Slides used in course given at CHI 2012. Based on material from our book, Building Successful Online Communities, available at http://www.amazon.com/Building-Successful-Online-Communities-Evidence-Based/dp/0262016575/
In the first attempt, the link in the email was to the “Find Article” page and they had to first search for an article that would interest them with no pre-selection of relevant articles and then they had to click on “Review Now” button to view the review form and submit their reviews. Here is an example message we sent:Dear Hetz3486,The APS Wikipedia initiative has attracted a lot of enthusiasm so far, with more than 300 psychologists editing over 1000 Wikipedia articles. Psychology articles on Wikipedia are important, the typical article was visited more than 10,000 times over last six months. To ensure that the public will see high quality information, it is important for expert psychologists to evaluate the degree to which Wikipedia articles are comprehensive, accurate, well-written, and unbiased. You can help by assessing an article in your area of expertise and answering the following questions about it:Is the article accurate?Does this article provide enough detail about its topic?Does this article represent recent research in this area?Does this article provide adequate references to key research in the field?Is this article well-written and well structured?To submit your assessment of the article:Use the Find Articles section to browse articles in your area of interest or search for articles by keyword.Click on an article title to see its preview and information about its current status.Click on Review now button on the right side of the page to open the reviewing or form and enter the responses to the above questions in the comment box.
This is an example template on article’s talk page, identifying this particular article as the COTW target
During collaboration periods, non-self-identifiededitors increased their contributions.
The interaction effect is highly significant. p < 0.001Support our hypothesis that self-identified group members will voluntarily follow group directions and perform goal-related tasks.
Evidenced-Based Social Design ofOnline Communities Robert E. Kraut Carnegie Mellon University Paul Resnick University of Michigan http://slidesha.re/KrautResnickCHI12
Agenda• Our approach & nature of design claims (10 minutes)• The challenge of contribution (90 min) – Requests, goals & motivation (55 minutes) – Design challenge (15 minutes) – Break – Debrief (20 minutes)• Starting a community (80 minutes) – Network externalities & getting to critical mass (45 minutes) – Design challenge (15 minutes) – Debrief (20 minutes)
Today’s goals• Introduction to view of social design based on social science theory and empirical results• Application to – Challenges of encouraging contribution to online groups – Challenges of starting a community from scratch• Format: Lecture combined with break-out groups for design exercises
Instructors• Robert Kraut – Herbert A. Simon Professor of HCI at Carnegie Mellon – Social psychologist by training – 12 years in industry at Bell Labs and Bellcore – Emphasis on social computing• Paul Resnick – Professor, School of Information, University of Michigan – Computer scientist by training • Economics orientation – 2 years in industry at AT&T
Online communities face challengestypical of off-line groups • Community start-up • Recruit, select and socialize members • Encourage commitment • Elicit contribution • Regulate behavior • Coordinate activityBut anonymity, weak ties, high turnover, & lack ofinstitutionalization make challenges more daunting online
Evidence-based Social Design• Mine the rich empirical and theoretical literatures in psychology and economics• Develop design claims – Hypotheses about the effects of social design decisions• Sometimes directly tested in the online context and sometimes only extensions of empirically tested theories developed in offline settings
Inspiration―There is nothing sopractical as a good theory‖―If you want to understand Kurt Lewinsomething, try to change it‖
The Roles of Theory and Evidence• Identify Challenges• Generate Solution Ideas• Predict Consequences
Design Claims• Our approach is to translate relevant social science theory and empirical research to design claims• Alternative X helps/hinders achievement of goal Y under conditions Z• E.g., – Coupling goals with specific deadlines leads to increases in contributions as the deadlines approach – Group goals elicit contribution most among people who identify with the group
Design Claims Differ from Pattern Languages• Design pattern: a formal way of documenting a solution to a design problem in a particular field of expertise.• May or may not document the reasons why a problem exists and why the solution is a good one• Captures the common solutions, but not necessarily the effective ones
Design Levers• Community structure• Content, tasks & activities• Selection, sorting & highlighting• External communication• Feedback & rewards• Roles, rules, policies and procedures• Access controls• Presentation and framing
Morality of Social Design• Isnt this "social engineering," manipulating people and undermining their free choice?
