CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,739Mobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingSurvey Methodology and NonresponsePsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants

Open access
Hauser, David J., Schwarz, Norbert·2016·Behavior Research Methods
DOI 10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Participant attentiveness is a concern for many researchers using Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Although studies comparing the attentiveness of participants on MTurk versus traditional subject pool samples have provided mixed support for this concern, attention check questions and other methods of ensuring participant attention have become prolific in MTurk studies. Because MTurk is a population that learns, we hypothesized that MTurkers would be more attentive to instructions than are traditional subject pool samples. In three online studies, participants from MTurk and collegiate populations participated in a task that included a measure of attentiveness to instructions (an instructional manipulation check: IMC). In all studies, MTurkers were more attentive to the instructions than were college students, even on novel IMCs (Studies 2 and 3), and MTurkers showed larger effects in response to a minute text manipulation. These results have implications for the sustainable use of MTurk samples for social science research and for the conclusions drawn from research with MTurk and college subject pool samples.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Show all 23 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Kapelner, A., & Chandler, D. (2010). Preventing satisficing in online surveys: A “kapcha” to ensure higher data quality. In Proceedings of CrowdConf 2010. Available at www.academia.edu/2788541/Preventing_Satisficing_in_Online_Surveys

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–700 of 1,003

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
Hauser, David J.
ORCID
Venue
Behavior Research Methods
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2015-03-12
Volume
48
Issue
1
Pages
400-407
ISSN
  • 1554-351X (ISSN-L)
  • 1554-3528
DOI
10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z
OpenAlex
W2076387137
Cited by
1,739
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 60 · 2025: 104 · 2024: 145 · 2023: 180 · 2022: 209 · 2021: 249 · 2020: 248 · 2019: 176 · 2018: 160 · 2017: 122 · 2016: 64 · 2015: 19
FWCI
184.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Behavior Research Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
Amazon Mechanical Turk, university students
MeSH terms
Attention, Data Collection, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Sciences, Internet

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