Online Research Methods

doi:10.1017/9781009010054.019

18 - Online Research Methods

from Part III - Data Collection

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 May 2023

Kevin B. Wright

Edited by

Austin Lee Nichols and

John Edlund

Show author details

Austin Lee Nichols: Affiliation:
Central European University, Vienna
John Edlund: Affiliation:
Rochester Institute of Technology, New York

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter examines four prominent online research methods – online surveys, online experiments, online content analysis, and qualitative approaches – and a number of issues/best practices related to them that have been identified by scholars across a number of disciplines. In addition, several platforms for conducting online research, including online survey and experimental design platforms, online content capture programs, and related quantitative and qualitative data analysis tools, are identified in the chapter. Various advantages (e.g., time saving, cost, etc.) and disadvantages (e.g., sampling issues, validity and privacy issues, ethical issues) of each method are then discussed along with best practices for using them when conducting online research.

Keywords

Online Surveys Online Experimental Designs Online Content Analysis Online Interviews and Focus Groups Online Data Capture Online Data Analysis

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences
Volume 1: Building a Program of Research
, pp. 378 - 399

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009010054.019 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Antoun, C., Couper, M. P., & Conrad, F. G. (2017). Effects of mobile versus PC web on survey response quality: A crossover experiment in a probability web panel. Public Opinion Quarterly, 81(S1), 280–306. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw088 CrossRef Google Scholar

Anwyl-Irvine, A. L., Massonnié, J., Flitton, A., Kirkham, N., & Evershed, J. K. (2020). Gorilla in our midst: An online behavioral experiment builder. Behavior Research Methods, 52(1), 388–407. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01237-x Google Scholar

Aristeidou, M., Scanlon, E., & Sharples, M. (2017). Profiles of engagement in online communities of citizen science participation. Computers in Human Behavior, 74, 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.044 Google Scholar

Armstrong, B., Reynolds, C., Bridge, G., et al. (2020). How does citizen science compare to online survey panels? A comparison of food knowledge and perceptions between the Zooniverse, Prolific and Qualtrics UK panels. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4, 306. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.575021 Google Scholar

Babbie, E. R. (2020). The Practice of Social Research. Cengage Learning.Google Scholar

Barnhoorn, J. S., Haasnoot, E., Bocanegra, B. R., & van Steenbergen, H. (2015). QRTEngine: An easy solution for running online reaction time experiments using Qualtrics. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 918–929. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0530-7 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Bell, D. (2006). An Introduction to Cybercultures. Routledge.Google Scholar

Beymer, M. R., Holloway, I. W., & Grov, C. (2018). Comparing self-reported demographic and sexual behavioral factors among men who have sex with men recruited through Mechanical Turk, Qualtrics, and a HIV/STI clinic-based sample: Implications for researchers and providers. Archives of sexual behavior, 47(1), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0932-y CrossRef Google Scholar

Bortree, D. S. (2005). Presentation of self on the Web: An ethnographic study of teenage girls’ weblogs. Education, Communication & Information, 5(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/14636310500061102 Google Scholar

Bronner, F. & Kuijlen, T. (2007). The live or digital interviewer: A comparison between CASI, CAPI and CATI with respect to differences in response behaviour. International Journal of Market Research, 49(2), 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530704900204 Google Scholar

Callegaro, M. (2010). Do you know which device your respondent has used to take your online survey. Survey Practice, 3(6), 1–12.CrossRef Google Scholar

Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2156–2160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009 Google Scholar

Chew, C. & Eysenbach, G. (2010). Pandemics in the age of Twitter: Content analysis of Tweets during the 2009 H1N1 outbreak. PloS One, 5(11), e14118. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014118 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Christenson, D. P. & Glick, D. M. (2013). Crowdsourcing panel studies and real-time experiments in MTurk. The Political Methodologist, 20(2), 27–32.Google Scholar

Clifford, S., Jewell, R. M., & Waggoner, P. D. (2015). Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology? Research & Politics, 2(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015622072 CrossRef Google Scholar

Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web-or Internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 821–836. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640021970934 Google Scholar

Coste, J., Quinquis, L., Audureau, E., & Pouchot, J. (2013). Non response, incomplete and inconsistent responses to self-administered health-related quality of life measures in the general population: Patterns, determinants and impact on the validity of estimates – a population-based study in France using the MOS SF-36. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-44 Google Scholar

Crump, M. J., McDonnell, J. V., & Gureckis, T. M. (2013). Evaluating Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research. PloS One, 8(3), e57410. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057410 Google Scholar

