Now that sayDvoteR and sayRvoteD have been pulled out of all other groups GOP & Dem respondents don't seem very different from each other on this item.
Unaffiliated ('Oth') men have, by far, the highest response here. This is the part of the data story that is consistent with the first glance, a few days ago. Unaffiliated women have a good deal of variability but their average is everyone else's average. There doesn't seem to be much insight from the sayDvoteR group, and the sayRvoteD group has a potential gender split (men lower) though less dramatic than Oth and hovering around the overall mean.
Men in the 'Oth' group responded, on average, with significantly greater agreement with the item ("men have a harder time...") than Oth women (t=2.53, p<.05). There was no significant difference between men and women in the sayRvoteD group.
I think I'll stop here. I found that the patterns apparent in the first graph were due to at least one underlying factor, and partly disappeared when that was accounted for. I have more analyses to do with this quirky dataset, but I also have like a job or something. And a kid. You know, other things on the to-do list (some of which are far less fun than this).
/end (for now)
#uspol #survey #surveyresearch #gender #democrats #republicans
-
Going back to the original question: does response to the "difficulty for men to conform to societal expectations" question vary by political leaning? Mostly no.
Now that sayDvoteR and sayRvoteD have been pulled out of all other groups GOP & Dem respondents don't seem very different from each other on this item.
Unaffiliated ('Oth') men have, by far, the highest response here. This is the part of the data story that is consistent with the first glance, a few days ago. Unaffiliated women have a good deal of variability but their average is everyone else's average. There doesn't seem to be much insight from the sayDvoteR group, and the sayRvoteD group has a potential gender split (men lower) though less dramatic than Oth and hovering around the overall mean.
Men in the 'Oth' group responded, on average, with significantly greater agreement with the item ("men have a harder time...") than Oth women (t=2.53, p<.05). There was no significant difference between men and women in the sayRvoteD group.
I think I'll stop here. I found that the patterns apparent in the first graph were due to at least one underlying factor, and partly disappeared when that was accounted for. I have more analyses to do with this quirky dataset, but I also have like a job or something. And a kid. You know, other things on the to-do list (some of which are far less fun than this).
/end (for now)
#uspol #survey #surveyresearch #gender #democrats #republicans
-
Going back to the original question: does response to the "difficulty for men to conform to societal expectations" question vary by political leaning? Mostly no.
Now that sayDvoteR and sayRvoteD have been pulled out of all other groups GOP & Dem respondents don't seem very different from each other on this item.
Unaffiliated ('Oth') men have, by far, the highest response here. This is the part of the data story that is consistent with the first glance, a few days ago. Unaffiliated women have a good deal of variability but their average is everyone else's average. There doesn't seem to be much insight from the sayDvoteR group, and the sayRvoteD group has a potential gender split (men lower) though less dramatic than Oth and hovering around the overall mean.
Men in the 'Oth' group responded, on average, with significantly greater agreement with the item ("men have a harder time...") than Oth women (t=2.53, p<.05). There was no significant difference between men and women in the sayRvoteD group.
I think I'll stop here. I found that the patterns apparent in the first graph were due to at least one underlying factor, and partly disappeared when that was accounted for. I have more analyses to do with this quirky dataset, but I also have like a job or something. And a kid. You know, other things on the to-do list (some of which are far less fun than this).
/end (for now)
#uspol #survey #surveyresearch #gender #democrats #republicans
-
Going back to the original question: does response to the "difficulty for men to conform to societal expectations" question vary by political leaning? Mostly no.
Now that sayDvoteR and sayRvoteD have been pulled out of all other groups GOP & Dem respondents don't seem very different from each other on this item.
Unaffiliated ('Oth') men have, by far, the highest response here. This is the part of the data story that is consistent with the first glance, a few days ago. Unaffiliated women have a good deal of variability but their average is everyone else's average. There doesn't seem to be much insight from the sayDvoteR group, and the sayRvoteD group has a potential gender split (men lower) though less dramatic than Oth and hovering around the overall mean.
