Hi @Susanne_Flach sure thing:
1: Sassenberg, K., & Ditrich, L. (2019). Research in social psychology changed between 2011 and 2016: Larger sample sizes, more self-report measures, and more online studies. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science , 2 (2), 107-114.
2: Chandler, J., Paolacci, G., Peer, E., Mueller, P., & Ratliff, K. A. (2015). Using nonnaive participants can reduce effect sizes. Psychological science , 26 (7), 1131-1139.
3: DeVoe, S. E., & House, J. (2016). Replications with MTurkers who are naïve versus experienced with academic studies: A comment on Connors, Khamitov, Moroz, Campbell, and Henderson (2015). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67, 65–67
4: Rand, D. G., Peysakhovich, A., Kraft-Todd, G. T., Newman, G. E., Wurzbacher, O., Nowak, M. A., & Greene, J. D. (2014). Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation. Nature communications , 5 (1), 1-12.
5: Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., & Acquisti, A. (2017). Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 70 , 153-163.
6: Spatharioti, S. E., & Cooper, S. (2017). On Variety, Complexity, and Engagement in Crowdsourced Disaster Response Tasks. In ISCRAM .
7: Online article: https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/using-attention-checks-in-your-surveys-may-harm-data-quality/
8: Hauser, D. J., Sunderrajan, A., Natarajan, M., & Schwarz, N. (2016). Prior exposure to instructional manipulation checks does not attenuate survey context effects driven by satisficing or gricean norms. Methods, data, analyses: a journal for quantitative methods and survey methodology (mda) , 10 (2), 195-220.
Thanks for raising this, I will make sure to add a full reference list to this presentation for the future!