Dandurand, F., Shultz, T. R., & Onishi, K. H. (2008). Comparing online and lab methods in a problem-solving experiment. Behavior Research Methods, 40(2), 428–434. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.2.428 Google Scholar

De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46(1), 6–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.005 Google Scholar

De Leeuw, J. R. (2015). jsPsych: A JavaScript library for creating behavioral experiments in a web browser. Behavior Research Methods, 47(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0458-y CrossRef Google Scholar

Denissen, J. J., Neumann, L., & Van Zalk, M. (2010). How the Internet is changing the implementation of traditional research methods, people’s daily lives, and the way in which developmental scientists conduct research. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34(6), 564–575. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025410383746 CrossRef Google Scholar

Denscombe, M. (2009). Item non‐response rates: A comparison of online and paper questionnaires. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(4), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570802054706 Google Scholar

Dietrich, S. & Winters, M. S. (2015). Foreign aid and government legitimacy. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2(2), 164–171. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2014.31 Google Scholar

Dietz, P., Striegel, H., Franke, A. G., et al. (2013). Randomized response estimates for the 12‐month prevalence of cognitive‐enhancing drug use in university students. Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy, 33(1), 44–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/phar.1166 Google Scholar

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Procedures for conducting government-sponsored establishment surveys: Comparisons of the total design method (TDM), a traditional cost-compensation model, and tailored design. In Proceedings of American Statistical Association, Second International Conference on Establishment Surveys, Buffalo, New York, June 17–21 (pp. 343–352).Google Scholar

Edlund, J. E., Lange, K. M., Sevene, A. M., et al. (2017). Participant crosstalk: Issues when using the Mechanical Turk. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 13(3), 174–182. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.13.3.p174 Google Scholar

Eysenbach, G. & Till, J. E. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. BMJ, 323(7321), 1103–1105. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1103 Google Scholar

Eysenbach, G. & Wyatt, J. (2002). Using the Internet for surveys and health research. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 4(2), e13. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4.2.e13 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Fan, W. & Yan, Z. (2010). Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 132–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.015 Google Scholar

Fox, F. E., Morris, M., & Rumsey, N. (2007). Doing synchronous online focus groups with young people: Methodological reflections. Qualitative Health Research, 17(4), 539–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732306298754 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Galesic, M. & Bosnjak, M. (2009). Effects of questionnaire length on participation and indicators of response quality in a web survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(2), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp031 Google Scholar

Gandomi, A. & Haider, M. (2015). Beyond the hype: Big data concepts, methods, and analytics. International Journal of Information Management, 35(2), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.10.007 Google Scholar

Greenacre, Z. A. (2016). The importance of selection bias in Internet surveys. Open Journal of Statistics, 6(03), 397. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojs.2016.63035 Google Scholar

Greenlaw, C. & Brown-Welty, S. (2009). A comparison of web-based and paper-based survey methods: Testing assumptions of survey mode and response cost. Evaluation Review, 33(5), 464–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X09340214 Google Scholar

Grootswagers, T. (2020). A primer on running human behavioural experiments online. Behavior Research Methods, 1(4), 2283–2286. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01395-3 CrossRef Google Scholar

Gureckis, T. M., Martin, J., McDonnell, J., (2016). psiTurk: An open-source framework for conducting replicable behavioral experiments online. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 829–842. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0642-8 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Hall, M. G., Grummon, A. H., Lazard, A. J., Maynard, O. M., & Taillie, L. S. (2020). Reactions to graphic and text health warnings for cigarettes, sugar-sweetened beverages, and alcohol: An online randomized experiment of US adults. Preventive Medicine, 137, 106120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106120 Google Scholar

Hallett, R. E. & Barber, K. (2014). Ethnographic research in a cyber era. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 43(3), 306–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241613497749 Google Scholar

Hamby, T. & Taylor, W. (2016). Survey satisficing inflates reliability and validity measures: An experimental comparison of college and Amazon Mechanical Turk samples. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76(6), 912–932. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164415627349 Google Scholar

Heerwegh, D. & Loosveldt, G. (2008). Face-to-face versus web surveying in a high-internet-coverage population: Differences in response quality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 836–846. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn045 Google Scholar

Hilbig, B. E. (2016). Reaction time effects in lab-versus web-based research: Experimental evidence. Behavior Research Methods, 48(4), 1718–1724. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0678-9 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Hine, C. (2000). Virtual Ethnography. SAGE Publications.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hoare, K. J., Buetow, S., Mills, J., & Francis, K. (2013). Using an emic and etic ethnographic technique in a grounded theory study of information use by practice nurses in New Zealand. Journal of Research in Nursing, 18(8), 720–731. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987111434190 Google Scholar