Men in the 'Oth' group responded, on average, with significantly greater agreement with the item ("men have a harder time...") than Oth women (t=2.53, p<.05). There was no significant difference between men and women in the sayRvoteD group.
I think I'll stop here. I found that the patterns apparent in the first graph were due to at least one underlying factor, and partly disappeared when that was accounted for. I have more analyses to do with this quirky dataset, but I also have like a job or something. And a kid. You know, other things on the to-do list (some of which are far less fun than this).
/end (for now)
#uspol #survey #surveyresearch #gender #democrats #republicans
-
A few days ago I posted a graph with very minimal details. I'm going to try to do a more considered analysis here.
The original post showed (binary, sorry) male and female survey respondents' answers to a question about how hard they thought it was for men to conform to societal norms, by self-reported political affiliation. There was a potentially large surprise with politically unaffiliated women and (smaller effect) Democrat women vs men. That "other" category for politics can hide some interesting things, so I split things a bit differently.
I pulled out the participants who indicated they were Democrat or Republican (or leaning that way, for participants who said Independent or Other; there was a follow-up question). Then I compared self-reported D vs R affiliation/leaning with who they said they voted for in 2024. This created two new categories:
- sayDvoteR: Self-identified as Democrat or Democrat-leaning but voted for Trump
- sayRvoteD: Self-identified as Republican or Republican-leaning but voted for Harris
I did one more thing, still preliminary: I created a "MAGA score" by averaging the z-scores of nine questions that seemed explicitly relevant to MAGA ideology or affilitation. They were questions about whether the killing of an Iranian Islamic leader was justified, if the US violated international law when invading Iran, how much participants trusted Trump as a source of climate information, and whether they were proud to be an American. This a priori group of items clustered pretty tightly with Dem and GOP Ss, and less so with others.
1/
(Caveat! This is exploratory and I'm making some statistically non-optimal decisions I would at least explain more thoroughly if I were trying to publish this analysis)
-
A few days ago I posted a graph with very minimal details. I'm going to try to do a more considered analysis here.
The original post showed (binary, sorry) male and female survey respondents' answers to a question about how hard they thought it was for men to conform to societal norms, by self-reported political affiliation. There was a potentially large surprise with politically unaffiliated women and (smaller effect) Democrat women vs men. That "other" category for politics can hide some interesting things, so I split things a bit differently.
I pulled out the participants who indicated they were Democrat or Republican (or leaning that way, for participants who said Independent or Other; there was a follow-up question). Then I compared self-reported D vs R affiliation/leaning with who they said they voted for in 2024. This created two new categories:
- sayDvoteR: Self-identified as Democrat or Democrat-leaning but voted for Trump
- sayRvoteD: Self-identified as Republican or Republican-leaning but voted for Harris
I did one more thing, still preliminary: I created a "MAGA score" by averaging the z-scores of nine questions that seemed explicitly relevant to MAGA ideology or affilitation. They were questions about whether the killing of an Iranian Islamic leader was justified, if the US violated international law when invading Iran, how much participants trusted Trump as a source of climate information, and whether they were proud to be an American. This a priori group of items clustered pretty tightly with Dem and GOP Ss, and less so with others.
1/
(Caveat! This is exploratory and I'm making some statistically non-optimal decisions I would at least explain more thoroughly if I were trying to publish this analysis)
-
A few days ago I posted a graph with very minimal details. I'm going to try to do a more considered analysis here.
The original post showed (binary, sorry) male and female survey respondents' answers to a question about how hard they thought it was for men to conform to societal norms, by self-reported political affiliation. There was a potentially large surprise with politically unaffiliated women and (smaller effect) Democrat women vs men. That "other" category for politics can hide some interesting things, so I split things a bit differently.
I pulled out the participants who indicated they were Democrat or Republican (or leaning that way, for participants who said Independent or Other; there was a follow-up question). Then I compared self-reported D vs R affiliation/leaning with who they said they voted for in 2024. This created two new categories:
- sayDvoteR: Self-identified as Democrat or Democrat-leaning but voted for Trump
- sayRvoteD: Self-identified as Republican or Republican-leaning but voted for Harris
I did one more thing, still preliminary: I created a "MAGA score" by averaging the z-scores of nine questions that seemed explicitly relevant to MAGA ideology or affilitation. They were questions about whether the killing of an Iranian Islamic leader was justified, if the US violated international law when invading Iran, how much participants trusted Trump as a source of climate information, and whether they were proud to be an American. This a priori group of items clustered pretty tightly with Dem and GOP Ss, and less so with others.
