The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparing Data Characteristics and Results of an Online Factorial Survey between a Population-Based and a Crowdsource-Recruited Sample
Open accessAbstract
Compared to older kinds of sample surveys, online platforms provide a fast and low-cost platform for factorial surveys, as well as a more demographically diverse alternative to student samples. Two distinct strategies have emerged for recruitment: using panels based on population-based samples versus recruiting people actively seeking to complete online tasks for money. The latter is much cheaper but prompts various concerns about data quality and generalizability. We compare results of three vignette experiments conducted using the leading online panel that uses a population-based paradigm (Knowledge Networks, now GfK) and the leading platform for crowdsource recruitment (Amazon Mechanical Turk). Our data show that, while demographic differences exist, most notably in age, the actual results of our experiments are very similar, especially once these demographic differences have been taken into account. Indicators of data quality were actually slightly better among the crowdsource subjects. Although more evidence is plainly needed, our results support the accumulating evidence for the promise of crowdsource recruitment for online experiments, including factorial surveys.
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
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
Data 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
Sears, D. O. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.51.3.515 · Cited by 2,119
Peterson, R. A. (2001) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/323732 · Cited by 1,258
Population-Based Survey Experiments
Mutz, D. C. (2011) · doi:10.1515/9781400840489 · Cited by 674
Cited by
Conducting 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
The shape of and solutions to the MTurk quality crisis
Kennedy, R., Clifford, S., Burleigh, T., Waggoner, P. D., Jewell, R., & Winter, N. J. G. (2020) · Political Science Research and Methods · doi:10.1017/psrm.2020.6 · Cited by 506
Internet Research in Psychology
Gosling, S. D., & Mason, W. (2015) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015321 · Cited by 458
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
How Black Are Lakisha and Jamal? Racial Perceptions from Names Used in Correspondence Audit Studies
Gaddis, S. (2017) · Sociological Science · doi:10.15195/v4.a19 · Cited by 285
Metadata
- Authors
- Weinberg, J., Freese, J., & McElhattan, D.
- Venue
- Sociological Science
- Publisher
- Society for Sociological Science
- Published
- 2014
- Volume
- 1
- Pages
- 292-310
- ISSN
- 2330-6696 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2145440622
- Cited by
- 582
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 124.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Comparing Data Characteristics and Results of an Online Factorial Survey between a Population-Based and a Crowdsource-Recruited Sample. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.15195/v1.a19
- The paper
- Weinberg, J., Freese, J., & McElhattan, D. (2014). Comparing Data Characteristics and Results of an Online Factorial Survey between a Population-Based and a Crowdsource-Recruited Sample. Sociological Science. https://doi.org/10.15195/v1.a19
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.
