MTurk Character Misrepresentation: Assessment and Solutions
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Three attention check questions were included to measure the quality of responses and minimize careless responses.
“three attention check questions were included to measure the quality of responses”
From Fear of missing out, social media influencers, and the social, psychological and financial wellbeing of young consumers (2025) · cites this paper as [97]
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
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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