1/
(Caveat! This is exploratory and I'm making some statistically non-optimal decisions I would at least explain more thoroughly if I were trying to publish this analysis)
-
A few days ago I posted a graph with very minimal details. I'm going to try to do a more considered analysis here.
The original post showed (binary, sorry) male and female survey respondents' answers to a question about how hard they thought it was for men to conform to societal norms, by self-reported political affiliation. There was a potentially large surprise with politically unaffiliated women and (smaller effect) Democrat women vs men. That "other" category for politics can hide some interesting things, so I split things a bit differently.
I pulled out the participants who indicated they were Democrat or Republican (or leaning that way, for participants who said Independent or Other; there was a follow-up question). Then I compared self-reported D vs R affiliation/leaning with who they said they voted for in 2024. This created two new categories:
- sayDvoteR: Self-identified as Democrat or Democrat-leaning but voted for Trump
- sayRvoteD: Self-identified as Republican or Republican-leaning but voted for Harris
I did one more thing, still preliminary: I created a "MAGA score" by averaging the z-scores of nine questions that seemed explicitly relevant to MAGA ideology or affilitation. They were questions about whether the killing of an Iranian Islamic leader was justified, if the US violated international law when invading Iran, how much participants trusted Trump as a source of climate information, and whether they were proud to be an American. This a priori group of items clustered pretty tightly with Dem and GOP Ss, and less so with others.
1/
(Caveat! This is exploratory and I'm making some statistically non-optimal decisions I would at least explain more thoroughly if I were trying to publish this analysis)
-
A few days ago I posted a graph with very minimal details. I'm going to try to do a more considered analysis here.
The original post showed (binary, sorry) male and female survey respondents' answers to a question about how hard they thought it was for men to conform to societal norms, by self-reported political affiliation. There was a potentially large surprise with politically unaffiliated women and (smaller effect) Democrat women vs men. That "other" category for politics can hide some interesting things, so I split things a bit differently.
I pulled out the participants who indicated they were Democrat or Republican (or leaning that way, for participants who said Independent or Other; there was a follow-up question). Then I compared self-reported D vs R affiliation/leaning with who they said they voted for in 2024. This created two new categories:
- sayDvoteR: Self-identified as Democrat or Democrat-leaning but voted for Trump
- sayRvoteD: Self-identified as Republican or Republican-leaning but voted for Harris
I did one more thing, still preliminary: I created a "MAGA score" by averaging the z-scores of nine questions that seemed explicitly relevant to MAGA ideology or affilitation. They were questions about whether the killing of an Iranian Islamic leader was justified, if the US violated international law when invading Iran, how much participants trusted Trump as a source of climate information, and whether they were proud to be an American. This a priori group of items clustered pretty tightly with Dem and GOP Ss, and less so with others.
1/
(Caveat! This is exploratory and I'm making some statistically non-optimal decisions I would at least explain more thoroughly if I were trying to publish this analysis)
-
RE: https://things.uk/@eclectech/116640432702265723
These are some of the worst-written choices for a survey question I’ve ever seen. It seems like the person who wrote this doesn’t know how to write survey questions but also wanted to be deliberately misleading so they can get the kind of answers they want.
-
RE: https://things.uk/@eclectech/116640432702265723
These are some of the worst-written choices for a survey question I’ve ever seen. It seems like the person who wrote this doesn’t know how to write survey questions but also wanted to be deliberately misleading so they can get the kind of answers they want.
-
RE: https://things.uk/@eclectech/116640432702265723
These are some of the worst-written choices for a survey question I’ve ever seen. It seems like the person who wrote this doesn’t know how to write survey questions but also wanted to be deliberately misleading so they can get the kind of answers they want.
