The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Are your participants gaming the system?: screening mechanical turk workers
Abstract
In this paper we discuss a screening process used in conjunction with a survey administered via Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk. We sought an easily implementable method to disqualify those people who participate but don't take the study tasks seriously. By using two previously pilot tested screening questions, we identified 764 of 1,962 people who did not answer conscientiously. Young men seem to be most likely to fail the qualification task. Those that are professionals, students, and non-workers seem to be more likely to take the task seriously than financial workers, hourly workers, and other workers. Men over 30 and women were more likely to answer seriously.
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
Cited by
VADER: a parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text
Hutto, C., & Gilbert, E. (2014) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14550 · Cited by 6,087
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
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
Kittur, A., Nickerson, J. V., Bernstein, M., Gerber, E., Shaw, A., Zimmerman, J., Lease, M., & Horton, J. (2013) · Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work · doi:10.1145/2441776.2441923 · Cited by 1,034
Chandler, J., Mueller, P., & Paolacci, G. (2014) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0365-7 · Cited by 950
Sheng, S., Holbrook, M., Kumaraguru, P., Cranor, L. F., & Downs, J. (2010) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1753326.1753383 · Cited by 620
Self-citationA lived informatics model of personal informatics
Epstein, D. A., Ping, A., Fogarty, J., & Munson, S. A. (2015) · Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing · doi:10.1145/2750858.2804250 · Cited by 498
"I regretted the minute I pressed share": a qualitative study of regrets on Facebook
Wang, Y., Norcie, G., Komanduri, S., Acquisti, A., Leon, P. G., & Cranor, L. F. (2011) · Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security · doi:10.1145/2078827.2078841 · Cited by 479
Self-citationKelley, P. G., Komanduri, S., Mazurek, M. L., Shay, R., Vidas, T., Bauer, L., Christin, N., Cranor, L. F., & Lopez, J. (2012) · 2012 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy · doi:10.1109/sp.2012.38 · Cited by 397
Self-citationKeith, M. G., Tay, L., & Harms, P. D. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01359 · Cited by 319
Brasel, K., Doxey, M. M., Grenier, J. H., & Reffett, A. (2016) · The Accounting Review · doi:10.2308/accr-51380 · Cited by 313
Conducting perception research over the internet: A tutorial review
Woods, A. T., Velasco, C., Levitan, C. A., Wan, X., & Spence, C. (2015) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.1058 · Cited by 301
Lowry, P. B., D’Arcy, J., Hammer, B., & Moody, G. D. (2016) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2016.06.002 · Cited by 301
Litman, L., Robinson, J., & Rosenzweig, C. (2015) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-014-0483-x · Cited by 275
In Search of Negativity Bias: An Empirical Study of Perceived Helpfulness of Online Reviews
Wu, P. F. (2013) · Psychology & Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.20660 · Cited by 242
Learning from crowdsourced labeled data: a survey
Zhang, J., Wu, X., & Sheng, V. S. (2016) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-016-9491-9 · Cited by 203
Personifying programming tool feedback improves novice programmers' learning
Lee, M. J., & Ko, A. J. (2011) · Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on Computing education research · doi:10.1145/2016911.2016934 · Cited by 125
Mitra, T., Hutto, C. J., & Gilbert, E. (2015) · Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2702123.2702553 · Cited by 102
LemonAid: selection-based crowdsourced contextual help for web applications
Chilana, P. K., Ko, A. J., & Wobbrock, J. O. (2012) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2207676.2208620 · Cited by 79
Designing an Online Infrastructure for Collecting AI Data From People With Disabilities
Park, J. S., Bragg, D., Kamar, E., & Morris, M. R. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445870 · Cited by 50
Uninformative photos can increase people's perceived knowledge of complicated processes.
Cardwell, B. A., Lindsay, D. S., Förster, K., & Garry, M. (2017) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.05.002 · Cited by 19
Nonprobative photos rapidly lead people to believe claims about their own (and other people’s) pasts
Cardwell, B. A., Henkel, L. A., Garry, M., Newman, E. J., & Foster, J. L. (2016) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-016-0603-1 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Downs, J. S., Holbrook, M. B., Sheng, S., & Cranor, L. F.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2010-04-10
- Pages
- 2399-2402
- OpenAlex
- W2104749423
- Cited by
- 418
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 27.61
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.
