ArticleScientific reports2023
Comparing attentional disengagement between Prolific and MTurk samples.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Let's kick that habit: An experiment of five habit-change strategies on habits and symptoms among adults with sleep problems.Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry · 2025Trial
- Morality across time: Evidence for a moral asymmetry between episodic future thinking and autobiographical memory.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Social-Cognitive and Identity-Related Factors Promoting Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Uptake Among Bisexual Men.AIDS and behavior · 2026Article
- Advancing Dimensional Models of Psychopathology in Cancer: Insights From Applying the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP).Psycho-oncology · 2026Article
- Evaluating Crowdsourced Data Collection for Carceral Death Surveillance: Pilot Study Using Amazon Mechanical Turk.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Problematic cryptoasset trading is associated with greater depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and social isolation.PloS one · 2026Article
- Autobiographical memory of validating and invalidating consultations is associated with recall capacity for health information.PloS one · 2026Article
- Testing the testing effect on prolific: when retrieval practice fails to boost learning.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Intervening and reducing sharing of false cancer treatments on social media: Online experiment.PloS one · 2026Article
- The diatonic sound of scent imagery.Perception · 2025Article
- Four (and a Half) Preregistered Failures to Replicate the Weapon Focus Effect in Online Samples.Psychology, public policy, and law : an official law review of the University of Arizona College of Law and the University of Miami School of Law · 2025Article
- Normative face recognition ability test scores vary across online participant pools.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Examining effects of race and ethnic identity on body dissatisfaction following media exposure of thin and curvy body ideals.Body image · 2025Article
- Lay people expect social modernization will bring more societal well-being: the relation between expected societal development, communion, agency and subjective well-being.BMC psychology · 2024Article
- Impact of Self-Reported Long-Term Mental Health Morbidity on Help-Seeking and Diagnostic Testing for Bowel-Related Cancer Symptoms: A Vignette Study.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Development and validation of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire - Positive/Negative (ERQ-PN): Does the target of emotion regulation matter?medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Methodological considerations for behavioral studies relying on response time outcomes through online crowdsourcing platforms.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Sexual Dream Frequency and Self-Reported Cardiovascular Morbidity: Findings From the SLEEP Study.Missouri medicineArticle
- Who Wants to Have an AI Therapist? Acceptance of Using Artificial Intelligence for Mental Health Interventions Among Clinicians, Patients and the General Community.Clinical psychology & psychotherapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Attention often disengages from primary tasks in favor of secondary tasks (i.e., multitasking) and task-unrelated thoughts (i.e., mind wandering). We assessed whether attentional disengagement, in the context of a cognitive task, can substantially differ between samples from commonly used online participant recruitment platforms, Prolific and Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Initially, eighty participants were recruited through Prolific to perform an attention task in which the risk of losing points for errors was varied (high risk = 80% chance of loss, low risk = 20% chance of loss). Attentional disengagement was measured via task performance along with self-reported mind wandering and multitasking. On Prolific, we observed surprisingly low levels of disengagement. We then conducted the same experiment on MTurk. Strikingly, MTurk participants exhibited more disengagement than Prolific participants. There was also an interaction between risk and platform, with the high-risk group exhibiting less disengagement, in terms of better task performance, than the low-risk group, but only on MTurk. Platform differences in individual traits related to disengagement and relations among study variables were also observed. Platform differences persisted, but were smaller, after increasing MTurk reputation criteria and remuneration in a second experiment. Therefore, recruitment platform and recruitment criteria could impact results related to attentional disengagement.
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.