Incentivizing High Quality Crowdwork
Open accessAbstract
We study the causal effects of financial incentives on the quality of crowdwork. We focus on performance-based payments (PBPs), bonus payments awarded to workers for producing high quality work. We design and run randomized behavioral experiments on the popular crowdsourcing platform Amazon Mechanical Turk with the goal of understanding when, where, and why PBPs help, identifying properties of the payment, payment structure, and the task itself that make them most effective. We provide examples of tasks for which PBPs do improve quality. For such tasks, the effectiveness of PBPs is not too sensitive to the threshold for quality required to receive the bonus, while the magnitude of the bonus must be large enough to make the reward salient. We also present examples of tasks for which PBPs do not improve quality. Our results suggest that for PBPs to improve quality, the task must be effort-responsive: the task must allow workers to produce higher quality work by exerting more effort. We also give a simple method to determine if a task is effort-responsive a priori. Furthermore, our experiments suggest that all payments on Mechanical Turk are, to some degree, implicitly performance-based in that workers believe their work may be rejected if their performance is sufficiently poor. Finally, we propose a new model of worker behavior that extends the standard principal-agent model from economics to include a worker's subjective beliefs about his likelihood of being paid, and show that the predictions of this model are in line with our experimental findings. This model may be useful as a foundation for theoretical studies of incentives in crowdsourcing markets.
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?
The assigned additional bonuses were intended to motivate workers to strive for performance in the complementary zone and improve over AI-only performance.
“The assigned additional bonuses were intended to motivate workers to strive for performance in the complementary zone and improve over the AIonly performance [33].”
From Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performance (2021) · cites this paper as [33]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 53 · Cited by 146
- Authors
- Ho, C.-J., Slivkins, A., Suri, S., & Vaughan, J. W.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Microsoft Research New York City (United States) (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web
- Published
- 2015-05-18
- Pages
- 419-429
- OpenAlex
- W2170493558
- Cited by
- 146
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 12.40
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (IIS-1054911)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Auction Theory and Applications
- Keywords
- crowdwork, crowdsourcing, performance-based pay, bonuses, work quality, financial incentives, Amazon Mechanical Turk, principal-agent model, payment structure, task design
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