using social psychology to motivate contributions to online
DESCRIPTION
The paper "Using Social Psychology to Motivate Contributions to Online Communities" was presented by myself in the Cooperative Work class of 2009TRANSCRIPT
USING SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY TO
MOTIVATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO
ONLINE COMMUNITIESA presentation by Mário Carranca, based on the paper by:
Beenen et al,
Carnegie Mellon University
University of Michigan
University of Minnesota
University of Pittsburgh
MOTIVATION People benefit from others’ activities in
online communities Several online communities fail. The
reasons vary, but there’s a main one
Lack of contribution
FACTS GNUtella
66% of users do not seed files87% of files are seeded by 10% of users
Open source community4% of open source users account for 50% of all
user-to-user help4% of developers contribute 88% of new code
and 66% of code fixes
MovieLensMore than 20% of the movies listed have so
few ratings that the algorithms don’t work
STUDY OBJECTIVES1. Look into social phenomena in social
science and social psychology theories
2. Elaborate on people’s behaviour in online communities
3. Implement alternative designs for which theories predict different outcomes
4. Verify the application of these theories in online communities
THEORIES Collective Effort Model (Karau, Williams)
Social LoafingSalience of UniquenessSalience of benefit and the beneficiaryCombining uniqueness and benefit
MOVIELENS
A case study
WHAT IS MOVIELENS Web-based movie recommender
community People can rate, review, and receive
recommendations for movies 7000 users active in the six month
period before research
FRAMING CONTRIBUTION UNIQUENESS AND BENEFIT
Study 1
HYPOTHESES Hypothesis 1
MovieLens users will rate more movies when the uniqueness of their contribution is made salient
Hypothesis 2 MovieLens users will rate more movies when the
personal benefit they receive from doing so is more salient
MovieLens users will rate more movies when the benefit for the community is more salient
Hypothesis 3 MovieLens users will rate more movies when the
perception of both unique contribution and benefits to the community are made salient than when only unique contribution or benefits are made salient
METHOD OF STUDYING Subjects
830 active MovieLens users who had rated rarely-rated movies
E-mails Variables manipulated
Uniqueness Highlighting uniqueness Highlighting non-uniqueness
Benefit No benefit Self-benefit Benefit to others Benefit to self and others
Participation data measured over one week
RESULTS
HYPOTHESES Hypothesis 1
MovieLens users will rate more movies when the uniqueness of their contribution is made salient
CONFIRMED Hypothesis 2
MovieLens users will rate more movies when the personal benefit they receive from doing so is more salient
MovieLens users will rate more movies when the benefit for the community is more salient
Hypothesis 3 MovieLens users will rate more movies when the
perception of both unique contribution and benefits to the community are made salient than when only unique contribution or benefits are made salient
RESULTS
HYPOTHESES Hypothesis 1
MovieLens users will rate more movies when the uniqueness of their contribution is made salient
CONFIRMED Hypothesis 2
MovieLens users will rate more movies when the personal benefit they receive from doing so is more salient
MovieLens users will rate more movies when the benefit for the community is more salient
DISCONFIRMED Hypothesis 3
MovieLens users will rate more movies when the perception of both unique contribution and benefits to the community are made salient than when only unique contribution or benefits are made salient
RESULTS
HYPOTHESES Hypothesis 1
MovieLens users will rate more movies when the uniqueness of their contribution is made salient
CONFIRMED Hypothesis 2
MovieLens users will rate more movies when the personal benefit they receive from doing so is more salient
MovieLens users will rate more movies when the benefit for the community is more salient
DISCONFIRMED Hypothesis 3
MovieLens users will rate more movies when the perception of both unique contribution and benefits to the community are made salient than when only unique contribution or benefits are made salient
NOT SUPPORTED
GOAL-SETTINGStudy 2
HYPOTHESES Hypothesis 4
In an online community, specific, numeric goals will motivate greater contributions than non-specific goals
Hypothesis 5 Members assigned individual goals will
provide more contributions than members assigned group goals
Hypothesis 6 In an online community, contribution will
drop off when goals exceed some difficulty threshold
METHOD OF STUDYING Subjects:
834 recently active members E-mails Variables manipulated
Group assignment Individual Group
Specificity of goals “Do your best” Numeric goal
RESULTS
HYPOTHESES Hypothesis 4
In an online community, specific, numeric goals will motivate greater contributions than non-specific goals
CONFIRMED Hypothesis 5
Members assigned individual goals will provide more contributions than members assigned group goals
Hypothesis 6 In an online community, contribution will drop
off when goals exceed some difficulty threshold
RESULTS
HYPOTHESES Hypothesis 4
In an online community, specific, numeric goals will motivate greater contributions than non-specific goals
CONFIRMED Hypothesis 5
Members assigned individual goals will provide more contributions than members assigned group goals
DISCONFIRMED Hypothesis 6
In an online community, contribution will drop off when goals exceed some difficulty threshold
RESULTS
HYPOTHESES Hypothesis 4
In an online community, specific, numeric goals will motivate greater contributions than non-specific goals
CONFIRMED Hypothesis 5
Members assigned individual goals will provide more contributions than members assigned group goals
DISCONFIRMED Hypothesis 6
In an online community, contribution will drop off when goals exceed some difficulty threshold
WEAK SUPPORT
DISCUSSION
HYPOTHESES AND RESULTS
HYPOTHESES AND RESULTS
FOOD FOR THOUGHT Challenging goals are powerful motivators
Especially when participant is not part of a group!
Goals that are overly difficult to attain may result in reduced contributions
Possibility of developing optimization algorithms!
Parts of the Collaborative Effort Model were disconfirmed
People didn’t exert less effort despite knowing their effort was being pooled rather than made identifiable
Other theories to be explored Group cohesion and identity, interpersonal
attraction, altruism
MÁRIO CARRANCA
April 2009