Using Social Psychology to Motivate Contributions to Online Communities

Authors – Gerard B., Kimberly L., Xiaoqing W., Klarissa C., Dan F., Paul R., Robert E. K.

Year - 2004

Published in – Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW2004)

Link - http://www.si.umich.edu/~presnick/papers/cscw04/cscw2004preprint.pdf

Importance to my Research - Very High

MY REVIEW
In this paper the authors address the problem of under-contribution in online communities and argue that providing technical features for contribution is just not enough. The social behaviour needs to change and users should be motivated to contribute. This paper documents two experiments in detail.

The first paper tests the “Collective Effort Model” theory and states that if the users are made aware of how their contributions help others then they are more likely to contribute. In one way the research that i am doing on user contribution measurement would be very handy in motivating users by showing their contributions, however it would be even better if we could split the contribution value and show the “degree of impact” the community had by these contributions. This would also be aligned with the Collective Effort Model theory, as I am trying to show the users how much impact they have made on the community.

Hence as long as you can saliently describe the uniqueness and benefit , users would be more likely to contribute. Uniqueness makes the user feel that they are precious and benefit shows that their inputs are valuable. One thing I would like to add is to state that these uniqueness and benefits should be graphically represented within the online community. This would have 2 major benefits, firstly every user in the community can see them and secondly the contributor itself can see them too. This would keep them motivated to contribute. A graphical chart or a bar graph would be very intresting to shown the change in contributions (last month vs. this month).

The second experiment was motivating users by testing the “goal-setting theory“. Goal setting can work with individuals as well as in groups, but with individuals it works much better. In the second experiment the authors tested this theory in a group of 10 members by requesting them to rate as many movies as they can. The goal was not speific i.e. it belonged to the category of “do your best”. The authors argue that setting high challenge goals can deter users from contributing and I do agree with this because in an online community people come to socialize themselves rather than being ordered what to do (in which case it would be similar to be at work, where the Boss tells you what you should do). Secondly, I would like to add to this argument, unless users are are committed to do well, they will not. If they feel there is nothing to loose they may not even bother to participate. So to get the group dynamics going I reckon the community builder should also point out what the users may loose.

Overall it was a very intresting paper and I enjoyed reading it. It took me most of this afternoon to go thru it thoroughly, so I definitely deserver a cuppa now.

Cite this Article as
Review on “Using Social Psychology to Motivate Contributions to Online Communities” by V. Potdar, 12th Feb 2008, Available Online – http://drvidy.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/using-social-psychology-to-motivate-contributions-to-online-communities/ 

Abstract
Under-contribution is a problem for many online communities. Social psychology theories of social loafing and goal-setting can provide mid-level design principles to address this problem. We tested the design principles in two field experiments. In one, members of an online movie recommender community were reminded of the uniqueness of their contributions and the benefits that follow from them. In the second, they were given a range of individual or group goals for contribution. As predicted by theory, individuals contributed when they were reminded of their uniqueness and when they were given specific and challenging goals, but other predictions were not borne out. The paper ends with suggestions and challenges for mining social science theories as well as implications for design.

 Reference Sheet
In many online groups, participation drops to zero. For example, Butler found that 50% of social, hobby, and work mailing lists had no traffic over a 4-month period.

Popular peer-to-peer music sharing service,Gnutella, two-thirds of users share no music files and ten percent provide 87% of all the music.

In open source development communities, four percent of members account for 50 percent of answers on a user-to-user help site [3], and four percent of developers contribute 88% of new code and 66% of code fixes. 

People exert less effort on a collective task than they do on a comparable individual task.

Collective Effort Model – a theory to explain why people often work harder individually than in groups. According to this theory, people work hard when they think their effort will help them achieve outcomes that they value.

Abundant research since the 1960s shows that providing people with specific, high-challenge goals stimulates higher task performance than easy or “do your best” goals. The straightforward design recommendation from the goal-setting literature for online communities is that these communities should set specific and challenging contribution goals for their members.

The “goal-setting theory” specifies the setting that stimulates high performance [22]. Goals must be relatively difficult, specific, context-appropriate, and immediate rather than long-term. High-challenge goals energize higher performance in at least three ways -

First, self-efficacy, or a person’s belief in his or her own abilities to successfully perform a task, positively moderates commitment to a goal. Persons high in self-efficacy are more likely to set or accept specific high-challenge goals, provided such goals are perceived as achievable and reasonable.

Second, goals provide “normative information to the individual by suggesting what level of performance the individual could be expected to attain”. This normative information operates in a feedback loop in which individuals regulate their task effort so that their performance does not deviate too much from the expected level.

Third, achieving the goal leads to task satisfaction. This satisfaction enhances self-efficacy and future goal commitment, which in turn boost future task performance. This upward performance spiral leads Locke and Latham to refer to their goal-setting theory as the High Performance Cycle.

Definitions
Social Loafing - Social loafing or free riding is the robust phenomenon that occurs when people work less hard to achieve some goal when they think they are working jointly with others than when they are working by themselves.

Important Terms
Design Principles – Social Loafing (free riding), Goal Setting
Critical Mass
Individual Utility Analysis
Awareness Systems
Collective Effort Model
Normative Information
High Performance Cycle
Goal Setting Theory

Related Useful References
Thompson, L.F., J.P. Meriac, and J. Cope, Motivating online performance: the influences of goal setting and Internet selfefficacy. Social Science Computer Review, 2002. 20(2): p.149-160.

Nonnecke, B. and J. Preece, Lurker demographics: Counting the silent, in Proceedings of CHI’2000: Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2000: Hague, The Netherlands. p. 73-80.

Markus, L., Towards a “critical mass” theory of interactive media: Universal access, interdependence, and diffusion. Communication Research, 1987. 14: p. 491-511.

Erickson, T. and W. Kellog, Social translucence: An approach to designing systems that support social processes. Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 2000. 7(1): p.59-83.

Karau, S. and K. Williams, Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1993. 65(4): p. 681-706.

Kerr, N.L., Motivation losses in small groups: A social dilemma analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1983. 45: p. 819-828.

Kerr, N.L. and S. Bruun, The dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1983. 44: p. 78-94.

Shepperd, J.A. and K.M. Taylor, Social loafing and expectancy-value theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1999. 25(9): p. 1147-1158.

Matsui, T., T. Kakuyama, and M. Onglatco, Effects of goals and feedback on performance in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1987. 72(3): p. 407-415.