ArticleBehavior research methods2025
Evaluating mobile-based data collection for crowdsourcing behavioral research.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigating the relationship between childhood interpersonal traumatic experiences and appraisals, belonging, shame, and dissociation.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2026Article
- Use of Generative AI for Substance-Related Information Among Young Adults (Aged 18-29 Years) in the United States: Cross-Sectional Survey.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Article
- Psychological features of dispute content and public acceptance of AI in legal adjudication: evidence for systematic variation beyond individual differences.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
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
Online crowdsourcing platforms such as MTurk and Prolific have revolutionized how researchers recruit human participants. However, since these platforms primarily recruit computer-based respondents, they risk not reaching respondents who may have exclusive access or spend more time on mobile devices that are more widely available. Additionally, there have been concerns that respondents who heavily utilize such platforms with the incentive to earn an income provide lower-quality responses. Therefore, we conducted two studies by collecting data from the popular MTurk and Prolific platforms, Pollfish, a self-proclaimed mobile-first crowdsourcing platform, and the Qualtrics audience panel. By distributing the same study across these platforms, we examine data quality and factors that may affect it. In contrast to MTurk and Prolific, most Pollfish and Qualtrics respondents were mobile-based. Using an attentiveness composite score we constructed, we find mobile-based responses comparable with computer-based responses, demonstrating that mobile devices are suitable for crowdsourcing behavioral research. However, platforms differ significantly in attentiveness, which is also affected by factors such as the respondents' incentive for completing the survey, their activity before engaging, environmental distractions, and having recently completed a similar study. Further, we find that a stronger system 1 thinking is associated with lower levels of attentiveness and acts as a mediator between some of the factors explored, including the device used and attentiveness. In addition, we raise a concern that most MTurk users can pass frequently used attention checks but fail less utilized measures, such as the infrequency scale.
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.