The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An Evaluation of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, Its Rapid Rise, and Its Effective Use
Open accessAbstract
Over the past 2 decades, many social scientists have expanded their data-collection capabilities by using various online research tools. In the 2011 article “Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?” in Perspectives on Psychological Science, Buhrmester, Kwang, and Gosling introduced researchers to what was then considered to be a promising but nascent research platform. Since then, thousands of social scientists from seemingly every field have conducted research using the platform. Here, we reflect on the impact of Mechanical Turk on the social sciences and our article’s role in its rise, provide the newest data-driven recommendations to help researchers effectively use the platform, and highlight other online research platforms worth consideration.
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
Cites
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
Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500002205 · Cited by 3,767
Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk
Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6 · Cited by 3,172
Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research
Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., & Acquisti, A. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006 · Cited by 2,957
Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.59.2.93 · Cited by 2,932
Self-citationData collection in a flat world: the strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples
Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.1753 · Cited by 2,242
Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2016) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z · Cited by 1,739
Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009 · Cited by 1,662 · cited 1×
“One feature of MTurk is the ability to collect large samples that are often more demo-graphically diverse than typical undergraduate populations (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011; Casler, Bickel, & Hackett, 2013).”
BackgroundReputation 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 · cited 1×
“Compared with attention checks, restricting participation to participants with a 95% approval rate or higher is equally effective at reducing inattention, thus leading some experts to generally recommend against the use of attention checks (Peer, Vosgerau, & Acquisti, 2014).”
BackgroundConducting Clinical Research Using Crowdsourced Convenience Samples
Chandler, J., & Shapiro, D. (2016) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093623 · Cited by 1,072
Cited by
Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research
Peer, E., Rothschild, D., Gordon, A., Evernden, Z., & Damer, E. (2021) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-021-01694-3 · Cited by 1,718
Douglas, B. D., Ewell, P. J., & Brauer, M. (2023) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0279720 · Cited by 1,532
An MTurk Crisis? Shifts in Data Quality and the Impact on Study Results
Chmielewski, M., & Kucker, S. C. (2020) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/1948550619875149 · Cited by 1,027
Generalizability of heterogeneous treatment effect estimates across samples
Coppock, A., Leeper, T. J., & Mullinix, K. J. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1808083115 · Cited by 445
Hayes, J. L., Brinson, N. H., Bott, G. J., & Moeller, C. M. (2021) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2021.01.001 · Cited by 180
Metadata
- Authors
- Buhrmester, M. D., Talaifar, S., & Gosling, S. D.
- Venue
- Perspectives on Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-03
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 149-154
- ISSN
- 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-6924
- OpenAlex
- W2794871313
- Cited by
- 767
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 102.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An Evaluation of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, Its Rapid Rise, and Its Effective Use. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1745691617706516
- The paper
- Buhrmester, M. D., Talaifar, S., & Gosling, S. D. (2018). An Evaluation of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, Its Rapid Rise, and Its Effective Use. Perspectives on Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617706516
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.
