4.1 Article

Use of online crowdsourcing platforms for gambling research

Journal

INTERNATIONAL GAMBLING STUDIES
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages 125-143

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14459795.2017.1284250

Keywords

Methodology; sampling; data collection; crowdsourcing; gambling; risk taking

Funding

  1. Insight Development Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Crowdsourcing platforms like Amazon's Mechnical Turk and Crowdflower have been touted to be a cost-effective way to collect large amounts of behavioural data. Across four large-n studies, gambling-related behaviours, tendencies and traits among participants in these labour markets were examined. In Studies 1 and 2, both conducted on Crowdflower, problem gamblers (as measured by the benchmark Problem Gambling Severity Index) comprised 24.5% and 21.9% of participants, respectively. In Study 3, conducted on Mechanical Turk, problem gamblers comprised 9.0% of participants. In Study 4, a two-wave longitudinal study conducted on Crowdflower, problem gamblers comprised 13.5% of participants in wave one and 14.8% of participants in wave two. In Studies 2 and 3, strong convergent associations were demonstrated across various measures of problem gambling tendencies and general gambling involvement. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that gambling was associated with personality traits (impulsivity, sensation-seeking, self-control), risk attitudes, affect, and behavioural risk-taking consistent with previous research. In Study 4, it was demonstrated that measures of problem gambling have acceptable test-retest reliability. Online crowdsourcing platforms appear to offer access to samples with remarkably high proportions of problem gamblers. However, this characteristic means that such samples are not necessarily representative of gambling tendencies among more general populations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available