Mechanical Turk in consumer research: Perceptions and usage in marketing academia
Abstract
Crowdsourcing provides researchers with several advantages. It provides opportunities and efficiencies that are unavailable with other sampling sources and empowers researchers with few resources. This chapter explores the extent to which the field of marketing academia has embraced crowdsourcing data by measuring researchers’ perceptions and usage of crowdsource samples, particularly Mechanical Turk (MTurk). It highlights a number of important and unexpected findings of particular interest to consumer psychologists. For instance, on MTurk, researchers can predetermine which characteristics qualify/disqualify workers from participation, how much they would like to compensate workers, and whether or not the quality of worker submissions merits any compensation at all. Nonetheless, participants ultimately self-selected whether to complete the survey; thus, the sample may be more representative of those who use MTurk. Researchers may distrust MTurk owing to concerns about participant non-naiveté; therefore, in our study we will examine whether researchers perceive MTurk data as less trustworthy than other similar data collection methods.
Study specs
- Authors
- SA Wright,JK Goodman
- Discipline
- Marketing,Consumer Behavior
- Year
- 2019
- Human Data Platform
- Prolific
- Source
- View Source Google Scholar
Peer Review & Critical Discussion
Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort
The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.
Non-naive Participants Issue
I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.
RLHF Applicability to This Study Design
The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.
Verify your expertise to join discussion
Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.