The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Crowdsourcing Samples in Cognitive Science
Open accessAbstract
Crowdsourcing data collection from research participants recruited from online labor markets is now common in cognitive science. We review who is in the crowd and who can be reached by the average laboratory. We discuss reproducibility and review some recent methodological innovations for online experiments. We consider the design of research studies and arising ethical issues. We review how to code experiments for the web, what is known about video and audio presentation, and the measurement of reaction times. We close with comments about the high levels of experience of many participants and an emerging tragedy of the commons.
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
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
Open Science Collaboration (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aac4716 · Cited by 8,515
Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., & Munafò, M. R. (2013) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3475 · Cited by 7,641 · cited 1×
“Underpowered studies are likely to unintentionally produce false positives [49,50] and, as sample sizes increase, results become less sensitive to some forms of researcher degrees of freedom [49].”
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611417632 · Cited by 6,567
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
Self-citationHenrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/466029a · Cited by 3,441
A manifesto for reproducible science
Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V. M., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Percie du Sert, N., Simonsohn, U., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Ware, J. J., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0021 · Cited by 3,397
The New Statistics: Why and How
Cumming, G. (2014) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797613504966 · Cited by 3,200
Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research
Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., & Acquisti, A. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006 · Cited by 2,957
Data collection in a flat world: the strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples
Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.1753 · Cited by 2,242
Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2016) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z · Cited by 1,739
Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009 · Cited by 1,662 · cited 1×
“The most popular (and thus best-understood) crowdsourced population, US MTurk workers, is more diverse than college student samples or other online convenience samples [2,20], although not representative of the US population as a whole.”
Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk
Peer, E., Vosgerau, J., & Acquisti, A. (2014) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0434-y · Cited by 1,618
Evaluating amazon’s mechanical turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research
Crump, M. J. C., McDonnell, J. V., & Gureckis, T. M. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057410 · Cited by 1,617
Conducting Clinical Research Using Crowdsourced Convenience Samples
Chandler, J., & Shapiro, D. (2016) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093623 · Cited by 1,072
Self-citationSmall Telescopes: Detectability and the Evaluation of Replication Results
Simonsohn, U. (2015) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797614567341 · Cited by 742
Doing Bayesian Data Analysis: A Tutorial with R and BUGS
Barry, J. (2011) · Europe’s Journal of Psychology · doi:10.5964/ejop.v7i4.163 · Cited by 563 · cited 1×
“It could also be argued that the ease of starting and stopping data collection could influence decisions to continue or extend a study (p-hacking [44], but see [45]; or take a Bayesian approach [46] but see [47]).”
The average laboratory samples a population of 7,300 Amazon Mechanical Turk workers
Stewart, N., Ungemach, C., Harris, A. J. L., Bartels, D. M., Newell, B. R., Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2015) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500005611 · Cited by 304
Self-citationDeveloping a tool for measuring the decision-making competence of older adults.
Finucane, M. L., & Gullion, C. M. (2010) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/a0019106 · Cited by 202 · cited 1×
“Consequently, worker experience is correlated with performance on this test, but not on logically equivalent novel questions [33,68].”
Using Nonnaive Participants Can Reduce Effect Sizes
Chandler, J., Paolacci, G., Peer, E., Mueller, P., & Ratliff, K. A. (2015) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797615585115 · Cited by 185
Response time accuracy in Apple Macintosh computers
Neath, I., Earle, A., Hallett, D., & Surprenant, A. M. (2011) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0069-9 · Cited by 57
Cited by
Online panels in social science research: Expanding sampling methods beyond Mechanical Turk
Chandler, J., Rosenzweig, C., Moss, A. J., Robinson, J., & Litman, L. (2019) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-019-01273-7 · Cited by 668
Self-citationIndividual Differences in Language Acquisition and Processing
Kidd, E., Donnelly, S., & Christiansen, M. H. (2018) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2017.11.006 · Cited by 507
Brühlmann, F., Petralito, S., Aeschbach, L. F., & Opwis, K. (2020) · Methods in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.metip.2020.100022 · Cited by 168
Subjective signal strength distinguishes reality from imagination
Dijkstra, N., & Fleming, S. M. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-37322-1 · Cited by 115
Language-Capable Robots may Inadvertently Weaken Human Moral Norms
Jackson, R. B., & Williams, T. (2019) · 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) · doi:10.1109/hri.2019.8673123 · Cited by 64
Metadata
- Authors
- Stewart, N., Chandler, J., & Paolacci, G.
- Venue
- Trends in Cognitive Sciences
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-10
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 736-748
- ISSN
- 1364-6613 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2728433921
- Cited by
- 224
- References
- 21
- FWCI
- 6.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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.
