The Daily Lives of Crowdsourced US Respondents: A Time Use Comparison of MTurk, Prolific, and ATUS

6 citations

Abstract

Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and Prolific are popular online platforms for connecting academic researchers with respondents. A broad literature has sought to assess the extent to which these respondents are representative of the U.S. population in terms of their demographic background, yet no work has assessed the representativeness of their daily lives. The authors provide this analysis by collecting time diaries from 136 MTurk and 156 Prolific respondents, which they compare with diary responses from 468 contemporaneous responses to the American Time Use Survey (ATUS). Responses from MTurk and Prolific respondents include several notable differences relative to ATUS responses, including doing less housework and care work, spending less time traveling, spending more time at home, and spending more time alone. In general, MTurk respondents worked more than ATUS respondents, and Prolific respondents spent more time in leisure. These differences persist even after adjusting for demographic differences. The present findings highlight time use as a potential major source of differences across samples that go beyond demographic differences. Thus, scholars interested in these samples should consider how time use may moderate processes of interest.

6
Citations
Survey
Paper Only

Study specs

Time diaries were collected and analyzed for 136 MTurk and 156 Prolific respondents, then compared with 468 ATUS responses.

Institution
RAND
Sample Size
N=760
Study Type
Survey Research
Year
2025
Human Data Platform
Prolific

Measured Outcomes

Daily time use patterns including work, housework, travel, leisure, and time spent alone or at home.

Peer Review & Critical Discussion

3 threads

Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort

DSJDr. Sarah J.
Verified PhD Candidate
12 replies

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.

2 hours ago

Non-naive Participants Issue

MCM. Chen (OpenAI)
Data Scientist
8 replies

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.

5 hours ago

RLHF Applicability to This Study Design

PRWProf. R. Williams
Verified Researcher
15 replies

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.

1 day ago

Verify your expertise to join discussion

Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.