Abstract

The current study suggests a new framework that explores the impact of the traditional
motivational characteristics by Hackman and Oldham (1976) model and two new suggested
characteristics in relation to meaningfulness in crowd work. The first new characteristics is
platform characteristics, which consist of perceived fairness, quantification, and algorithm
control will be studied. The last characteristic is behavioral characteristics, which consists of
hypervigilance and pacifying the algorithm. The data was collected using a systematic
questionnaire with 413 crowd workers who are resident to a European Union country, around
100 crowd workers were recruited per platform (Microwrokers, Mturk, Clickworker, and
Prolific). Two moderators, income and work activity based on the platform, were tested for all
the relationship between the job characteristics and meaningfulness. The results showed a
significant positive relation between some motivational chacrettics (skill variety, task
significance, autonomy, and perceived fairness) and meaningfulness. For platform characteristics
only perceived fairness showed a significant positive relationship with meaningfulness. Lastly,
no behavioural characteristics were significantly related to meaningfulness in crowd work. The
only moderator to have a significant interaction was income between task identity and
meaningfulness. Crowd workers whose income is less based on platform work, shows a positive
relationship between task identity and meaningfulness, while those whose income is more
dependent on platform work show a negative relation.
Keywords: crowd work, platform, motivation characteristics, platform characters, and
behavioural characteristics

Moderator
It was hypothesized that the relationship between job characteristics and meaningfulness
will be stronger for workers who are more income dependent and have higher work activity,
compared to workers who are less income dependent and have a lower work activity on
platforms. All the variables were standardized. The first interaction studied was the interaction
between percentage income and the characteristics. All the variables of the three characteristics
were examined individually through a regression analysis, the results are visible in Table 7.
The first motivational characteristics tested was skill variety. Table 7 shows that income
as moderator between skill variety and meaningfulness, did not show a significant (p = .155)
interaction. The second motivational characteristic tested is task identity, which model 1 showed
R² = .01, F(2, 409) = 1.74, p = .177. The moderation analysis did show a significant moderation
between skill identity and meaningfulness, p = .011. Therefore, the direction of the moderation
was studied for task identity. Next the interaction term between task identity and meaningfulness
were added to the regression model, which accounted for a significant part of the variance in
income, ΔR² = .02, ΔF(3, 408) = 6.56, p = .019, b = -.13, t(-2.56) = 2.83, p = .011. An
examination of the interaction plot showed that as task identity increases, so does the
meaningfulness experienced for low income based on platform. However, for high income based
on platform, the meaningfulness decreases if task identity goes from low to high. Therefore, the
relationship between task identity and meaningfulness is moderated by income based on
platform. For people whose income is less based on platform work, the relationship between task
identity and meaningfulness is positive, while those whose income is more dependent on
platform work is negative (see Appendix B).

Thus, hypothesis 1d) A is partially supported for task identity only with income based
platform as moderation, while the other variables showed a non-significant relationship for
income based on platform. Moreover, the moderator work activity based on the platform did not
significantly moderate the relationship between the motivation, platform, and behavioral
characteristics and meaningfulness.
Table 6
Results of Moderation Analysis for Income on Motivational, Platform, and Behavioural
Characteristics on Meaningfulness Experienced

Meaningfulness

Model 1 Model 2

Independent R² ΔR² ΔF Income Independent Income Independent Interaction

Variables Variable Variable

Motivational
Characteristics
Skill variety .11 .00 2.03 .07 .31 .07 .31 .07

Task Identity .02 .02 6.56 .08 .04 .10 .05 -.13*

Task .22 .00 1.95 .05 .46 .05 .47 -.06

Significance
Autonomy .09 .00 .48 .08 .28 .07 .28 -.03

Feedback from .05 .00 .21 .09 .23 .09 .23 -.02
Job
Platform
Characteristics
Perceived .09 .00 .00 .09 .29 .09 .29 .00
Fairness
Quantification .02 .00 .12 .09 -.13 .09 -.13 .02