Hohwü, L., Lyshol, H., Gissler, M., et al. (2013). Web-based versus traditional paper questionnaires: A mixed-mode survey with a Nordic perspective. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(8), e173. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2595 Google Scholar

Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Ibarra, J. L., Agas, J. M., Lee, M., Pan, J. L., & Buttenheim, A. M. (2018). Comparison of online survey recruitment platforms for hard-to-reach pregnant smoking populations: Feasibility study. JMIR Research Protocols, 7(4), e8071. https://doi.org/10.2196/resprot.8071 Google Scholar

Johnson, N. F. & Humphry, N. (2012). The Teenage Expertise Network (TEN): An online ethnographic approach. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(6), 723–739. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2011.590160 Google Scholar

Joinson, A. N., Woodley, A., & Reips, U. D. (2007). Personalization, authentication and self-disclosure in self-administered Internet surveys. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.012 Google Scholar

Kaplowitz, M. D., Hadlock, T. D., & Levine, R. (2004). A comparison of web and mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfh006 Google Scholar

Kenny, A. J. (2005). Interaction in cyberspace: An online focus group. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 49(4), 414–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03305.x Google Scholar

King, D. B., O’Rourke, N., & DeLongis, A. (2014). Social media recruitment and online data collection: A beginner’s guide and best practices for accessing low-prevalence and hard-to-reach populations. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 55(4), 240. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038087 CrossRef Google Scholar

Kongsved, S. M., Basnov, M., Holm-Christensen, K., & Hjollund, N. H. (2007). Response rate and completeness of questionnaires: A randomized study of Internet versus paper-and-pencil versions. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 9(3), e25. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9.3.e25 Google Scholar

Kozinets, R. V. (2002). The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing research in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.39.1.61.18935 Google Scholar

Kozinets, R. V. (2010). Netnography: Doing Ethnographic Research Online. SAGE Publications.Google Scholar

Kramer, J., Rubin, A., Coster, W., et al. (2014). Strategies to address participant misrepresentation for eligibility in Web‐based research. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 23(1), 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1415 Google Scholar

Kraut, R., Olson, J., Banaji, M., et al. (2004). Psychological research online: Report of Board of Scientific Affairs’ Advisory Group on the Conduct of Research on the Internet. American Psychologist, 59(2), 105. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.105 Google Scholar

Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. SAGE Publications.Google Scholar

Lallukka, T., Pietiläinen, O., Jäppinen, S., et al. (2020). Factors associated with health survey response among young employees: A register-based study using online, mailed and telephone interview data collection methods. BMC Public Health, 20(1), 184. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-8241-8 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Larsen, M. C. (2008). Understanding social networking: On young people’s construction and co-construction of identity online. Online Networking: Connecting People. Icfai University Press.Google Scholar

Lazer, D., Pentland, A., Adamic, L., et al. (2009). Social science. Computational social science. Science, 323(5915), 721–723. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1167742 Google Scholar

Leach, M. J., Hofmeyer, A., & Bobridge, A. (2016). The impact of research education on student nurse attitude, skill and uptake of evidence‐based practice: A descriptive longitudinal survey. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 25(1–2), 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13103 Google Scholar

Lee, H., Wright, K. B., O’Connor, M., & Wombacher, K. (2014). Framing medical tourism: An analysis of persuasive appeals, risks and benefits, and new media features of medical tourism broker websites. Health Communication, 29(7), 637–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2013.794412 Google Scholar

Lefever, S., Dal, M. & Matthiasdottir, A. (2007). Online data collection in academic research: Advantages and limitations. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 574–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00638.x Google Scholar

Levay, K. E., Freese, J., & Druckman, J. N. (2016). The demographic and political composition of Mechanical Turk samples. Sage Open, 6(1), 2158244016636433. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016636433 Google Scholar

Lieberman, D. Z. (2008). Evaluation of the stability and validity of participant samples recruited over the Internet. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(6), 743–745. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0254 Google Scholar

Lindhjem, H. & Navrud, S. (2011). Are Internet surveys an alternative to face-to-face interviews in contingent valuation? Ecological Economics, 70(9), 1628–1637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.04.002 Google Scholar

Link, M. W. & Mokdad, A. H. (2005). Effects of survey mode on self-reports of adult alcohol consumption: A comparison of mail, web and telephone approaches. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 66(2), 239–245. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.2005.66.239 Google Scholar

