skip to main content
10.1145/3025453.3025917acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Honorable Mention

Crowdsourcing GO: Effect of Worker Situation on Mobile Crowdsourcing Performance

Published:02 May 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

The increasing popularity of mobile crowdsourcing platforms has enabled crowd workers to accept jobs wherever/whenever they are, and also provides opportunity for task requesters to order time/location specific tasks to workers. Since workers on mobile platforms are working on the go, the situation of the workers is expected to influence their performance. However, the effects of mobile worker situations to task performance is an uninvestigated area. In this paper, our research question is, "do worker situations affect task completion, price and quality on mobile crowdsourcing platforms?" We draw on economics and psychology research to examine whether worker situations such as busyness, fatigue and presence of companions affect their performance. Our three-week between-subjects field experiment revealed that worker busyness caused 30.1% relative decrease of task completion rate. Mean accepted task price increased by 7.6% when workers are with companions. Worker fatigue caused 37.4% relative decrease of task quality.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

p1142-ikeda.mp4

mp4

196.8 MB

References

  1. Field Agent, https://www.fieldagent.net/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Gigwalk, http://www.gigwalk.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Adamczyk, P. D. and Bailey, B. P. If not now, when?: the effects of interruption at different moments within task execution. In Proc. CHI, 2004, 271--278. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Alt, F., Shirazi, A., Schmidt, A., Kramer, U. and Nawaz, Z. Location-based crowdsourcing: extending crowdsourcing to the real world. In Proc. NordiCHI 2010, 13--22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Antin, J. and Shaw, A. Social desirability bias in reports of motivation for US and India workers on Mechanical Turk. In Proc. CSCW, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Armstrong, G. B. and Sopory, P. Effects of background television on phonological and visuo-spatial working memory. Communication Research, 24, 5, 1997, 459--480.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Bailey, B. P. and Konstan, J. A. On the need for attention-aware systems: Measuring effects of interruption on task performance, error rate, and affective state. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 4, 2006, 685--708.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Beenen, G., Ling, K., Wang, X., Chang, K., Frankowski, D., Resnick, P. and Kraut, R. Using social psychology to motivate contributions to online communities. In Proc. CSCW, 2004, 212--221. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Bernstein, M. S., Little, G., Miller, R. C., Hartmann, B., Ackerman, M. S., Karger, D. R., Crowell, D. and Panovich, K. Soylent: a word processor with a crowd inside. Communications of the ACM, 58, 8, 2015, 85--94.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Boksem, M. A., Meijman, T. F. and Lorist, M. M. Mental fatigue, motivation and action monitoring. Biological psychology, 72, 2, 2006, 123--132.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Boksem, M. A., Meijman, T. F. and Lorist, M. M. Effects of mental fatigue on attention: an ERP study. Cognitive brain research, 25, 1, 2005, 107--116.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Cai, C. J., Iqbal, S. T. and Teevan, J. Chain reactions: The impact of order on microtask chains. In Proc. CHI, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Campagne, A., Pebayle, T. and Muzet, A. Correlation between driving errors and vigilance level: influence of the driver's age. Physiology and Behavior, 80, 2004, 515--524. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Chang Y. J., Paruthi G. and Newman M. W. A field study comparing approaches to collecting annotated activity data in real-world settings. In Proc. UbiComp, 2015, 671--682. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Chatzimilioudis, G., Konstantinidis, A., Laoudias, C. and Zeinalipour-Yazti, D. Crowdsourcing with smartphones. IEEE Internet Computing, 16, 5, 2012, 36--44.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Czerwinski, M., Cutrell, E. and Horvitz, E. Instant messaging: Effects of relevance and timing. In Proc. HCI, 2000, 71--76.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Dow, S., Kulkarni, A., Klemmer, S. and Hartmann, B. Shepherding the crowd yields better work. In Proc. CSCW, 2012, 1013--1022. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Faber, L. G., Maurits, N. M. and Lorist, M. M. Mental fatigue affects visual selective attention. PLOS one, 7, 10, 2012, e48073.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Faggiani, A., Gregori, E., Lenzini, L., Luconi, V. and Vecchio, A. Smartphone-based crowdsourcing for network monitoring: Opportunities, challenges, and a case study. IEEE Communications Magazine, 52, 1, 2014, 106--113.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Goldman, A. and Johansson, J. K. Determinants of search for lower prices: An empirical assessment of the economics of information theory. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 3, 1978, 176--186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Gould, S., Brumby, D., Cox, A., Gonzélez, V., Salvucci, D. and Taatgen, N. Multitasking and interruptions: a sig on bridging the gap between research on the micro and macro worlds. In Proc. CHI, 2012, 1189--1192. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Gronau, R. The intrafamily allocation of time: The value of the housewives' time. The American Economic Review, 63, 4, 1973, 634--651.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Gupta, A., Thies, W., Cutrell, E. and Balakrishnan, R. mClerk: enabling mobile crowdsourcing in developing regions. In Proc. CHI, 2012, 1843--1852. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Hembrooke, H., and Geri G. The laptop and the lecture: The effects of multitasking in learning environments. Journal of computing in higher education, 15, 1, 2003, 46--64.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Ho, J. and Intille, S. S. Using context-aware computing to reduce the perceived burden of interruptions from mobile devices. In. Proc. CHI, 2005, 909--918. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Horton, J. J., and Chilton, L. B. The labor economics of paid crowdsourcing. In Proc. of the 11th ACM conference on Electronic commerce, 2010, 209--218. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Hosio, S., Goncalves, J., Lehdonvirta, V., Ferreira, D. and Kostakos, V. Situated crowdsourcing using a market model. In Proc. UIST, 2014, 55--64. