skip to main content
10.1145/3342220.3343644acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshtConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Understanding Worker Moods and Reactions to Rejection in Crowdsourcing

Published:12 September 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Requesters on crowdsourcing platforms typically exercise the power to decide the fate of tasks completed by crowd workers. Rejecting work has a direct impact on workers; (i) they may not be rewarded for the work completed and for their effort that has been exerted, and (ii) rejection affects worker reputation and may limit their access to future work opportunities. This paper presents a comprehensive study that aims to understand worker moods and how workers react to rejections in microtask crowdsourcing. We experimentally investigate the effect of the mood of workers on their performance, and the interaction of their moods with their reactions to rejection. Finally, we explore techniques such as presenting social comparative explanations to foster positive reactions to rejection. We found that workers in pleasant moods significantly outperform those in unpleasant moods. Workers whose work is rejected due to narrowly failing pre-screening tests exhibited the most negative emotional responses.

References

  1. Christopher Beedie, Peter Terry, and Andrew Lane. 2005. Distinctions between emotion and mood. Cognition & Emotion , Vol. 19, 6 (2005), 847--878.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Kathy R Berenson, Geraldine Downey, Eshkol Rafaeli, Karin G Coifman, and Nina Leventhal Paquin. 2011. The rejection--rage contingency in borderline personality disorder. Journal of abnormal psychology , Vol. 120, 3 (2011), 681.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Kathy R Berenson, Anett Gyurak, Özlem Ayduk, Geraldine Downey, Matthew J Garner, Karin Mogg, Brendan P Bradley, and Daniel S Pine. 2009. Rejection sensitivity and disruption of attention by social threat cues. Journal of research in personality , Vol. 43, 6 (2009), 1064--1072.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Margaret M Bradley, Mark K Greenwald, Margaret C Petry, and Peter J Lang. 1992. Remembering pictures: pleasure and arousal in memory. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition , Vol. 18, 2 (1992), 379.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Margaret M Bradley and Peter J Lang. 1994. Measuring emotion: the self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry , Vol. 25, 1 (1994), 49--59.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Ruth MJ Byrne. 2002. Mental models and counterfactual thoughts about what might have been. Trends in cognitive sciences , Vol. 6, 10 (2002), 426--431.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Carrie J Cai, Shamsi T Iqbal, and Jaime Teevan. 2016. Chain reactions: The impact of order on microtask chains. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3143--3154. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Phillip Cassey and Tim M Blackburn. 2003. Publication rejection among ecologists. Trends in Ecology & Evolution , Vol. 18, 8 (2003), 375--376.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Richard J Davidson. 1994. On emotion, mood, and related affective constructs. The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (1994), 51--55.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Pieter MA Desmet, Vastenburg, and Natalia Romero. 2016a. Pick-A-Mood manual: Pictorial self-report scale for measuring mood states. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Pieter MA Desmet, Martijn H Vastenburg, and Natalia Romero. 2016b. Mood measurement with Pick-A-Mood: review of current methods and design of a pictorial self-report scale. Journal of Design Research , Vol. 14, 3 (2016), 241--279.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Djellel Eddine Difallah, Michele Catasta, Gianluca Demartini, Panagiotis G Ipeirotis, and Philippe Cudré-Mauroux. 2015. The dynamics of micro-task crowdsourcing: The case of amazon mturk. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web. 238--247. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Steven Dow, Anand Kulkarni, Scott Klemmer, and Björn Hartmann. 2012. Shepherding the crowd yields better work. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM, 1013--1022. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Geraldine Downey and Scott I Feldman. 1996. Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of personality and social psychology , Vol. 70, 6 (1996).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Julie S Downs, Mandy B Holbrook, Steve Sheng, and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2010. Are your participants gaming the system?: screening mechanical turk workers. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 2399--2402. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Matthew T Feldner, Michael J Zvolensky, Georg H Eifert, and Adam P Spira. 2003. Emotional avoidance: An experimental test of individual differences and response suppression using biological challenge. Behaviour research and therapy , Vol. 41, 4 (2003), 403--411.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Nico H Frijda et almbox. 1994. Varieties of affect: Emotions and episodes, moods, and sentiments. (1994).