-
RE: https://things.uk/@eclectech/116640432702265723
These are some of the worst-written choices for a survey question I’ve ever seen. It seems like the person who wrote this doesn’t know how to write survey questions but also wanted to be deliberately misleading so they can get the kind of answers they want.
-
RE: https://things.uk/@eclectech/116640432702265723
These are some of the worst-written choices for a survey question I’ve ever seen. It seems like the person who wrote this doesn’t know how to write survey questions but also wanted to be deliberately misleading so they can get the kind of answers they want.
-
𝗖𝗫𝗢𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗔𝗜 𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝗳𝗶𝗹𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀
Agentic AI adoption depends on 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹, 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗵, 𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁, 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲. This survey helps vendors understand why pilots convert or stall. -
#callforpapers #cfp #SurveyResearch
Who Produces #Knowledge? #AI Intervention in Survey Research between Paradigmatic Reaction and Epistemological Drift
When AI systems generate items, simulate respondents, or classify open-ended responses, measurement itself is shaped by interpretative operations embedded within the model. In relation to this interest, we are inviting contributors to this HSR special issue.Important date: May 17, 2026: Submission of extended abstracts
-
#callforpapers #cfp #SurveyResearch
Who Produces #Knowledge? #AI Intervention in Survey Research between Paradigmatic Reaction and Epistemological Drift
When AI systems generate items, simulate respondents, or classify open-ended responses, measurement itself is shaped by interpretative operations embedded within the model. In relation to this interest, we are inviting contributors to this HSR special issue.Important date: May 17, 2026: Submission of extended abstracts
-
#callforpapers #cfp #SurveyResearch
Who Produces #Knowledge? #AI Intervention in Survey Research between Paradigmatic Reaction and Epistemological Drift
When AI systems generate items, simulate respondents, or classify open-ended responses, measurement itself is shaped by interpretative operations embedded within the model. In relation to this interest, we are inviting contributors to this HSR special issue.Important date: May 17, 2026: Submission of extended abstracts
-
#callforpapers #cfp #SurveyResearch
Who Produces #Knowledge? #AI Intervention in Survey Research between Paradigmatic Reaction and Epistemological Drift
When AI systems generate items, simulate respondents, or classify open-ended responses, measurement itself is shaped by interpretative operations embedded within the model. In relation to this interest, we are inviting contributors to this HSR special issue.Important date: May 17, 2026: Submission of extended abstracts
-
#callforpapers #cfp #SurveyResearch
Who Produces #Knowledge? #AI Intervention in Survey Research between Paradigmatic Reaction and Epistemological Drift
When AI systems generate items, simulate respondents, or classify open-ended responses, measurement itself is shaped by interpretative operations embedded within the model. In relation to this interest, we are inviting contributors to this HSR special issue.Important date: May 17, 2026: Submission of extended abstracts
-
Is checking students' online surveys multiple times in the same day technically stalking? I swear, I just want what's best for them. I just want them to stay safe. Other professors don't know how to treat their surveys.
-
Is checking students' online surveys multiple times in the same day technically stalking? I swear, I just want what's best for them. I just want them to stay safe. Other professors don't know how to treat their surveys.
-
Is checking students' online surveys multiple times in the same day technically stalking? I swear, I just want what's best for them. I just want them to stay safe. Other professors don't know how to treat their surveys.
-
Is checking students' online surveys multiple times in the same day technically stalking? I swear, I just want what's best for them. I just want them to stay safe. Other professors don't know how to treat their surveys.
-
Is checking students' online surveys multiple times in the same day technically stalking? I swear, I just want what's best for them. I just want them to stay safe. Other professors don't know how to treat their surveys.
-
I feel like I'm constantly fighting an uphill battle when I raise awareness about any privacy issues. This email went out to my campus a few days ago from (ironically) the American Democracy Project. The link is below:
I removed my full fucking name and the name of my university; I'm sure there's shit that can be extracted by a knowledgeable person. Or maybe I'm paranoid and overreacting. I don't think all that text is necessary to simply route me to a survey's URL, even if it is on Microsoft Forms.