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Hoßfeld, T., Seufert, M., Hirth, M., Zinner, T., TranGia, P. and Schatz, R. Quantification of YouTube QoE via crowdsourcing. In Multimedia, In Proc. ISM, 2011, 494--499.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Ikeda, K. and Bernstein, M. S. Pay It Backward: PerTask Payments on Crowdsourcing Platforms Reduce Productivity. In Proc. CHI, 2016, 4111--4121. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Iqbal, S. T. and Horvitz, E. Notifications and awareness: A field study of alert usage and preferences. In Proc. CSCW, 2010, 27--30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Ipeirotis, P. G. Analyzing the amazon mechanical turk marketplace. XRDS: Crossroads, the ACM Magazine for Students, 17, 2, 2010, 16--21.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnson, M. B. Travel time and the price of leisure. Economic Inquiry, 4, 2. 1966, 135--145. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Kaup, F., Jomrich, F. and Hausheer, D. Demonstration of Network Coverage--A Mobile Network Performance Measurement App. In Proc NetSys, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Kreifeldt, J. G. and McCarthy, M. E. Interruption as a test of the user-computer interface. In Proc. the 17th Annual Conference on Manual Control, 1981, 655--667.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Krishna, R., Hata, K., Chen, S., Kravitz, J., Shamma, D. A., Fei-Fei, L. and Bernstein, M. S. Embracing error to enable rapid crowdsourcing. In Proc. CHI, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Law, E., Yin, M., Joslin Goh, K. C., Terry, M. and Gajos, K. Z. Curiosity killed the cat, but makes crowd work better. In Proc. CHI, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Le, J., Edmonds, A., Hester, V. and Biewald, L. Ensuring quality in crowdsourced search relevance evaluation: The effects of training question distribution. In Proc. CSE, 2010, 21--26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Lippman, S. A. and McCall, J. The economics of job search: A survey. Economic inquiry, 14, 2, 1976, 155--189.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Liu, Y., Lehdonvirta, V., Alexandrova, T. and Nakajima, T. Drawing on Mobile Crowds via Social Media. Case UbiAsk: Image Based Mobile Social Search Across Languages. Multimedia Systems, 18, 1, 2012, 53--56.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Mason, W. and Watts, D. J. Financial incentives and the "performance of crowds". In Proc. HCOMP, 2009, 77--85. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Marmorstein, H., Grewal, D. and Fishe, R. P. The value of time spent in price-comparison shopping: Survey and experimental evidence. Consumer Research, 19, 1, 1992, 52--61.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Misra, S., Cheng, L., Genevie, J. and Yuan, M. The iPhone effect: the quality of in-person social interactions in the presence of mobile devices. Environment and Behavior, 48, 2, 2016, 275--298.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Musthag, M. and Ganesan, D. Labor dynamics in a mobile micro-task market. In Proc. CHI, 2013, 641--650. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Okoshi, T., Ramos, J., Nozaki, H., Nakazawa, J., Dey, A. K. and Tokuda, H. Attelia: Reducing user's cognitive load due to interruptive notifications on smart phones. In Proc. PerCom, 2015, 96--104.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Pool, M. M., Koolstra, C. M. and Van der Voort, T. H. Distraction effects of background soap operas on homework performance: An experimental study enriched with observational data. Educational Psychology, 23, 4, 2003, 361--380.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Retelny, D., Robaszkiewicz, S., To, A., Lasecki, W. S., Patel, J., Rahmati, N., Doshi, T. Valentine, M. and Bernstein, M. S. Expert crowdsourcing with flash teams. In Proc. UIST, 2014, 75--85.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Roberts, R. Getting the most out of life: The concept of opportunity cost. The Library of Economics and Liberty, 5, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Schulze, F. and Groh, G. Conversational context helps improve mobile notification management. In Proc. Mobile HCI, 2016, 518--528. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Shaw, A. D., Horton, J. J. and Chen, D. L. Designing incentives for inexpert human raters. In Proc. CSCW 2011, 275--284. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Speier, C., Valacich, J. S. and Vessey, I. The influence of task interruption on individual decision making: An information overload perspective. Decision Sciences, 30, 2, 1999, 337--360.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Teodoro, R., Ozturk, P., Naaman, M., Mason, W. and Lindqvist, J. The motivations and experiences of the on-demand mobile workforce. In Proc. CSCW, 2014, 236--247. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Vaataja, H., Vainio, T., Sirkkunen, E. and Salo, K. Crowdsourced news reporting: supporting news content creation with mobile phones. In Proc. MobileHCI, 2011, 435--444.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Vaish, R., Wyngarden, K., Chen, J., Cheung, B. and Bernstein, M. S. Twitch crowdsourcing: crowd contributions in short bursts of time. In Proc. CHI, 2014, 3645--3654. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Yu, L., André, P., Kittur, A. and Kraut, R. A. Comparison of social, learning, and financial strategies on crowd engagement and output quality. In Proc. CSCW 2014, 967--978. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Zick, C. D. and Bryant, W. K. Alternative strategies for pricing home work time. Home Economics Research Journal, 12, 2, 1983, 133--144.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Zijlstra, F. R., Roe, R. A., Leonora, A. B. and Krediet, I. Temporal factors in mental work: Effects of interrupted activities. Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 2, 1999, 163--185.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Crowdsourcing GO: Effect of Worker Situation on Mobile Crowdsourcing Performance

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '17: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2017
      7138 pages
      ISBN:9781450346559
      DOI:10.1145/3025453

      Copyright © 2017 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 2 May 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '17 Paper Acceptance Rate600of2,400submissions,25%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

      Upcoming Conference

      CHI '24
      CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 11 - 16, 2024
      Honolulu , HI , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader