Source Items Scale Platform Core Job factor cronbach

Dimension Dimension analysis alpha's

(Morgeson 1. Work on this platform requires a variety of skills. 5-point scale Skill Variety 74.393 .880
& 2. Work on this platform requires me to utilize a variety of (1 = strongly variance
Humphrey, different skills in order to complete the work. disagree to 5 explained
2006) 3. Work on this platform requires me to use a number of = strongly by
complex or high-level skills. agree). componen
4. Work on this platform requires me the use of a number t
of skills.

(Morgeson 1. Tasks on this platform involve completing a piece of 5-point scale Task Identity .836
& work that has an obvious beginning and end. (1 = strongly
Humphrey, 2. Work on the platform is arranged so that I can do an disagree to 5
2006) entire piece of work from beginning to end. = strongly
3. Platform work provides me the chance to completely agree).
finish the pieces of work I begin.
4. This work allows me to complete work I start.

(Morgeson 1. The results of my work are likely to significantly affect 5-point scale Task .891
& the lives of other people. (1 = strongly Significance
Humphrey, 2. The work itself is very significant and important in the disagree to 5
2006) broader scheme of things. = strongly
3. The work has a large impact on people beyond the agree).
requesting party.
4. The work performed on the platform has a significant
impact on people.

(Morgeson Work Scheduling Autonomy 5-point scale Autonomy .921

& 1. The work allows me to make my own decisions about (1 = strongly
Humphrey, how to schedule my work. disagree to 5
2006) 2. The work allows me to decide on the order in which = strongly
things are done on the job. agree).
3. The work allows me to plan how I do my work.
 Decision-Making Autonomy
4. The work gives me a chance to use my personal
initiative or judgment in carrying out the work.
5. The work allows me to make a lot of decisions on my
own.
6. The work provides me with significant autonomy in
making decisions.

Work Methods Autonomy

7. The work allows me to make decisions about what
methods I use to complete my work.
8. The work gives me considerable opportunity for
independence and freedom in how I do the work.
9. The work allows me to decide on my own how to go
about doing my work.

(Morgeson 1. The work tasks provide clear information about the 5-point scale Feedback .840
& effectiveness (e.g., quality and quantity) of my (1 = strongly From Job
Humphrey, performance. disagree to 5
2006) 2. The description of the work tasks on this platform = strongly
provide clear information about performance agree).
expectations.
3. The platform provides feedback on my performance.
4. The platform provides me with information about my
performance.

Sawyer, 1. My duties and responsibilities. confidence Goal clarity .854

1992 2. The goals and objectives of the tasks scales from
3. How my work relates to overall objectives 1(very
4. The expected results of my work. uncertain) to
5. What aspects of my work will lead to positive 5(very
evaluations. certain)

Nurmi & 1. Opportunities for personal growth and development. 5-point scale Learning .885
Hinds, 2. Intellectual challenges. (1 = not at all opportunities
2016 3. Opportunities to learn new things. to 5 = very
 4. Chances of getting interesting work tasks in the future. much).

Newman, 1. The way this platform determined how to allocate work 7-point Likert- Perceived .901
Fast, & seems fair. scale (1 = Fairness
Harmon, 2. This platform’s process for deciding which workers are strongly
2021 promoted or restricted is fair. disagree, 7 =
3. The decisions regarding how worker performance is strongly
evaluated seems fair. agree)
4. The outcome of the decisions by the platform seem fair.

Newman, 1. I feel like the evaluation process would just reduce me 7-point Likert- Quantification .615
Fast, & to a number. scale (1 =
Harmon, 2. This evaluation process would adequately recognize my strongly
2021 qualitative attributes, abilities, and performance. disagree, 7 =
3. I think some information about my performance would strongly
be lost in this evaluation process. agree)
4. The indicators considered in the evaluation process do
not provide an accurate representation of my abilities
and performance.
5. This evaluation process would just recognize my
quantitative attributes, abilities, and performance and
not my qualitative attributes, abilities, and performance.

Ball, 1. The platform assigns work algorithmically. 7-point Likert- Algorithm .775
Trevino, & 2. The platform controls the pay rate. scale (1 = Control
Sims, 3. The pay rates are dynamic and controlled strongly
(1994), algorithmically. disagree, 7 =
Bucher et 4. The platform penalizes workers for cancelling tasks. strongly
al., (2021), 5. The platform penalizes workers based on acceptance agree)
& Jabagi rates.
et al., 6. The platform micromanages the work process.
(2021) 7. The platform uses monitoring mechanisms to monitor
the work progress.
8. Please answer this statement with 'Strongly disagree'.
9. The platform assigns ratings based on performance.
10. The platform does not provide feedback to workers on
 how to improve sub-par performance metrics.
11. The platform penalized workers unilaterally when
metrics fall below a certain threshold.
12. The platform controls my access to job tasks.
13. The platform controls my access to my account.
14. The platform does not allow workers to rate clients.
15. The platform does not provide resources for unfair
rating by clients.
16. The platform does not provide resources for poor
treatment by clients.

Steger, 1. I have found a meaningful career in platform work. 5-point scale Meaningfulnes .861
Dik, & 2. I understand how working on this platform contributes to (1 = strongly s
Duffy, my life’s meaning. disagree to 5
2012 3. I have a good sense of what makes my work = strongly
meaningful. agree).
4. I have discovered that platform work has a satisfying
purpose.
5. I view my work as contributing to my personal growth.
6. My work helps me better understand myself.
7. My work helps me make sense of the world around me.
8. My work really makes no difference to the world.
9. I know my work makes a positive difference in the
world.
10. The work I do serves a greater purpose.

Ball, 1. There are times that I do not voice my concerns for fear 5-point scale Pacify the .739
Trevino, & of punishment for speaking up (e.g., getting banned or (1 = strongly algorithm
Sims, suspended). disagree to 5
(1994), 2. Sometimes I avoid certain words or phrases that might = strongly
Bucher et trigger the algorithm negatively. agree).
al., (2021), 3. I have sometimes avoided difficult clients for fear of
& Jabagi receiving lower scores.
et al., 4. Please answer this statement with 'Strongly agree'.
(2021)
Jabagi et 1. If I want to get the decent paid tasks, I need to be 5-point scale Hypervigilan .804
al., 2021 constantly alert on this platform. (1 = strongly ce
2. I feel I have to go through many task offers to find disagree to 5
reasonable work. = strongly
3. On this platform, I must spend a lot of time searching for agree).
appropriate tasks.
4. To make this work worthwhile, I need to constantly
monitor the platform for well-paid tasks.
5. I have to put in a lot of time and effort to find the right
tasks.

Hoang, 1. The platform work I do contributes to satisfying my 5-point scale Income-based .850
Blank, & basic needs. (1 = strongly needs
Quan- 2. For an important part, this platform work provides in my disagree to 5
Haase, livelihood. = strongly
2020 3. The tasks I complete on this platform help me to make a agree).
living.

Spreitzer, 1. The work I do is meaningful. 7-point Likert- Meaningfulnes .899

1995 2. The work I do is very important to me. scale (1 = s
3. My work activities are personally meaningful to me. strongly
disagree, 7 =
strongly
agree)
 References
Ball, G. A., Trevino, L. K., & Sims Jr, H. P. (1994). Just and unjust punishment: Influences on subordinate performance and
citizenship. Academy of Management journal, 37(2), 299-322.
Bucher, E. L., Schou, P. K., & Waldkirch, M. (2021). Pacifying the algorithm–Anticipatory compliance in the face of algorithmic
management in the gig economy. Organization, 1350508420961531.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work–
family conflict. Journal of Vocational behavior, 56(2), 249-276.
Hoang, L., Blank, G., & Quan-Haase, A. (2020). The winners and the losers of the platform economy: Who participates?. Information,
Communication & Society, 23(5), 681-700.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): developing and validating a comprehensive
measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of applied psychology, 91(6), 1321.
Newman, D. T., Fast, N. J., & Harmon, D. J. (2020). When eliminating bias isn’t fair: Algorithmic reductionism and procedural justice
in human resource decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 160, 149-167.
Nurmi, N., & Hinds, P. J. (2016). Job complexity and learning opportunities: A silver lining in the design of global virtual work. Journal
of International Business Studies, 47(6), 631-654.
Sawyer, J. E. (1992). Goal and process clarity: Specification of multiple constructs of role ambiguity and a structural equation model
of their antecedents and consequences. Journal of applied psychology, 77(2), 130.
Shum, S. (2020). HUMANS IN THE LOOP.
Shukla, A., & Srivastava, R. (2016). Development of short questionnaire to measure an extended set of role expectation conflict,
coworker support and work-life balance: The new job stress scale. Cogent business & management, 3(1), 1134034.
Smith, C. S., Tisak, J., Hahn, S. E., & Schmieder, R. A. (1997). The measurement of job control. Journal of Organizational Behavior:
The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 18(3), 225-237.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of
management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.
Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work: The work and meaning inventory (WAMI). Journal of
career Assessment, 20(3), 322-337.