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Ujwal Gadiraju, Gianluca Demartini, Ricardo Kawase, and Stefan Dietze. 2018. Crowd Anatomy Beyond the Good and Bad: Behavioral Traces for Crowd Worker Modeling and Pre-selection. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) (2018), 1--27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Ujwal Gadiraju, Besnik Fetahu, and Ricardo Kawase. 2015. Training workers for improving performance in crowdsourcing microtasks. In Design for Teaching and Learning in a Networked World. Springer, 100--114.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Ujwal Gadiraju, Besnik Fetahu, Ricardo Kawase, Patrick Siehndel, and Stefan Dietze. 2017a. Using worker self-assessments for competence-based pre-selection in crowdsourcing microtasks. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) , Vol. 24, 4 (2017), 30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Ujwal Gadiraju, Sebastian Möller, Martin Nöllenburg, Dietmar Saupe, Sebastian Egger-Lampl, Daniel Archambault, and Brian Fisher. 2017b. Crowdsourcing versus the laboratory: towards human-centered experiments using the crowd. In Evaluation in the Crowd. Crowdsourcing and Human-Centered Experiments. Springer, 6--26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Snehalkumar Neil S Gaikwad et almbox. 2016. Boomerang: Rebounding the consequences of reputation feedback on crowdsourcing platforms. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, 625--637. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Stephen W Gilliland, Markus Groth, Robert C Baker IV, Angela E Dew, Lisa M Polly, and Jay C Langdon. 2001. Improving Applicants' Reactions to Rejection Letters: An Application of Fairness Theory. Personnel Psychology , Vol. 54, 3 (2001), 669--703.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Thorvald Hærem, Brian T Pentland, and Kent D Miller. 2015. Task complexity: Extending a core concept. Academy of Management Review , Vol. 40, 3 (2015), 446--460.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Lei Han, Kevin Roitero, Ujwal Gadiraju, Cristina Sarasua, Alessandro Checco, Eddy Maddalena, and Gianluca Demartini. 2019. All those wasted hours: On task abandonment in crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. ACM, 321--329. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Sture Holm. 1979. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian journal of statistics (1979), 65--70.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Ting-Hao Kenneth Huang, Walter S Lasecki, and Jeffrey P Bigham. 2015. Guardian: A crowd-powered spoken dialog system for web apis. In Third AAAI conference on human computation and crowdsourcing .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Panagiotis G Ipeirotis, Foster Provost, and Jing Wang. 2010. Quality management on amazon mechanical turk. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD workshop on human computation. ACM, 64--67. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Lilly C Irani and M Silberman. 2013. Turkopticon: Interrupting worker invisibility in amazon mechanical turk. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 611--620. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Fredric M Jablin and Kathleen Krone. 1984. Characteristics of rejection letters and their effects on job applicants. Written communication , Vol. 1, 4 (1984), 387--406.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Aniket Kittur, Jeffrey V Nickerson, Michael Bernstein, Elizabeth Gerber, Aaron Shaw, John Zimmerman, Matt Lease, and John Horton. 2013. The future of crowd work. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative work. ACM, 1301--1318. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Chinmay E Kulkarni, Michael S Bernstein, and Scott R Klemmer. 2015. PeerStudio: rapid peer feedback emphasizes revision and improves performance. In Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale. ACM, 75--84. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Peter J Lang. 1985. The cognitive psychophysiology of emotion: Anxiety and the anxiety disorders. Lawrence Eribaum, Hillsdale (1985).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Richard Lazarus. 1994. The stable and the unstable in emotion. The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (1994), 79--85.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Brian McInnis, Dan Cosley, Chaebong Nam, and Gilly Leshed. 2016. Taking a HIT: Designing around rejection, mistrust, risk, and workers' experiences in Amazon Mechanical Turk. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 2271--2282. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Mary W Meagher, Randolph C Arnau, and Jamie L Rhudy. 2001. Pain and emotion: effects of affective picture modulation. Psychosomatic medicine , Vol. 63, 1 (2001), 79--90.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Victoria Husted Medvec, Scott F Madey, and Thomas Gilovich. 1995. When less is more: counterfactual thinking and satisfaction among Olympic medalists. Journal of personality and social psychology , Vol. 69, 4 (1995), 603.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Jon D Morris. 1995. Observations: SAM: the Self-Assessment Manikin; an efficient cross-cultural measurement of emotional response. Journal of advertising research , Vol. 35, 6 (1995), 63--68.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. William N Morris. 