Algorithm .01 .00 .62 .08 .01 .09 .01 .04

Control
Behavioural
Characteristics
Hypervigilance .01 .00 .06 .09 -.05 .09 -.05 .01

Pacifying the .01 .00 .10 .08 .01 .08 .01 .02
Algorithm
Note. All regression coefficients are standardized. N = 413.
Significance levels: *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05
Table 9
Results of Moderation Analysis for Work Activity on Motivational, Platform, and Behavioural
Characteristics on Meaningfulness Experienced

Meaningfulness

Model 1 Model 2

Independent R² ΔR² ΔF Work Independent Work Independent Interaction

Variables Activity Variable Activity Variable

Motivational
Characteristics
Skill variety .11 .00 .15 .09 .31 .09 .30 -.02

Task Identity .02 .01 1.95 .12 .03 .12 .04 -.07

Task .23 .01 3.76 .08 .46 .08 .56 -.08

Significance
Autonomy .09 .00 .144 .11 .28 .12 .28 -.02

Feedback from .07 .00 .43 .12 .23 .12 .23 -.03
Job
Platform
Characteristics
Perceived .11 .00 1.48 .12 .30 .12 .30 -.06
Fairness
Quantification .03 .00 1.57 .13 -.13 .12 -.13 .06

Algorithm .01 .00 .01 .01

Control
Behavioural
Characteristics
Hypervigilance .02 .00 .85 .12 .01 .12 .01 .05

Pacifying the .06 .00 .31 .12 -.05 .12 -.05 -.03
Algorithm
Note. All regression coefficients are standardized. N = 413.
Significance levels: *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05
Appendix
Table 6
Results of Moderation Analysis for Income on Motivational, Platform, and Behavioural
Characteristics on Meaningfulness Experienced

Meaningfulness

Independent Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Step 1: Demographics

Age .06 .01 .00 .01 .01

Gender -.08 -.08 -.07 -.07 -.08

Education .00 -.03 -.02 -.02 -.04

R² .01

F 1.32

Step 2: Motivational Characteristics

Skill variety .17*** .20*** .20*** .18***

Task Identity -.03 -.04 -.04 -.03

Task Significance .35*** .34*** .34*** .35***

Autonomy .13** .10* .10* .10*

Feedback from Job .09* .03 .03 .05

R² .29

ΔR² .28
ΔF 30.93

Step 3: Platform Characteristics

Perceived Fairness .15** .16** .14**

Quantification -.06 -.06 -.56

Algorithm Control -.05 -.05 -.07

R² .31

ΔR² .03
ΔF 5.34

Step 4: Behavioural Characteristics

Hypervigilance -.02 -.02

Pacifying the Algorithm .05 .03

R² .31

ΔR² .00

ΔF .52

Step 5: Moderation

Income Based on Platform

Skill variety .08

Task Identity -.19*

Task Significance -.04

Autonomy .07

Feedback from Job -.12

Perceived Fairness -.05

Quantification -.06

Algorithm Control -.02

Hypervigilance .05

Pacifying the Algorithm .03

Work Activity Based on Platform

Skill variety -.03

Task Identity .11

Task Significance -.04

Autonomy -.08

Feedback from Job .10

Perceived Fairness -.04

Quantification .06

Algorithm Control .07

Hypervigilance -.00

Pacifying the Algorithm -.04

R² .35

ΔR² .04

ΔF 1.01
Note. All regression coefficients are standardized. N = 413. Dependent variable: meaningfulness.
The independent variables that used a 5-point scale (1 = not at all to 5 = very much) are: skill
variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, feedback from job, quantification,
hypervigilance, and pacifying the algorithm. The independent variables that used a 7-point
Likert-scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) are: meaningfulness, perceived fairness,
and algorithm control. Gender consisted of 5 categories: male, female, non-binary/third gender,
prefer not to say, prefer to self-desribe. Education consists of 7 categories: less than high school,
high school graduate, some college, undergraduate, masters degree, professional qualifications,
and doctorate.
Significance levels: *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05