Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research
Name:
Brandimarte_Beyond_Turk.pdf
Size:
2.234Mb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Final Accepted Manuscript
Name:
Study1_CSV_DataFile.txt
Size:
613.1Kb
Format:
Text file
Description:
Supplementary Information
Name:
Study1_Qualtrics_Survey_File.txt
Size:
89.51Kb
Format:
Text file
Description:
Suplementary Information
Name:
Study2_CSV_DataFile.txt
Size:
869.8Kb
Format:
Text file
Description:
Supplementary Information
Name:
Study1_SPSS_DataFile.txt
Size:
4.008Mb
Format:
Text file
Description:
Supplementary Information
Name:
Study2_Qualtrics_Survey_File.txt
Size:
89.11Kb
Format:
Text file
Description:
Supplementary Information
Name:
Study2_SPSS_DataFile.txt
Size:
3.539Mb
Format:
Text file
Description:
Supplementary Information
Affiliation
Eller College of Management, University of ArizonaIssue Date
2017-05
Metadata
Show full item recordPublisher
ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCECitation
Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research 2017, 70:153 Journal of Experimental Social PsychologyRights
© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Collection Information
This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.Abstract
The success of Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) as an online research platform has come at a price: MTurk has suffered from slowing rates of population replenishment, and growing participant non-naivety. Recently, a number of alternative platforms have emerged, offering capabilities similar to MTurk but providing access to new and more naïve populations. After surveying several options, we empirically examined two such platforms, CrowdFlower (CF) and Prolific Academic (ProA). In two studies, we found that participants on both platforms were more naïve and less dishonest compared to MTurk participants. Across the three platforms, CF provided the best response rate, but CF participants failed more attention-check questions and did not reproduce known effects replicated on ProA and MTurk. Moreover, ProA participants produced data quality that was higher than CF's and comparable to MTurk's. ProA and CF participants were also much more diverse than participants from MTurk.Note
24 month embargo; Available online 1 February 2017ISSN
00221031Version
Final accepted manuscriptae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006