I replied to the all-campus email and said there was some data sent with that link, including my name. I said I'd like to participate in the survey if it was anonymous and asked if there was a simple, sanitized link that didn't send my name and other information with it. I got bounced to the Very Sincere Student Project Leader who assured me that there was no personal information collected, and I could verify this by looking at the questions in the survey.
On MS Forms.
Linked with all the stuff above.
Sigh. American Democracy, indeed.
-
I feel like I'm constantly fighting an uphill battle when I raise awareness about any privacy issues. This email went out to my campus a few days ago from (ironically) the American Democracy Project. The link is below:
I removed my full fucking name and the name of my university; I'm sure there's shit that can be extracted by a knowledgeable person. Or maybe I'm paranoid and overreacting. I don't think all that text is necessary to simply route me to a survey's URL, even if it is on Microsoft Forms.
I replied to the all-campus email and said there was some data sent with that link, including my name. I said I'd like to participate in the survey if it was anonymous and asked if there was a simple, sanitized link that didn't send my name and other information with it. I got bounced to the Very Sincere Student Project Leader who assured me that there was no personal information collected, and I could verify this by looking at the questions in the survey.
On MS Forms.
Linked with all the stuff above.
Sigh. American Democracy, indeed.
-
I feel like I'm constantly fighting an uphill battle when I raise awareness about any privacy issues. This email went out to my campus a few days ago from (ironically) the American Democracy Project. The link is below:
I removed my full fucking name and the name of my university; I'm sure there's shit that can be extracted by a knowledgeable person. Or maybe I'm paranoid and overreacting. I don't think all that text is necessary to simply route me to a survey's URL, even if it is on Microsoft Forms.
I replied to the all-campus email and said there was some data sent with that link, including my name. I said I'd like to participate in the survey if it was anonymous and asked if there was a simple, sanitized link that didn't send my name and other information with it. I got bounced to the Very Sincere Student Project Leader who assured me that there was no personal information collected, and I could verify this by looking at the questions in the survey.
On MS Forms.
Linked with all the stuff above.
Sigh. American Democracy, indeed.
-
I feel like I'm constantly fighting an uphill battle when I raise awareness about any privacy issues. This email went out to my campus a few days ago from (ironically) the American Democracy Project. The link is below:
I removed my full fucking name and the name of my university; I'm sure there's shit that can be extracted by a knowledgeable person. Or maybe I'm paranoid and overreacting. I don't think all that text is necessary to simply route me to a survey's URL, even if it is on Microsoft Forms.
I replied to the all-campus email and said there was some data sent with that link, including my name. I said I'd like to participate in the survey if it was anonymous and asked if there was a simple, sanitized link that didn't send my name and other information with it. I got bounced to the Very Sincere Student Project Leader who assured me that there was no personal information collected, and I could verify this by looking at the questions in the survey.
On MS Forms.
Linked with all the stuff above.
Sigh. American Democracy, indeed.
-
I feel like I'm constantly fighting an uphill battle when I raise awareness about any privacy issues. This email went out to my campus a few days ago from (ironically) the American Democracy Project. The link is below:
I removed my full fucking name and the name of my university; I'm sure there's shit that can be extracted by a knowledgeable person. Or maybe I'm paranoid and overreacting. I don't think all that text is necessary to simply route me to a survey's URL, even if it is on Microsoft Forms.
I replied to the all-campus email and said there was some data sent with that link, including my name. I said I'd like to participate in the survey if it was anonymous and asked if there was a simple, sanitized link that didn't send my name and other information with it. I got bounced to the Very Sincere Student Project Leader who assured me that there was no personal information collected, and I could verify this by looking at the questions in the survey.
On MS Forms.
Linked with all the stuff above.
Sigh. American Democracy, indeed.
-
gods save us from the college freshman edgelords who refuse to select any race/ethnicity categories in surveys and instead type in 'IRISH' (all caps).
You cost me 5 minutes of data cleaning, but I guess you'll add some good variability when you tell us how you feel about trans people.
-
gods save us from the college freshman edgelords who refuse to select any race/ethnicity categories in surveys and instead type in 'IRISH' (all caps).
