The impact of overtly listing eligibility requirements on MTurk: An investigation involving organ donation, recruitment scripts, and feelings of elevation

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 142, Issue , 2015, Pages 256-260

  Siegel, Jason T ^a   Navarro, Mario A ^a   Thomson, Andrew L ^a  

^a CLAREMONT GRADUATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Elevation; Eligibility requirements; Methods; MTurk; Organ donation; Organ donor registration; Recruitment

Indexed keywords

DATA MANAGEMENT; MEDICINE; WORLD WIDE WEB;

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA COLLECTION METHOD; DONOR SELECTION; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL ETHICS; ONLINE ANALYTICAL PROCESSING; ONLINE SYSTEM; ORGAN DONOR; PATIENT REFERRAL; PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM; QUALITY CONTROL; REGISTRATION; SYSTEM ANALYSIS; WEB BROWSER; BEHAVIOR; DONOR; INTERNET; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; REGISTER; STANDARDS; TRANSPLANTATION; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTENTION; INTERNET; MALE; REGISTRIES; TISSUE AND ORGAN PROCUREMENT; TISSUE DONORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84940398534     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: 18735347     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.08.020     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Adkison S.E., O'Connor R.J., Chaiton M., Schwartz R. Development of measures assessing attitudes toward contraband tobacco among a web-based sample of smokers. Tob. Induc. Dis. 2015, 13:1-10.
2. Bekkers R. Traditional and health-related philanthropy: the role of resources and personality. Soc. Psychol. Q. 2006, 69:349-366.
3. Buhrmester M., Kwang T., Gosling S.D. Amazon's mechanical turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2011, 6:3-5.
4. Gadiraju U., Kawase R., Dietze S., Demartini G. Understanding malicious behavior in crowdsourcing platforms: the case of online surveys. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2015, Seoul, Republic of Korea, April 18-23 2015, 1631-1640. 10.1145/2702123.2702443.
5. Gardner R.M., Brown D.L., Boice R. Using amazon's mechanical turk website to measure accuracy of body size estimation and body dissatisfaction. Body Image 2012, 9:532-534.
6. Gosling S.D., Mason W. Internet research in psychology. Psychology 2015, 66. online first.
7. Haidt J. Elevation and the positive psychology of morality. Flourishing: Positive Psychology and the Life Well-lived 2003, 275-289. American Psychological Association, Washington DC. C.L.M. Keyes, J. Haidt (Eds.).
8. Hauser D.J., Schwarz N. Attentive turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behav. Res. Methods 2015, Advance online publication. 10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z.
9. Kramer J., Rubin A., Coster W., Helmuth E., Hermos J., Rosenbloom D., Lachowicz M. Strategies to address participant misrepresentation for eligibility in web based research. Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res. 2014, 23:120-129.
10. Morley K.C., Teesson M., Sannibale C., Haber P.S. Sample bias from different recruitment strategies in a randomised controlled trial for alcohol dependence. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2009, 28:222-229.
11. Moss E.L., von Ranson K.M. An experimental investigation of recruitment bias in eating pathology research. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 2006, 39:256-259.
12. Norton T.R., Lazev A.B., Schnoll R.A., Miller S.M. The impact of email recruitment on our understanding of college smoking. Addict. Behav. 2009, 34:531-535.
13. O'Carroll R.E., Dryden J., Hamilton-Barclay T., Ferguson E. Increasing organ donor registration using anticipated regret - a pilot study. Health Psychol. 2011, 30:661-664.
14. Paolacci G., Chandler J. Inside the turk: understanding mechanical turk as a participant pool. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2014, 23:184-188.
15. Ripley E.B.D. A review of paying research participants: it's time to move beyond the ethical debate. J. Empir. Res. Hum. Res. Ethics Int. J. 2006, 1:9-22.
16. Rodrigue J.R., Fleishman A., Vishnevsky T., Fitzpatrick S., Boger M. Organ donation video messaging: differential appeal, emotional valence, and behavioral intention. Clin. Transplant. 2014, 28:1184-1192.
17. Schnall S., Roper J. Elevation puts moral values into action. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2012, 3:373-378.
18. Siegel J.T., Alvaro E.A. Understanding Organ Donation: Applied Behavioral Science Perspectives 2010, Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA.
19. Siegel J.T., Navarro M.A., Tan C.N., Hyde M.K. Attitude-behavior consistency, the principle of compatibility, and organ donation: a classic innovation. Health Psychol. 2014, 33:1084-1091.
20. Siegel J.T., Thomson A.L., Navarro M.N. Experimentally distinguishing elevation from gratitude: oh, the morality. J. Posit. Psychol. 2014, 9:414-427.
21. Tabachnick B.G., Fidell L.S. Using Multivariate Statistics 2007, Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education, Boston, MA. fifth ed.
22. Thomson A.L., Siegel J.T. A moral act, elevation, and prosocial behavior: moderators of morality. J. Posit. Psychol. 2013, 8:50-64.