@article{MunzertRamirezRuiz, author = {Munzert, Simon and Ramirez-Ruiz, Sebastian}, title = {Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Voting Advice Applications}, series = {Political Communication}, journal = {Political Communication}, doi = {10.1080/10584609.2020.1843572}, pages = {16}, abstract = {We review the influence of voting advice applications (VAAs) on three core outcomes: turnout, vote choice, and issue knowledge. In a meta-analysis of 55 effects reported in 22 studies, comprising 73,673 participants in 9 countries, we find strong evidence for positive effects of VAA usage on reported turnout (OR = 1.87; 95\% CI = [1.50, 2.33]) and vote choice (OR = 1.44; 95\% CI = [1.16, 1.78]) as well as modest evidence on knowledge increase (partial correlation = 0.09; 95\% CI = [-0.01, 0.18]). At the same time, we observe large heterogeneity in effect sizes, for which study design turns out to be a key driver. Effects are substantively weaker in causally more rigorous experimental studies. We highlight the need for more well-powered experimental research as well as studies focusing on the acquisition of knowledge in VAA usage.}, language = {en} } @article{MunzertRamirezRuizCalıetal., author = {Munzert, Simon and Ramirez-Ruiz, Sebastian and {\c{C}}al{\i}, Ba{\c{s}}ak and Stoetzer, Lukas F. and Gohdes, Anita R. and Lowe, Will}, title = {Prioritization preferences for COVID-19 vaccination are consistent across five countries}, series = {Humanities and Social Sciences Communications}, volume = {9}, journal = {Humanities and Social Sciences Communications}, number = {439}, doi = {10.1057/s41599-022-01392-1}, abstract = {Vaccination against COVID-19 is making progress globally, but vaccine doses remain a rare commodity in many parts of the world. New virus variants require vaccines to be updated, hampering the availability of effective vaccines. Policymakers have defined criteria to regulate who gets priority access to the vaccination, such as age, health complications, or those who hold system-relevant jobs. But how does the public think about vaccine allocation? To explore those preferences, we surveyed respondents in Brazil, Germany, Italy, Poland, and the United States from September to December of 2020 using ranking and forced-choice tasks. We find that public preferences are consistent with expert guidelines prioritizing health-care workers and people with medical preconditions. However, the public also considers those signing up early for vaccination and citizens of the country to be more deserving than later-comers and non-citizens. These results hold across measures, countries, and socio-demographic subgroups.}, language = {en} } @article{MunzertRamirezRuizBarberaetal., author = {Munzert, Simon and Ramirez-Ruiz, Sebastian and Barber{\´a}, Pablo and Guess, Andrew M. and Yang, JungHwan}, title = {Who's cheating on your survey? A detection approach with digital trace data}, series = {Political Science Research and Methods}, journal = {Political Science Research and Methods}, doi = {10.1017/psrm.2022.42}, pages = {1 -- 9}, abstract = {In this note, we provide direct evidence of cheating in online assessments of political knowledge. We combine survey responses with web tracking data of a German and a US online panel to assess whether people turn to external sources for answers. We observe item-level prevalence rates of cheating that range from 0 to 12 percent depending on question type and difficulty, and find that 23 percent of respondents engage in cheating at least once across waves. In the US panel, which employed a commitment pledge, we observe cheating behavior among less than 1 percent of respondents. We find robust respondent- and item-level characteristics associated with cheating. However, item-level instances of cheating are rare events; as such, they are difficult to predict and correct for without tracking data. Even so, our analyses comparing naive and cheating-corrected measures of political knowledge provide evidence that cheating does not substantially distort inferences.}, language = {en} } @techreport{MunzertRamirezRuizWatteleretal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Munzert, Simon and Ramirez-Ruiz, Sebastian and Watteler, Oliver and Breuer, Johannes and Batzdorfer, Veronika and Eder, Christina and Wiltshire, Deborah A and Barber{\´a}, Pablo and Guess, Andrew Markus and Yang, JungHwan}, title = {Publishing Combined Web Tracking and Survey Data}, publisher = {Center for Open Science}, doi = {10.31219/osf.io/y4v8z}, abstract = {Combined survey and web tracking data have great potential for social-scientific research. They allow linking information on online behavior with data on reported offline behavior, opinions, and attitudes. At the same time, ethical, legal, and technical challenges make it difficult to disseminate linked web tracking data to the scientific community. This whitepaper aims to address these challenges by providing guidance for researchers and archivists, discussing legal, practical, and ethical aspects, disclosure risks, and establishing a framework for publishing web tracking data. Recommendations for best practices are also provided based on experiences from a research project funded by the German Consortium for the Social, Behavioural, Educational and Economic Sciences.}, language = {en} }