[samloveshummus]

No, 63.3% of all participants got a favourable outcome, so 13% cheated (suggesting 26% would cheat if necessary, as half got a favourable outcome without cheating).

The participants all had varying degrees of belief in a just world which were measured with a six-item test. The results of that test correlated significantly with the chance of a favourable self-reported coin toss.

It is meaningless to draw inferences from comparisons to another study, as they were selected differently so there's no control, and it isn't necessary as this study contains a random and varied sample of participants.

Yes, there is a question over the representativeness of Mechanical Turk workers. But even though they're surely different on average from the average human, this study is controlled by comparing them to each other rather than to some pre-determined statistics, so the sampling bias should be largely cancelled out, barring second-order interactions.

[zhdc1]

> Yes, there is a question over the representativeness of Mechanical Turk workers.

There are more fundamental issues. Having run several studies either with MTurk or panel providers who use MTurk to source some/most of their respondents, I have trouble trusting any study with an MTurk sample that doesn't explicitly show 1. how they verified respondent location and demographics and 2. how they controlled for bots and mindless click-throughs.

Even though they used a convenience sample, issues like reading comprehension (which you can get from non-native English speakers VPN'ing through a US-based IP) and participants trying to get through the study as quickly as possible - or automating their responses altogether - absolutely matter.