Cited by 330Survey Methodology and NonresponseMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingNames, Identity, and Discrimination Research

MTurk Character Misrepresentation: Assessment and Solutions

Sharpe Wessling, Kathryn, Huber, Joel, Netzer, Oded·2017·Journal of Consumer Research

Abstract

This tutorial provides evidence that character misrepresentation in survey screeners by Amazon Mechanical Turk Workers (“Turkers”) can substantially and significantly distort research findings. Using five studies, we demonstrate that a large proportion of respondents in paid MTurk studies claim a false identity, ownership, or activity in order to qualify for a study. The extent of misrepresentation can be unacceptably high, and the responses to subsequent questions can have little correspondence to responses from appropriately identified participants. We recommend a number of remedies to deal with the problem, largely involving strategies to take away the economic motive to misrepresent and to make it difficult for Turkers to recognize that a particular response will gain them access to a study. The major short-run solution involves a two-survey process that first asks respondents to identify their characteristics when there is no motive to deceive, and then limits the second survey to those who have passed this screen. The long-run recommendation involves building an ongoing MTurk participant pool (“panel”) that (1) continuously collects information that could be used to classify respondents, and (2) eliminates from the panel those who misrepresent themselves.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jcr/ucx053

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 30 · Cited by 330

Authors
Sharpe Wessling, K., Huber, J., & Netzer, O.
Affiliations
  • Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 3730 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104
  • Duke University (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
Venue
Journal of Consumer Research
Published
2017-04-17
Volume
44
Issue
1
Pages
211-230
ISSN
  • 0093-5301 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5277
OpenAlex
W2605807262
Cited by
330
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 5
FWCI
89.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Consumer Research (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
Keywords
Amazon Mechanical Turk, participant identification, response validity

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