Manninen, V. J. (2017). Sourcing practices in online journalism: an ethnographic study of the formation of trust in and the use of journalistic sources. Journal of Media Practice, 18(2–3), 212–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/14682753.2017.1375252 Google Scholar

Manovich, L. (2012). How to compare one million images? In D. M. Berry (ed.), Understanding Digital Humanities (pp. 249–278). Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Manyika, J., Chui, M., Brown, B., et al. (2011). Big Data: The Next Frontier for Innovation, Competition, and Productivity. McKinsey Global Institute.Google Scholar

Markham, A. N. (2005). The methods, politics, and ethics of representation in online ethnography. In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications.Google Scholar

Mason, W. & Watts, D. J. (2012). Collaborative learning in networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(3), 764–769. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1110069108 Google Scholar

McInroy, L. B. (2016). Pitfalls, potentials, and ethics of online survey research: LGBTQ and other marginalized and hard-to-access youths. Social Work Research, 40(2), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svw005 Google Scholar

McMillan, S. J. (2000). The microscope and the moving target: The challenge of applying content analysis to the World Wide Web. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(1), 80–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900007700107 Google Scholar

Mullinix, K. J., Leeper, T. J., Druckman, J. N., & Freese, J. (2015). The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2(2), 109–138. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2015.19 Google Scholar

Murray, E., Khadjesari, Z., White, I., et al. (2009). Methodological challenges in online trials. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 11(2), e9. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1052 Google Scholar

Murthy, D. (2011). Emergent digital ethnographic methods for social research. In Hesse-Biber, S. N. (ed.), Handbook of Emergent Technologies in Social Research (pp. 158–179). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Mutz, D. C. (2011). Population-Based Survey Experiments. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Nayak, M. S. D. P. & Narayan, K. A. (2019). Strengths and weakness of online surveys. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 24(5), 31–38. doi: 10.9790/0837-2405053138Google Scholar

Nimrod, G. (2018). Technophobia among older Internet users. Educational Gerontology, 44(2–3), 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2018.1428145 CrossRef Google Scholar

Parigi, P., Santana, J. J., & Cook, K. S. (2017). Online field experiments: Studying social interactions in context. Social Psychology Quarterly, 80(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272516680842 Google Scholar

Pechey, R. & Marteau, T. M. (2018). Availability of healthier vs. less healthy food and food choice: An online experiment. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6112-3 Google Scholar

Peirce, J., Gray, J. R., Simpson, S., et al. (2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y Google Scholar

Pfeil, U. & Zaphiris, P. (2009). Investigating social network patterns within an empathic online community for older people. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(5), 1139–1155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.05.001 Google Scholar

Pullmann, H., Allik, J., & Realo, A. (2009). Global self-esteem across the life span: A cross-sectional comparison between representative and self-selected Internet samples. Experimental Aging Research, 35(1), 20–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610730802544708 Google Scholar

Radford, J., Pilny, A., Reichelmann, A., et al. (2016). Volunteer science: An online laboratory for experiments in social psychology. Social Psychology Quarterly, 79(4), 376–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272516675866 Google Scholar

Ramo, D. E. & Prochaska, J. J. (2012). Broad reach and targeted recruitment using Facebook for an online survey of young adult substance use. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14(1), e28. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1878 Google Scholar

Rains, S. A., Peterson, E. B., & Wright, K. B. (2015). Communicating social support in computer-mediated contexts: A meta-analytic review of content analyses examining support messages shared online among individuals coping with illness. Communication Monographs, 82(4), 403–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2015.1019530 Google Scholar

Reimers, S. & Stewart, N. (2015). Presentation and response timing accuracy in Adobe Flash and HTML5/JavaScript Web experiments. Behavior Research Methods, 47(2), 309–327. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0471-1 Google Scholar

Riffe, D., Lacy, S., Fico, F., & Watson, B. (2019). Analyzing Media Messages: Using Quantitative Content Analysis in Research. Routledge.Google Scholar

Russomanno, J., Patterson, J. G., & Tree, J. M. J. (2019). Social media recruitment of marginalized, hard-to-reach populations: Development of recruitment and monitoring guidelines. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 5(4), e14886. https://doi.org/10.2196/14886 Google Scholar

Salmons, J. (2014). Qualitative Online Interviews: Strategies, Design, and Skills. SAGE Publications.Google Scholar

Schneider, S. M. & Foot, K. A. (2004). The Web as an object of study. New Media & Society, 6(1), 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804039912 Google Scholar

