IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v8y2015i02p196-202_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inattentive Responding in MTurk and Other Online Samples

Author

Listed:
  • Fleischer, Avi
  • Mead, Alan D.
  • Huang, Jialin

Abstract

The focal article by Landers and Behrend (2015) makes the case that samples collected on microtask websites like Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) are inherently no better or worse than traditional samples of convenience from university students or organizations. We wholeheartedly agree. However, having successfully used MTurk and other online sources for data collection, we feel that the focal article was insufficient regarding the caution required in identifying inattentive respondents and the problems that can arise if such individuals are not removed from the dataset. Although we focus on MTurk, similar issues arise for most “low-stakes” assessments, including student samples, which seem to be increasingly collected online.

Suggested Citation

  • Fleischer, Avi & Mead, Alan D. & Huang, Jialin, 2015. "Inattentive Responding in MTurk and Other Online Samples," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 196-202, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:8:y:2015:i:02:p:196-202_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1754942615000255/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hadsell, Lester & Jones, Adam T, 2020. "The company you keep: Satisfaction with life, economic freedom, and preference-policy mismatch," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 642-657.
    2. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander G James & Stéphane Luchini & James J Murphy & Jason F Shogren, 2021. "Do truth-telling oaths improve honesty in crowd-working?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-18, January.
    3. McCarthy, Julie M. & Bauer, Talya N. & Truxillo, Donald M. & Campion, Michael C. & Van Iddekinge, Chad H. & Campion, Michael A., 2017. "Using pre-test explanations to improve test-taker reactions: Testing a set of “wise” interventions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 43-56.
    4. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & James Murphy & Jason F. Shogren, 2019. "Lying and Shirking Under Oath," Working Papers 19-19, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
      • Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & James J. Murphy & Jason F. Shogren, 2019. "Lying and Shirking Under Oath," Working Papers 2019-02, University of Alaska Anchorage, Department of Economics.
    5. Mitchell, Robert & Schuster, Lisa & Jin, Hyun Seung, 2020. "Gamification and the impact of extrinsic motivation on needs satisfaction: Making work fun?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 323-330.
    6. Giacomo Negro & Melissa J. Williams & Elizabeth G. Pontikes & Gabrielle Lopiano, 2021. "Destigmatization and Its Imbalanced Effects in Labor Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(12), pages 7669-7686, December.
    7. Valentin Clemens & Christopher Albert Sabel & Johann Nils Foege & Stephan Nüesch, 2022. "System Design Choice in the Sharing Economy: How Different Institutional Logics Drive Consumer Perception and Consumers’ Intention to Use Sharing Systems," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 74(2), pages 201-234, June.
    8. Kostyk, Alena & Zhou, Wenkai & Hyman, Michael R., 2019. "Using surveytainment to counter declining survey data quality," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 211-219.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:8:y:2015:i:02:p:196-202_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/iop .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.