Morality of Social Design• Isnt this "social engineering"?• Isnt it evil to manipulate people and undermine their free choice?
We Dont Think So• Moral imperative to make communities run well• All action, even inaction, has an effect – There is no neutral, non-manipulative configuration of online communities• Moral arguments should be about particular goals, particular means
Online Communities Face ChallengesTypical of Off-line Groups • Community start-up • Recruit, select and socialize members • Encourage commitment • Elicit contribution • Regulate behavior • Coordinate activityBut anonymity, weak ties, high turnover, & lack of institutionalization makechallenges more daunting online
Reasons To Care• Overall goal. Creating sufficient volume of contribution of the resources the group values to provide benefits to group members and others who rely upon the online community• Different communities require different types of contribution – Social support forums: Conversational acts, empathy, offers of help – Recommender systems: Votes, opinions, comments – Facebook: Invites, accepts, wall posts, pictures – WoW guild: Time, particular skills – Threadless: T-shirt designs – OSS: Patches, code, translations, documentation – Wikipedia: New articles, facts, copy-editing, administration work, cash (& recently, letters to congressmen)
Under Contribution Is Rampant• Across many Internet domains, a small fraction of participants contribute the majority of material – Code in open source projects – Edits in Wikipedia – Illegal music in Gnutella – Answers in technical support groups• Often leads to a power-law/Zipf curve distribution• In many cases uneven contribution leads to an under supply of needed content. E.g., – Assessments and content in Wikipedia – Reviews of art movies in MovieLens
Wikipedia Stubs & Unassessed Articles• Many Wikipedia articles haven‘t been assessed for quality or importance• 58% of important ones are of low quality
Association for PsychologicalScience Wikipedia Initiative
APS/WI Reviewing Goal• Subgoal: Get psychologists & grad students to review Wikipedia articles by adding comments to article talk pages describing problems with an article• ~300 have signed up for the APSWPI, improving > 700 articles• But fewer than 15 have reviewed• How you can apply any of the design claims presented here to increase these reviews from APS members?
Second attempt• Simplifying the task – Direct link to where the action is needed• Highlighting ―social identity‖ in the invitation message• Personalizing the message – Specifying users‘ expertise• Phrasing the task as ―rating‖ instead of ―reviewing‖
Naïve Task Analysis of Online ContributionTo get people to contributed needed content :1. They need to understand what is wanted theories of persuasion and goal setting2. They have to be motivated to provide it theories of motivation 1. Extrinsic motivations 2. Intrinsic motivations 3. How social situations influence motivation3. They have to be competent to provide it
Requests Focus Attention on NeededContributions• Make the list of needed contributions easily visible to increase the likelihood that the community will provide them
Identify Who Should Make The Contribution • Request help in a chat room • ―Can you tell me how to see someone‘s profile‖ – 400 Chat rooms – DV=Time to response • People are slower to respond when others are present • Diffusion of responsibility is reduced when people are called by name 80 80 No name Name 70 70 Time to respond (seconds) Time to respond (seconds) 60 No name 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Others present Others present Markey(2000)
Email Request to Contribute to MovielensQuadruples Ratings • In week after email reminder, contributes quadrupled, to ~ 20 ratings/person from ~5.4 • Is this sustainable?
Ask: Explicitly Asking for Needed Contributions Increases Likelihood of Getting Them• News site with a ―Leave a comment‖ form at the end of each article• Fewer than 0.1% leave Comments by Type of Request comments No ask• Experiment to estimate the Immediate value of explicit requests Delayed – No ask: ―Leave a comment‖ 0 20 40 60 80 Number of comments 100 120 form at end of article (Walsh & Lampe, 2012) – Immediate: Pop-up ―Leave a comment‖ when user opens article – Delayed: Pop-up ―Leave a comment‖ on closing article
Ask Someone Who Is Willing & Able toHelp: Intelligent Task Routing (Cosley, 2007)
Goal Setting Theory• Goals motivate effort, perseverance & performance – Trigger for both self-reward (e.g., self-efficacy) & external reward (e.g., money, reputation, promotion)• Goals are more effective if – Specific & challenging rather than easy goals or vague ‗do your best‘ – Immediate, with feedback – People commit selves to the goals – because of importance, incentives, self-esteem, … – People envision the specific circumstance & method they will use to achieve them• Design claim: Providing members with specific and highly challenging goals, whether self-set or system- suggested, increases contribution.
Experiment Showing that Goals Work:• Send email to ~900 MovieLens subscribers – Gave non-specific, do your best goal or specific, numerical contribution goals – Assigned goal to individual subscribers or a nominal group of 10 subscribers (the ―Explorers‖)
In-game Goals in WoW Weekly minutes playing World of Warcraft, by level• In WoW players receive extra powers each 10- levels implicit goals setting• Ducheneaut, N., et al.(2007). The life and death of online gaming communities: A look at guilds in world of warcraft. in SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. San Jose, California, USA.
Featured Status in Wikipedia as aChallenge Wikipedia edits before and after reaching featured status
Design Claims Re: Goals• Providing members with specific and highly challenging goals will increase their contributions.• Goals have larger effects when people receive frequent feedback about their performance with respect to the goals.• Externally imposed goals can be as effective as self- imposed ones, as long as the goals are important to community members• Time-delimited challenges enhance the effects of goals• Combining goals with appeals to social identity enhances their effects
What Motivates Contributors? • External personal value – Reinforcement – Pay – Privilege … • Social utility – Reputation – Identification with the group – Reciprocity – Altruism … • Intrinsic value of task (e.g., fun, curiosity, challenge) These are leverage points for interventions to increase motivation
Value-Expectancy Model Provides LeveragePoints for Reducing Social Loafing 3 individual individual performance outcome 5 3, 4 individual 4 individual individual effort utility motivation 6 6 group group performance outcome
Value-Expectancy Model Provides Leverage Points for Reducing Social Loafing Frame request consistent with users’ values Create incentives user values 3 Extrinsic individual individual Intrinsic performance outcome 5 3, 4 individual 4 individual individual effort utility motivation 6 6 group group performance outcome Liking for group members Identification with group History of interaction with groupNumber of othersOwn competenceOwn unique skillsGroup’sincompetence Identifiably Fairness of reward distribution
People Differ in Motivations to Volunteer• Design claims: Matching experiences with motivations increases – Recruiting – Retention Clary, E. and Snyder, M., (1999). The motivations to volunteer: Theoretical and practical considerations. Current Directions in Psychological Science. p. 156-159.
Leverage the Variety of Motivations• Don‘t assume everyone has the same motivation Frame the request to match individual motivations• E.g., Ads for recycling site for those with altruistic versus financial motivations Altruistic framing for Monetary framing for less financially motivated more financially motivated
Assess Motivation from Sending Site Items Donated by Framing and Source 3.5 Altrustic frame Financial frame 3.0 Items Donated 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Craigs List Mturk Source of participants
WikiProjects Use Collaborations of the Week(COTW) as Time-Delimited Goals Get designated to good status in a defined period (e.g., a week or a month) A COTW announcement in a project page An example template identifying an article as a COTW 52
Goal doubles contributionEdits per person on thecollaboration articles Self-identified group members Non self-identified members Pre-Collaboration Collaboration Post-Collaboration 53
Goal has much larger effect on groupmembersEdits per person on thecollaboration articles Self-identified group members Non self-identified members Pre-Collaboration Collaboration Post-Collaboration 54
Goals and Identity• Design claim: Goals have a more powerful effects when achieving them benefits a group the target identifies with• Association for Psychological Science Wikipedia Initiative appeals to PhD psychologists with this technique – Students motivated via extrinsic incentives (grades)
Imagine you wanted labels for webimages. How can you motivate people?
Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivations• Individual motivation influences behavior through external motivators (e.g., rewards, incentives, reputation) and intrinsic motivators (e.g., fun & curiosity)Increase contributions by manipulating extrinsic incentives & intrinsic motivations – Extrinsic motivators: Offer rewards as incentive (e.g., money, reputation, perks, grades) • Larger rewards induce more contribution than smaller rewards. • Luxury goods create better incentives than money as rewards for more difficult tasks. • Rewards of status, privileges, money, or prizes that are task- contingent but not performance-contingent will lead to gaming by performing the tasks with low effort. • People wont game the system for private verbal reward – Intrinsic motivators: Make the task fun or intrinsically interesting
Design Claims Re: Incentives & Reinforcement• Incentive Effects – People do more of the behaviors that they anticipate will be rewarded. – Task non-contingent rewards will not create incentive to do more of a task or exert more effort in doing it – Larger rewards induce more contribution than smaller rewards – Small gifts create more effective incentives than small payments• Reinforcement effects – Rewards delivered in response to behaviors cause people to do more of those behaviors – Rewards work better as reinforces if they are delivered right after the desired behavior – Rewards generate more consistent performance over time if they are unpredictable
Intrinsic Motivators• Intrinsic motivation is the process of working to achieve the rewards that that come from carrying out an activity rather from as a result of the activity.• Comes from the pleasure one gets from the task itself or from the sense of satisfaction in completing or working on a task.Redesign the task to make it more fun or interesting
ESP Game To Label Images Truck Red school bus Red Red school bus• Example of playing the game• Taboo words
How would you make a contributiontask more fun?
What Makes a Contribution Fun? Lessons from game designFlow Criteria Principles of game designConcentration Games should require concentration and the player should be able to concentrate on the gameChallenge Be sufficiently challenging and match the player’s skill levelSkills Support player skill development and masteryControl Support players sense of control over their actionsClear Goals Provide the player with clear goals at appropriate timeFeedback Provide appropriate feedback at appropriate timesImmersion Players should experience deep but effortless involvement in the gameSocial Interaction Games should support and create opportunities for social interaction Mapping flow to principles of game design (from Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005)
Support Opportunities for SocialInteraction Make tedious tasks fun via social interaction
Gamification• Applying game-design thinking to non-game applications• Is the effect via fun (internal motivation) or incentives (external motivations)?
Design Claims Re: Trade-offs Btw Intrinsic & Extrinsic Motivation• Adding a reward to an already interesting task will cause people to be less interested in the task and to perform it less often.• While tangible rewards reduce intrinsic motivations for interesting activities, verbal rewards enhance intrinsic motivation.• Verbal rewards will not enhance intrinsic motivation and may undermine it while they are judged as controlling.• Verbal rewards enhance intrinsic motivations most when they enhance the target‘s perceptions of competence
Design Jam• Groups of 4• Task – Redesign of one thing of • request for review, • reviewing page on APS/WI site – Sample Interface for reviewing page: http://hciresearch2.hcii.cs.cmu.edu/~rfarzan/wikipedia/tool/re view/review.php?&cond=1 (also on next slide) – Say which slides justify your proposal. – Mockup your proposal. – 15 minutes for Jam – Readout after the break • Show your mockup and narrate it: 1 minute!
Externalities• Alices adoption or production decisions have direct or indirect effects on Bobs adoption or production decisions • Alices decisions create costs and benefits external to her • e.g., Size of telephone, email, and fax networks • e.g., Complementary products—hardware & software • e.g., Second hand smoke & other pollution
Positive Externalities in Napster• Probability of a song appearing on Napster increased with the number of users, at a declining rate
Negative Externalities in Napster• Measures of congestion in Napster increased with the number of users, at an increasing rate
Network Externalities in OLCs• Negative externalities – Server congestion; competition for attention• Positive externalities – People to interact with – Content they produce – Identity value
Implications of Positive NetworkExternalities• Winner-take-all competition between networks• Need for critical mass – minimum number of users that makes others want to join (or not quit)
Startup Phase Challenges• Identifying a Niche• Defending the Niche• Getting to Critical Mass
Startup Phase Challenges• Identifying a Niche• Defending the Niche• Getting to Critical Mass
Getting to Critical Mass• Leveraging Early Members• Attracting Early Members
Getting to Critical Mass• Leveraging Early Members• Attracting Early Members