Shen, G. C. C., Chiou, J. S., Hsiao, C. H., Wang, C. H., & Li, H. N. (2016). Effective marketing communication via social networking site: The moderating role of the social tie. Journal of Business Research, 69(6), 2265–2270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.040 Google Scholar

Simmons, A. D. & Bobo, L. D. (2015). Can non-full-probability internet surveys yield useful data? A comparison with full-probability face-to-face surveys in the domain of race and social inequality attitudes. Sociological Methodology, 45(1), 357–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081175015570096 Google Scholar

Skitka, L. J. & Sargis, E. G. (2006). The Internet as psychological laboratory. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 529–555. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190048 Google Scholar

Stern, M. J., Bilgen, I., & Dillman, D. A. (2014). The state of survey methodology: Challenges, dilemmas, and new frontiers in the era of the tailored design. Field Methods, 26(3), 284–301. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X13519561 Google Scholar

Takahashi, Y., Uchida, C., Miyaki, K., et al. (2009). Potential benefits and harms of a peer support social network service on the Internet for people with depressive tendencies: Qualitative content analysis and social network analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 11(3), e29. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1142 Google Scholar

Valkenburg, P. M. & Peter, J. (2007). Online communication and adolescent well-being: Testing the stimulation versus the displacement hypothesis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1169–1182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00368.x Google Scholar

Wagg, A. J., Callanan, M. M., & Hassett, A. (2019). Online social support group use by breastfeeding mothers: A content analysis. Heliyon, 5(3), e01245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01245 Google Scholar

Walther, J. B. (2007). Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2538–2557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.05.002 Google Scholar

Walther, J. B. & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer‐mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19(1), 50–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1992.tb00295.x Google Scholar

Wang, Y. & Sandner, J. (2019). Like a “frog in a well”? An ethnographic study of Chinese rural women’s social media practices through the WeChat platform. Chinese Journal of Communication, 12(3), 324–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/17544750.2019.1583677 Google Scholar

Wang, Y. C., Kraut, R. E., & Levine, J. M. (2015). Eliciting and receiving online support: Using computer-aided content analysis to examine the dynamics of online social support. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(4), e99. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3558 Google Scholar

Weigold, A., Weigold, I. K., & Russell, E. J. (2013). Examination of the equivalence of self-report survey-based paper-and-pencil and internet data collection methods. Psychological Methods, 18(1), 53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031607 Google Scholar

Weinberg, J. D., Freese, J., & McElhattan, D. (2014). Comparing data characteristics and results of an online factorial survey between a population-based and a crowdsource-recruited sample. Sociological Science, 1, 292–310. https://doi.org/10.15195/v1.a19 Google Scholar

Wenz, A. (2021). Do distractions during web survey completion affect data quality? Findings from a laboratory experiment. Social Science Computer Review, 39(1), 148–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319851503 Google Scholar

Williams, T. A. & Shepherd, D. A. (2017). Mixed method social network analysis: Combining inductive concept development, content analysis, and secondary data for quantitative analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 20(2), 268–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115610807 Google Scholar

Woo, S. E., Keith, M., & Thornton, M. A. (2015). Amazon Mechanical Turk for industrial and organizational psychology: Advantages, challenges, and practical recommendations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 171. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.21 Google Scholar

Wright, K. B. (2005). Researching Internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3), JCMC1034. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00259.x Google Scholar

Wright, K. B. (2016). Communication in health-related online social support groups/communities: A review of research on predictors of participation, applications of social support theory, and health outcomes. Review of Communication Research, 4, 65–87. https://doi.org/10.12840/issn.2255-4165.2016.04.01.010 Google Scholar

Wright, K. B. (2017). Web-based survey methodology. In Liamputtong, P. (ed.), Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences (pp. 1–14). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_18-1 Google Scholar

Wright, K., Fisher, C., Rising, C., Burke-Garcia, A., Afanaseva, D., & Cai, X. (2019). Partnering with mommy bloggers to disseminate breast cancer risk information: Social media intervention. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(3), e12441. https://doi.org/10.2196/12441 Google Scholar

Zhang, J., Calabrese, C., Ding, J., Liu, M., & Zhang, B. (2018). Advantages and challenges in using mobile apps for field experiments: A systematic review and a case study. Mobile Media & Communication, 6(2), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157917725550 Google Scholar

Zhou, H. & Fishbach, A. (2016). The pitfall of experimenting on the Web: How unattended selective attrition leads to surprising (yet false) research conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 493. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000056 Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.