ArticleBehavior research methods2023
Frustration and ennui among Amazon MTurk workers.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Engagement begins at recruitment: Comparing videoconference verification to passive online screening for participant retention and study engagement.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Consumer Perceptions of Food Deterioration: White Mushrooms as a Case Study.Journal of food science · 2026Article
- Why you shouldn't trust data collected on MTurk.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Informational ecosystems partially explain differences in socioenvironmental conceptual associations between U.S. American racial groups.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- The Burden for High-Quality Online Data Collection Lies With Researchers, Not Recruitment Platforms.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2024Article
- "Got Milk Alternatives?" Understanding Key Factors Determining U.S. Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Plant-Based Milk Alternatives.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Academics are increasingly turning to crowdsourcing platforms to recruit research participants. Their endeavors have benefited from a proliferation of studies attesting to the quality of crowdsourced data or offering guidance on managing specific challenges associated with doing crowdsourced research. Thus far, however, relatively little is known about what it is like to be a participant in crowdsourced research. Our analysis of almost 1400 free-text responses provides insight into the frustrations encountered by workers on one widely used crowdsourcing site: Amazon's MTurk. Some of these frustrations stem from inherent limitations of the MTurk platform and cannot easily be addressed by researchers. Many others, however, concern factors that are directly controllable by researchers and that may also be relevant for researchers using other crowdsourcing platforms such as Prolific or CrowdFlower. Based on participants' accounts of their experiences as crowdsource workers, we offer recommendations researchers might consider as they seek to design online studies that demonstrate consideration for respondents and respect for their time, effort, and dignity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.