2012. Mood: The frame of mind .Springer Sci. & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. David Oleson, Alexander Sorokin, Greg P Laughlin, Vaughn Hester, John Le, and Lukas Biewald. 2011. Programmatic Gold: Targeted and Scalable Quality Assurance in Crowdsourcing. Human computation , Vol. 11, 11 (2011). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. James W Pennebaker, Ryan L Boyd, Kayla Jordan, and Kate Blackburn. 2015. The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015 . Technical Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Jesse J Prinz. 2004. Gut reactions: A perceptual theory of emotion .Oxford UP.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Hannah Rashkin, Eunsol Choi, Jin Yea Jang, Svitlana Volkova, and Yejin Choi. 2017. Truth of varying shades: Analyzing language in fake news and political fact-checking. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . 2931--2937.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Neal J Roese. 1997. Counterfactual thinking. Psychological bulletin , Vol. 121, 1 (1997), 133.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Neal J Roese and James M Olson. 2014. What might have been: The social psychology of counterfactual thinking .Psychology Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Niloufar Salehi, Lilly C Irani, Michael S Bernstein, Ali Alkhatib, Eva Ogbe, Kristy Milland, et almbox. 2015. We are dynamo: Overcoming stalling and friction in collective action for crowd workers. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 1621--1630. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Yla R Tausczik and James W Pennebaker. 2010. The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of language and social psychology , Vol. 29, 1 (2010), 24--54.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Cesar Vandevelde, Francis Wyffels, Maria-Cristina Ciocci, Bram Vanderborght, and Jelle Saldien. 2016. Design and evaluation of a DIY construction system for educational robot kits. International Journal of Technology and Design Education , Vol. 26, 4 (2016), 521--540.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Philippe Verduyn, Iven Van Mechelen, and Francis Tuerlinckx. 2011. The relation between event processing and the duration of emotional experience. Emotion , Vol. 11, 1 (2011), 20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Bjørn J Villa, Katrien De Moor, Poul E Heegaard, and Anders Instefjord. 2013. Investigating Quality of Experience in the context of adaptive video streaming: findings from an experimental user study. Akademika forlag Stavanger, Norway (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Svitlana Volkova, Kyle Shaffer, Jin Yea Jang, and Nathan Hodas. 2017. Separating facts from fiction: Linguistic models to classify suspicious and trusted news posts on twitter. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers) , Vol. 2. 647--653.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. David Watson and Auke Tellegen. 1985. Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological bulletin , Vol. 98, 2 (1985), 219.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Robert E Wood. 1986. Task complexity: Definition of the construct. Organizational behavior and human decision processes , Vol. 37, 1 (1986), 60--82.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Karen L Woolley and J Patrick Barron. 2009. Handling manuscript rejection: insights from evidence and experience. Chest , Vol. 135, 2 (2009), 573--577.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Thomas A Wright and Russell Cropanzano. 2007. The happy/productive worker thesis revisited. In Research in personnel and human resources management. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 269--307.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Jie Yang, Judith Redi, Gianluca Demartini, and Alessandro Bozzon. 2016. Modeling task complexity in crowdsourcing. In Fourth AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. John M Zelenski, Steven A Murphy, and David A Jenkins. 2008. The happy-productive worker thesis revisited. Journal of Happiness Studies , Vol. 9, 4 (2008), 521--537.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Mengdie Zhuang and Ujwal Gadiraju. 2019. In What Mood Are You Today?: An Analysis of Crowd Workers' Mood, Performance and Engagement. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web Science. ACM, 373--382. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Understanding Worker Moods and Reactions to Rejection in Crowdsourcing

        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
          HT '19: Proceedings of the 30th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media
          September 2019
          326 pages
          ISBN:9781450368858
          DOI:10.1145/3342220

          Copyright © 2019 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 ACM 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: 12 September 2019

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          HT '19 Paper Acceptance Rate20of68submissions,29%Overall Acceptance Rate378of1,158submissions,33%

          Upcoming Conference

          HT '24
          35th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media
          September 10 - 13, 2024
          Poznan , Poland

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader