4 ms·
It’s part of the published article. Behind a paywall of course, but here is a preprint: https://psyarxiv.com/xyast/ https://psyarxiv.com/xyast/ A few parts to
by sseagull 5y ago
It’s part of the published article. Behind a paywall of course, but here is a preprint: https://psyarxiv.com/xyast/ https://psyarxiv.com/xyast/
A few parts to the study. One had 167 participants and had them label fields as hard or soft given a (sometimes incorrect) number of men vs. women.
Another had 220 and went the opposite way (given a description of a field as hard vs. soft, estimate men vs. women).
All participants recruited via mechanical turk.
Theres a lot more discussion and a few other subparts. Glancing at it it seems like a correlation, but not super strong.
Also, not my field at all. So reading it in detail is probably not helpful.
- netizen-936824 5y agoOh no. I would not use mturk for psych studies. I know its been on the rise and its not a good way to sample a population at all.
- 908B64B197 5y ago> All participants recruited via mechanical turk. That skews the demographic so much the study is basically unusable.
- sseagull 5y agoWhile I kind of agree, I am also sympathetic to the fact that finding study participants that aren't heavily skewed is very difficult, and would probably be prohibitively expensive to do for every single study.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
- 908B64B197 5y agoIn this case it's better to survey a sample that is skewed but in a known way (you can then address these biases in the paper) as opposed to skewed in an unknown way via mechanical turk (how many are pretending to be part of the demographic you targeted just because western academic surveys pay more?).