The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Breaking monotony with meaning: Motivation in crowdsourcing markets
Open accessAbstract
We conduct the first natural field experiment to explore the relationship between the “meaningfulness” of a task and worker effort. We employed about 2500 workers from Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk), an online labor market, to label medical images. Although given an identical task, we experimentally manipulated how the task was framed. Subjects in the meaningful treatment were told that they were labeling tumor cells in order to assist medical researchers, subjects in the zero-context condition (the control group) were not told the purpose of the task, and, in stark contrast, subjects in the shredded treatment were not given context and were additionally told that their work would be discarded. We found that when a task was framed more meaningfully, workers were more likely to participate. We also found that the meaningful treatment increased the quantity of output (with an insignificant change in quality) while the shredded treatment decreased the quality of output (with no change in quantity). We believe these results will generalize to other short-term labor markets. Our study also discusses MTurk as an exciting platform for running natural field experiments in economics.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The weirdest people in the world?
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x0999152x · Cited by 12,641
Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057 · Cited by 4,008
Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500002205 · Cited by 3,767
Trading Tasks: A Simple Theory of Offshoring
Grossman, G. M., & Rossi-Hansberg, E. (2008) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.98.5.1978 · Cited by 2,262 · cited 1×
“New trade paradigms have emerged to explain task-based trade (Grossman and Rossi-Hansberg, 2008) and the division of labor between countries (Antras et al.”
Can you ever trust a wiki?: impacting perceived trustworthiness in wikipedia
Kittur, A., Suh, B., & Chi, E. H. (2008) · Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work · doi:10.1145/1460563.1460639 · Cited by 122
Cited by
Gender Differences in Preferences
Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.47.2.448 · Cited by 5,694
Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057 · Cited by 4,008
Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500002205 · Cited by 3,767
Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a Participant Pool
Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721414531598 · Cited by 2,136
Economic games on the internet: the effect of $1 stakes
Amir, O., Rand, D. G., & Gal, Y. K. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031461 · Cited by 364
Shepherding the crowd yields better work
Dow, S., Kulkarni, A., Klemmer, S., & Hartmann, B. (2012) · Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work · doi:10.1145/2145204.2145355 · Cited by 334
Brühlmann, F., Petralito, S., Aeschbach, L. F., & Opwis, K. (2020) · Methods in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.metip.2020.100022 · Cited by 168
"Why would anybody do this?": Understanding Older Adults' Motivations and Challenges in Crowd Work
Brewer, R., Morris, M. R., & Piper, A. M. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036.2858198 · Cited by 111
Normative arguments from experts and peers reduce delay discounting
Senecal, N., Wang, T., Thompson, E., & Kable, J. W. (2012) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500006306 · Cited by 51
Simons, R. N., Gurari, D., & Fleischmann, K. R. (2020) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3415176 · Cited by 27
A Novice-Reviewer Experiment to Address Scarcity of Qualified Reviewers in Large Conferences
Stelmakh, I., Shah, N. B., Singh, A., & Daumé III, H. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i6.16610 · Cited by 24
The Effects of Autonomy and Task meaning in Algorithmic Management of Crowdwork
Toyoda, Y., Lucas, G., & Gratch, J. (2020) · International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems · doi:10.65109/anak9407 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Chandler, D., & Kapelner, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-06
- Volume
- 90
- Pages
- 123-133
- ISSN
- 0167-2681 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2171965515
- Cited by
- 398
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 54.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