Join Now or Wait?• Early members especially important• Model provides insights into how to attract utility (join now) = participation_benefitstage1 - startup_cost + success_probability * (participation_benefitstage2 + early_adopter_benefit) utility(wait) = success_probability * (participation_benefitstage2 - startup_cost)• Join now if utility(join_now) > utility(wait)utility(join now) - utility(wait) = participation_benefitstage1 – startup_cost * (1 – success_probability) + early_adopter_benefit * success_probability
Implications: Where to Look for Solutions• Increase immediate benefits util(join now) - util(wait) = participation_benefitstage1 – startup_cost * (1 – success_probability) + (early_adopter_benefit * success_probability)
Implications: Where to Look for Solutions• Increase immediate benefits• Reduce effort to join util(join now) - util(wait) = participation_benefitstage1 – startup_cost * (1 – success_probability) + (early_adopter_benefit * success_probability)
Implications: Where to Look for Solutions• Increase immediate benefits• Reduce effort to join• Promise future benefits to util(join now) - util(wait) = early adopters participation_benefitstage1 – startup_cost * (1 – success_probability) + (early_adopter_benefit * success_probability)
Implications: Where to Look for Solutions• Increase immediate benefits• Reduce effort to join• Promise future benefits to util(join now) - util(wait) = early adopters participation_benefitstage1 – startup_cost• Set expectations: probability * (1 – success_probability) of success + (early_adopter_benefit * success_probability)
Implications: Where to Look for Solutions• Increase immediate benefits• Reduce effort to join• Promise future benefits to util(join now) - util(wait) = early adopters participation_benefitstage1 – startup_cost• Set expectations: probability * (1 – success_probability) of success + (early_adopter_benefit * success_probability)• Conditional commitments
Implications: Where to Look for Solutions• Increase immediate benefits• Reduce effort to join• Promise future benefits to util(join now) - util(wait) = early adopters participation_benefitstage1 – startup_cost• Set expectations: probability * (1 – success_probability) of success + (early_adopter_benefit * success_probability)• Conditional commitments• Whats not worth focusing on – Expectation setting: stage 2 value if successful
Implications: Where to Look for Solutions• Increase immediate benefits• Reduce effort to join util(join now) - util(wait) =• Promise future benefits to participation_benefitstage1 – startup_cost early adopters * (1 – success_probability)• Set expectations: + (early_adopter_benefit * success_probability) probability of success• Conditional commitments• Whats not worth focusing on – Expectation setting: stage 2 value if successful
Increase Immediate Benefits• DC25: Productivity, Entertainment or Commerce – E.g., Flickr offers picture storage and management, services that are useful to the user even if nobody else is using Flickr.• DC26: Professionaly generated content• DC27: Syndicated content• DC28: Professional staff contributions
45 300 Staff posts 40 Member posts 250 35 Active members Current member count 30 Key Dates 200Messages posted 25 150 20 15 100 10 50 5 0 0 Contest 1 Contest 2 Contest 5 Fishtanks Contest 6 Feb 15 Thread 1 Thread 2 Contests 3, 4 Resnick, Paul, Janney, Adrienne, Buis, Lorriane R, and Caroline R Richardson, ―Adding an online community to an Internet-mediated walking program. Part 2: Strategies for encouraging community participation‖. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2010. 12(4):e72.
Increase Immediate Benefits• DC25: Productivity, Entertainment or Commerce• DC26: Professionally generated content• DC27: Syndicated content• DC28: Professional Staff contributions• DC30: (as a last resort)• DC31: Bots
Promise future benefits to early adopters• DC 32: Future discounts to the early adopters – E.g., lower rates for life• DC 35: Limited resources that tempt users to join early – E.g., status & recognition with being an early adopter – E.g., users sign up first to claim their username• DC 36: Privileges – E.g., administrator status• Identity rewards – "Wont you be proud that you helped this get off the ground?"
Expectation Setting:Presenting Success at Different Stages• DC43: Small and slow growing – Display new members and content• DC44: Small and fast growing – Display percentage growth• DC45: Big – Display absolute numbers
Summary• The Challenges – Identifying a Niche – Defending the Niche – Getting to Critical Mass • Leveraging Early Members • Attracting Early Members
Attracting Early Members• Increase immediate benefits• Reduce effort to join• Promise future benefits util(join now) - util(wait) = to early adopters participation_benefitstage1 – startup_cost *• Set expectations: (1 – success_probability) probability of success + (early_adopter_benefit *• Conditional success_probability) commitments• Whats not worth focusing on – Expectation setting: stage 2 value if successful
Challenge: Make Design Suggestions forGetting a Specific Community to CriticalMass• SuccessfulOnlineCom • Increase immediate munities.com benefits• Or a community that • Promise future someone in your benefits to early group is trying to adopters launch • Set expectations: probability of success • Conditional commitments