You cost me 5 minutes of data cleaning, but I guess you'll add some good variability when you tell us how you feel about trans people.
-
gods save us from the college freshman edgelords who refuse to select any race/ethnicity categories in surveys and instead type in 'IRISH' (all caps).
You cost me 5 minutes of data cleaning, but I guess you'll add some good variability when you tell us how you feel about trans people.
-
gods save us from the college freshman edgelords who refuse to select any race/ethnicity categories in surveys and instead type in 'IRISH' (all caps).
You cost me 5 minutes of data cleaning, but I guess you'll add some good variability when you tell us how you feel about trans people.
-
gods save us from the college freshman edgelords who refuse to select any race/ethnicity categories in surveys and instead type in 'IRISH' (all caps).
You cost me 5 minutes of data cleaning, but I guess you'll add some good variability when you tell us how you feel about trans people.
-
I think I figured out why Qualtrics as a product hasn't lived up to anyone's expectations. If I had the time maybe I'd comb through their open issues and unaddressed feature requests to see if there's a little cliff in 2021.
#surveys #surveyresearch #qualtrics #research #enshittification
-
I think I figured out why Qualtrics as a product hasn't lived up to anyone's expectations. If I had the time maybe I'd comb through their open issues and unaddressed feature requests to see if there's a little cliff in 2021.
#surveys #surveyresearch #qualtrics #research #enshittification
-
I think I figured out why Qualtrics as a product hasn't lived up to anyone's expectations. If I had the time maybe I'd comb through their open issues and unaddressed feature requests to see if there's a little cliff in 2021.
#surveys #surveyresearch #qualtrics #research #enshittification
-
I think I figured out why Qualtrics as a product hasn't lived up to anyone's expectations. If I had the time maybe I'd comb through their open issues and unaddressed feature requests to see if there's a little cliff in 2021.
#surveys #surveyresearch #qualtrics #research #enshittification
-
I think I figured out why Qualtrics as a product hasn't lived up to anyone's expectations. If I had the time maybe I'd comb through their open issues and unaddressed feature requests to see if there's a little cliff in 2021.
#surveys #surveyresearch #qualtrics #research #enshittification
-
I've sadly come to conclude that #qualtrics (my beloved survey platform started by some fresh-faced Mormon boys from BYU 20 years ago) has become kind of enshittified.
For almost 20 years the company has had requests to add pretty reasonable features like (definitely not an exhaustive list):
- Vertical sliders
- Text orientation in labels
- non-numerical recodes (this has looked like it should for at least 15 years)
- Parity in options between matrix, sliders, and side-by-side questions
Several others, too. Nope. At least a dozen highly reasonable feature requests still unaddressed for 15+ years. I got off the phone with customer service and their best answer for vertical sliders or CSS-rotated slider/matrix labels was "check our community help forums, though we don't support anything they say." It's the Google/Microsoft model: convince people to crowdsource their own workarounds to your product while you rake in the dough from tens of thousands of organizational contracts.
Qualtrics' revenue is close to $2B per year, and they are valued north of $15B.
The sad thing is that there seem to be so few viable alternatives.
-
I've sadly come to conclude that #qualtrics (my beloved survey platform started by some fresh-faced Mormon boys from BYU 20 years ago) has become kind of enshittified.
For almost 20 years the company has had requests to add pretty reasonable features like (definitely not an exhaustive list):
- Vertical sliders
- Text orientation in labels
- non-numerical recodes (this has looked like it should for at least 15 years)
- Parity in options between matrix, sliders, and side-by-side questions
Several others, too. Nope. At least a dozen highly reasonable feature requests still unaddressed for 15+ years. I got off the phone with customer service and their best answer for vertical sliders or CSS-rotated slider/matrix labels was "check our community help forums, though we don't support anything they say." It's the Google/Microsoft model: convince people to crowdsource their own workarounds to your product while you rake in the dough from tens of thousands of organizational contracts.
Qualtrics' revenue is close to $2B per year, and they are valued north of $15B.
