Attention checks have become increasingly popular in survey research as a means to filter out careless respondents. Despite their widespread use, little research has empirically tested the impact of attention checks on scale validity. In fact, because attention checks can induce a more deliberative mindset in survey respondents, they may change the way respondents answer survey questions, posing a threat to scale validity. In two studies, we tested this hypothesis (N = 816). We examined whether common attention checks—instructed‐response items (Study 1) and an instructional manipulation check (Study 2)—impact responses to a well‐validated management scale. Results showed no evidence that they affect scale validity, both in reported scale means and tests of measurement invariance. These findings allow researchers to justify the use of attention checks without compromising scale validity and encourage future research to examine other survey characteristic‐respondent dynamics to advance our use of survey methods.

Author's DeclarationThis thesis consists of material all of which I authored or co-authored: see Statement of Contributions included in the thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners.I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public.

No abstract

No abstract

Both giving and receiving money have emotional benefits, but when gifts of value are made in the context of socioeconomic differences, there might also be emotional costs. Four studies (and an internal meta-analysis) tested the idea that receiving a generous gift from someone higher in perceived socioeconomic status (SES) signals social identity threat. In Study 1 (N = 218), participants on average, but especially those with relatively lower SES, reported experiencing more self-conscious negative affect when receiving a generous amount of money (vs. an even split) from a higher status giver in a dictator game. This effect was mediated by feeling pitied by the giver. Studies 2 (N = 331) and 3 (N = 426) revealed similar effects with recalled real-world experiences of receiving a generous gift from higher SES givers. Studies 3 and 4 (N = 142) revealed evidence for serial mediation, with lower relative SES predicting status awareness, status awareness predicting attributions of pity, and attributions of pity in turn predicting selfconscious negative affect. Effects were not significantly moderated by needing or requesting the money, suggesting that acts of generosity across the status divide readily signal social devaluation for those with lower perceived status. Findings have practical and conceptual implications for prosocial giving in a system of social and economic inequality.