Cited by 123Digital Economy and Work TransformationMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingEmployment and Welfare Studies

Mechanical Turk and the gig economy: Exploring differences between gig workers

Keith, Melissa G., Harms, Peter, Tay, Louis·2019·Journal of Managerial Psychology

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to provide an investigation of how different types of gig workers engage in the gig economy. Specifically, the authors distinguish between workers who view gig work as primary income (or not) and those workers who view it as a job (or not). Design/methodology/approach: In total, 1,190 Mechanical Turk (MTurk) workers completed surveys across two studies examining whether types of workers differ based on demographic characteristics, utilization of MTurk, why they participate in the gig economy on MTurk (i.e. push and pull factors) and how this impacts life satisfaction. Findings: Workers relying on MTurk as a primary income had lower incomes and spent more time completing large numbers of work units. This group of workers also reported fewer pull factors (e.g. enjoyment) as a reason for working in the gig economy and had lower levels of self-reported current and predicted future life satisfaction. Individuals who view MTurk as a job were more likely to treat MTurk like a job – engaging in online communities and having a regular work schedule. These workers were more likely to report pull factors (e.g. enjoyment and challenge) and did not differ on life satisfaction. Originality/value: The current research contributes to our understanding of MTurk, one of the largest online platforms for gig work, as part of the diverse gig economy and highlights potential areas for future research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/jmp-06-2018-0228

Cites

4 of 4 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
Keith, M. G., Harms, P., & Tay, L.
Affiliations
  • Bowling Green State University (US)
  • University of Alabama (US)
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
Venue
Journal of Managerial Psychology
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2019-05-13
Volume
34
Issue
4
Pages
286-306
ISSN
0268-3946 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2952276635
Cited by
123
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 3
FWCI
17.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Managerial Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Economy and Work Transformation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Employment and Welfare Studies
Keywords
Mechanical Turk, gig economy, gig workers, primary income, push and pull factors, life satisfaction, online labour platforms, employee motivation, online communities, work schedules

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