The sad thing is that there seem to be so few viable alternatives.
-
I've sadly come to conclude that #qualtrics (my beloved survey platform started by some fresh-faced Mormon boys from BYU 20 years ago) has become kind of enshittified.
For almost 20 years the company has had requests to add pretty reasonable features like (definitely not an exhaustive list):
- Vertical sliders
- Text orientation in labels
- non-numerical recodes (this has looked like it should for at least 15 years)
- Parity in options between matrix, sliders, and side-by-side questions
Several others, too. Nope. At least a dozen highly reasonable feature requests still unaddressed for 15+ years. I got off the phone with customer service and their best answer for vertical sliders or CSS-rotated slider/matrix labels was "check our community help forums, though we don't support anything they say." It's the Google/Microsoft model: convince people to crowdsource their own workarounds to your product while you rake in the dough from tens of thousands of organizational contracts.
Qualtrics' revenue is close to $2B per year, and they are valued north of $15B.
The sad thing is that there seem to be so few viable alternatives.
-
I've sadly come to conclude that #qualtrics (my beloved survey platform started by some fresh-faced Mormon boys from BYU 20 years ago) has become kind of enshittified.
For almost 20 years the company has had requests to add pretty reasonable features like (definitely not an exhaustive list):
- Vertical sliders
- Text orientation in labels
- non-numerical recodes (this has looked like it should for at least 15 years)
- Parity in options between matrix, sliders, and side-by-side questions
Several others, too. Nope. At least a dozen highly reasonable feature requests still unaddressed for 15+ years. I got off the phone with customer service and their best answer for vertical sliders or CSS-rotated slider/matrix labels was "check our community help forums, though we don't support anything they say." It's the Google/Microsoft model: convince people to crowdsource their own workarounds to your product while you rake in the dough from tens of thousands of organizational contracts.
Qualtrics' revenue is close to $2B per year, and they are valued north of $15B.
The sad thing is that there seem to be so few viable alternatives.
-
I've sadly come to conclude that #qualtrics (my beloved survey platform started by some fresh-faced Mormon boys from BYU 20 years ago) has become kind of enshittified.
For almost 20 years the company has had requests to add pretty reasonable features like (definitely not an exhaustive list):
- Vertical sliders
- Text orientation in labels
- non-numerical recodes (this has looked like it should for at least 15 years)
- Parity in options between matrix, sliders, and side-by-side questions
Several others, too. Nope. At least a dozen highly reasonable feature requests still unaddressed for 15+ years. I got off the phone with customer service and their best answer for vertical sliders or CSS-rotated slider/matrix labels was "check our community help forums, though we don't support anything they say." It's the Google/Microsoft model: convince people to crowdsource their own workarounds to your product while you rake in the dough from tens of thousands of organizational contracts.
Qualtrics' revenue is close to $2B per year, and they are valued north of $15B.
The sad thing is that there seem to be so few viable alternatives.
-
@guyjantic If this question is the only thing you have, it is difficult to make an argument to support ordered categories.
In #SurveyResearch you could do it via previous qualitative work, e.g., cognitive interviews; or quantitative work (e.g., ask people to indicate the order of such terms). If you have specific rating scale anchors (I doubt it exists for the ones you gave as examples 😂 ), you could look for published work on them and at least argue that others have found these to be ordered.
-
@guyjantic If this question is the only thing you have, it is difficult to make an argument to support ordered categories.
In #SurveyResearch you could do it via previous qualitative work, e.g., cognitive interviews; or quantitative work (e.g., ask people to indicate the order of such terms). If you have specific rating scale anchors (I doubt it exists for the ones you gave as examples 😂 ), you could look for published work on them and at least argue that others have found these to be ordered.
-
@guyjantic If this question is the only thing you have, it is difficult to make an argument to support ordered categories.
In #SurveyResearch you could do it via previous qualitative work, e.g., cognitive interviews; or quantitative work (e.g., ask people to indicate the order of such terms). If you have specific rating scale anchors (I doubt it exists for the ones you gave as examples 😂 ), you could look for published work on them and at least argue that others have found these to be ordered.