Cited by 57Ethics in Clinical ResearchExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing

The double-edged sword of rewards for participation in psychology experiments.

Sharp, Elizabeth C., Pelletier, Luc G., Lévesque, Chantal·2006·Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement

Abstract

This quasi-experimental study examined participation rates and sample characteristics of participants recruited with and without the offer of course credit. In Sample 1, where course credit is not usually offered, credit was added in one condition (N =195) and not in the other (N = 175). In Sample 2, where credit is usually offered, it was maintained in one condition (N = 92) and removed in the other (N = 178). Results in both samples revealed that participation rates were higher in the credit conditions; they plunged when customary rewards were taken away. Results also revealed evidence of sample bias. More specifically, the motivational characteristics of participants and nonparticipants differed in all conditions except the new credit condition.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/cjbs2006014

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sharp, E. C., Pelletier, L. G., & Lévesque, C.
Affiliations
University of Ottawa (CA)
Venue
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement
Published
2006
Volume
38
Issue
3
Pages
269-277
ISSN
  • 0008-400X (ISSN-L)
  • 1879-2669
OpenAlex
W2149974687
Cited by
56
References
41
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement (publishedVersion)
  • BearWorks (Missouri State University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Keywords
monetary rewards, course credits, participation rates, sampling bias, participant motivation, participant recruitment

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