Chatbots Are Undermining Crowdsourced Research in the Behavioral Sciences: Detecting Artificial Intelligence–Assisted Cheating With a Keystroke-Based Tool

Michael W. Asher et al.

Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science (AMPPS)2026https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459261424723article
AJG 2
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) poses a significant threat to data integrity on crowdsourcing platforms, such as Prolific, which behavioral scientists widely rely on for data collection. Large language models (LLMs) allow users to generate fluent and relevant responses to open-ended questions, which can mask inattention and compromise experimental validity. To empirically estimate the prevalence of this behavior, we analyzed keystroke data from three studies ( N = 928) on Prolific between May and July 2025. Using an embedded JavaScript tool, we flagged participants who pasted text or whose keystroke count was anomalously low compared with their response length. For each flagged participant, we manually compared detected keystrokes with their final response to determine if the text could have been typed. This confirmed that despite deterrence measures, approximately 9% of participants submitted responses consistent with AI assistance or other forms of outsourced responding. These participants outperformed noncheaters (by up to 1.5 SD ), were more than twice as likely to share geolocations with other participants (suggesting possible proxy use), and exhibited lower internal consistency on questionnaire scales. Simulated power analyses indicate that this level of undetected cheating can diminish observed effect sizes by 10% and inflate required sample sizes by up to 30%. These findings highlight the urgent need for new detection methods, such as keystroke logging, which offers verifiable evidence of cheating that is difficult to obtain from manual review of LLM-generated text alone. As AI continues to evolve, maintaining data quality in crowdsourced research will require active monitoring, methodological adaptation, and communication between researchers and platforms.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459261424723

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{michael2026,
  title        = {{Chatbots Are Undermining Crowdsourced Research in the Behavioral Sciences: Detecting Artificial Intelligence–Assisted Cheating With a Keystroke-Based Tool}},
  author       = {Michael W. Asher et al.},
  journal      = {Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science (AMPPS)},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459261424723},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Chatbots Are Undermining Crowdsourced Research in the Behavioral Sciences: Detecting Artificial Intelligence–Assisted Cheating With a Keystroke-Based Tool

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.