Pseudo-dyadic "interaction" on Amazon's Mechanical Turk

Behavior Research Methods

Volumn 45, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 116-124

  Summerville, Amy ^a   Chartier, Christopher R ^a  

^a MIAMI UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cooperation; Interaction; Interdependent decision making; Internet; Social influence

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; GAME; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; INTERNET; META ANALYSIS; PERCEPTION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CODEPENDENCY (PSYCHOLOGY); DECISION MAKING; GAMES, EXPERIMENTAL; HUMANS; INTERNET; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; SOCIAL PERCEPTION; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS;

EID: 84874367051     PISSN: 1554351X     EISSN: 15543528     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13428-012-0250-9     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Bearden, W. O., & Etzel, M. J. (1982). Reference group influence on product and brand purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 183-194.
2. Blackhart, G. C., Nelson, B. C., Knowles, M. L., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). Rejection elicits emotional reactions but neither causes immediate distress nor lowers self-esteem: A meta-analytic review of 192 studies on social exclusion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 269-309.
3. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5.
4. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629-636.
5. Engel, C. (2011). Dictator games: A meta study. Experimental Economics, 14, 583-610.
6. Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J. L., Savin, N. E., & Sefton, M. (1994). Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6, 347-369.
7. Frey, B., & Bohnet, I. (1995). Institutions affect fairness. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 151, 286-303.
8. Frey, B., & Bohnet, I. (1997). Identification in democratic society. Journal of Socio-Economic, s, 26, 25-38.
9. Guth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental-analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3, 367-388.
10. Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252-264.
11. Haslam, N., Kashima, Y., Loughnan, S., Shi, J., & Suitner, C. (2008). Subhuman, inhuman, and superhuman: Contrasting humans with nonhumans in three cultures. Social Cognition, 26, 248-258.
12. Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1-23.
13. Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 103-122.
14. Oosterbeek, H., Sloof, R., & van de Kuilen, G. (2004). Cultural differences in ultimatum game experiments: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Experimental Economics, 7, 171-188.
15. Pillutla, M. M., & Murnighan, J. K. (1996). Unfairness, anger, and spite: Emotional rejections of ultimatum offers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, 208-224.
16. Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments using Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411-419.
17. Rand, D. G. (2011). The promise of Mechanical Turk: How online labor markets can help theorists run behavioral experiments. Journal of Theoretical Biology. doi: 10. 1016/j. jtbi. 2011. 03. 004.
18. Sanfey, A. G., Rilling, J. K., Aronson, J. A., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2003). The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science, 300, 1755-1758.
19. Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology, 27, No. 187.
20. Siddharth, S., & Winter, M. (2012). Conducting synchronous experiments on mechanical turk. San Diego, CA: Paper presented at Society for Personality and Social Psychology.
21. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359-1366.
22. Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 459-473.
23. Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149-178.
24. Thaler, R. H. (1988). Anomalies: The ultimatum game. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2, 195-206.
25. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
26. United Nations (2012, March 6). Department for General Assembly and Conference Management: United Nations Regional Groups of Member States. Retrieved from http://www. un. org/depts/DGACM/RegionalGroups. shtml.
27. van Lange, P. A. M., Ouwerkerk, J. W., & Tazelaar, M. J. A. (2002). How to overcome the detrimental effects of noise in social interaction: The benefits of generosity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 768-780.
28. van't Wout, M., Kahn, R. S., Sanfey, A. G., & Aleman, A. (2006). Affective state and decision-making in the ultimatum game. Experimental Brain Research, 169, 564-568.
29. Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748-762.