Using online, crowdsourcing platforms for data collection in personality disorder research: The example of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.

Abstract

The use of crowdsourcing platforms such as Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) for data collection in the behavioral sciences has increased substantially in the past several years due in large part to (a) the ability to recruit large samples, (b) the inexpensiveness of data collection, (c) the speed of data collection, and (d) evidence that the data collected are, for the most part, of equal or better quality to that collected in undergraduate research pools. In this review, we first evaluate the strengths and potential limitations of this approach to data collection. Second, we examine how MTurk has been used to date in personality disorder (PD) research and compare the characteristics of such research to PD research conducted in other settings. Third, we compare PD trait data from the Section III trait model of the DSM-5 collected via MTurk to data collected using undergraduate and clinical samples with regard to internal consistency, mean-level differences, and factor structure. Overall, we conclude that platforms such as MTurk have much to offer PD researchers, especially for certain kinds of research (e.g., where large samples are required and there is a need for iterative sampling). Whether MTurk itself remains the predominant model of such platforms is unclear, however, and will largely depend on decisions related to cost effectiveness and the development of alternatives that offer even greater flexibility. (PsycINFO Database Record

Seeking a Common Framework for Research on Narcissism: An Attempt to Integrate the Different Faces of Narcissism within the Circumplex of Personality Metatraits

“…Although they were similar in terms of profiles of values and personality traits, SSSE was predicted positively and communal narcissism was predicted negatively by neuroticism (Rogoza & Fatfouta, ). Thus, the status of vulnerable communal narcissism remains unclear, and future studies are needed as, on the one hand, SSSE represents grandiosity and was located near Gamma‐Plus/Integration, while, on the other hand, it is positively associated with neuroticism, which disentangles vulnerable from grandiose narcissism (Miller, Crowe, Weiss, Maples‐Keller, & Lynam, ).…”

Uncovering the structure of agreeableness from self‐report measures

“…First, although samples collected from MTurk tend to be more ethnically diverse than a typical undergraduate research pool population (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011;Miller, Crowe, Weiss, Maples-Keller, & Lynam, 2017), participants were relatively homogeneous and limited to individuals residing in the United States. As a result of this White American-centric population, we cannot presume that the identified structure will replicate in other countries and cultural contexts.…”

“…Our reliance on an online data collection approach is another potential limitation. Although there are a number of advantages to the use of crowdsourcing approaches like MTurk (see Chandler & Shapiro, 2016;Miller et al, , 2017, for reviews), the equivalency of these assessments across in-person administrations and online administrations has not been formally assessed and such equivalency cannot necessarily be assumed (see Bagby, Ayearst, Morariu, Watters, & Taylor, 2014, for a discussion of these issues). Nonetheless, previous examinations have suggested that personality measures tend to show equivalence across these administration modalities (Meade, Michels, & Lautenschlager, 2007).…”

Trait interpersonal vulnerability attenuates beneficial effects of constructive criticism on failure responses

“…Despite discussion of potentially far-reaching implications, we advise caution to not overgeneralize these effects to alternative sample frames (e.g., a more representative adult sample; child/adolescent samples; clinical samples). For example, college-student samples tend to be rather psychologically healthy (Miller, Crowe, Weiss, Maples-Keller, & Lynam, 2017), suggesting the present study was operating under a limited range of participant IVC. This possibility implies we may have underestimated the influence of IVC in the present study.…”