Cited by 146Mobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesAuction Theory and Applications

Incentivizing High Quality Crowdwork

Open access
Ho, Chien-Ju, Slivkins, Aleksandrs, Suri, Siddharth, Vaughan, Jennifer Wortman·2015·Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1145/2736277.2741102

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?

  • 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].”

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
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