Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41555659›Full record

ArticleBehavioral sciences & the law

Comparing the Convenience, Data Quality, Generalizability, and Outcomes of Student- and MTurk-Generated Data in an Experimental Vignette Rape Perception Study.

Suzanne St George, Edmond Osei Arhin

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral sciences & the law. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Suzanne St GeorgeSchool of Criminal Justice and Criminology, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8225-309X
Edmond Osei ArhinSchool of Criminal Justice and Criminology, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA.

Funding

Arizona State University
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vignette experiments assessing rape perceptions commonly use samples drawn from convenient sources, like university students or online crowdsourcing platforms like Amazon's Mechanical Turk. In the current study we compared the ease of data collection, cost, data quality, demographic characteristics, and experiment conclusions across these two sample sources, which were collected in a vignette experiment assessing mock jurors' perceptions of a hypothetical sexual assault. Results showed it was faster but more expensive to collect MTurk responses compared to student responses. Samples varied across several data quality measures, with students passing more manipulation checks and returning proportionately more usable cases than MTurkers. We also found considerable demographic differences between the samples, as well as rape myth acceptance (RMA) and victim blaming attitudes. Findings indicate that experiments' results and implications depend on sample source; pinpointing the factors that consistently influence rape perceptions, including RMA, will require replicating studies using diverse sample sources.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyRapeStudentsAdultAttitudeCrowdsourcingFemaleHumansMalePerceptionYoung Adultconvenience sampleexperimental vignette designjuriesMTurkrape perceptions

Identifiers

PMID41555659
PMCPMC13084973

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.