With the proliferation of online data collection in human-subjects research, concerns have been raised over the presence of inattentive survey participants and non-human respondents (bots). We compared the quality of the data collected through five commonly used platforms. Data quality was indicated by the percentage of participants who meaningfully respond to the researcher’s question (high quality) versus those who only contribute noise (low quality). We found that compared to MTurk, Qualtrics, or an undergraduate student sample (i.e., SONA), participants on Prolific and CloudResearch were more likely to pass various attention checks, provide meaningful answers, follow instructions, remember previously presented information, have a unique IP address and geolocation, and work slowly enough to be able to read all the items. We divided the samples into high- and low-quality respondents and computed the cost we paid per high-quality respondent. Prolific ($1.90) and CloudResearch ($2.00) were cheaper than MTurk ($4.36) and Qualtrics ($8.17). SONA cost $0.00, yet took the longest to collect the data.

Gamification, the application of game design principles to a non-gaming context, has been used to promote pro-environmental behaviors. Such principles have been implemented in boardgames, team competitions, electronic games, smartphone apps, and in apps that researchers developed primarily to collect data. We review the games and apps that have been evaluated in empirical research in the last 5 years and provide a list of apps and games that have yet to be tested. Gamification has been used for sustainability education, energy reduction, transportation, air quality, waste management, and water conservation. Although we do not know yet why certain games and apps are more effective than others, gamification appears to be a promising avenue for preventing climate change.

Though consent forms include important information, those experienced with behavioral research often observe that participants do not carefully read consent forms. Three studies examined participants’ reading of consent forms for in-person experiments. In each study, we inserted the phrase “some researchers wear yellow pants” into sections of the consent form and measured participants’ reading of the form by testing their recall of the color yellow. In Study 1, we found that the majority of participants did not read consent forms thoroughly. This suggests that overall, participants sign consent forms that they have not read, confirming what has been observed anecdotally and documented in other research domains. Study 2 examined which sections of consent forms participants read and found that participants were more likely to read the first 2 sections of a consent form (procedure and risks) than later sections (benefits and anonymity and confidentiality). Given that rates of recall of the target phrase were under 70% even when the sentence was inserted into earlier sections of the form, we explored ways to improve participant reading in Study 3. Theorizing that the presence of a researcher may influence participants’ retention of the form, we assigned participants to read the form with or without a researcher present. Results indicated that removing the researcher from the room while participants read the consent form decreased recall of the target phrase. Implications of these results and suggestions for future researchers are discussed.