Think different: increasing online community participation using uniqueness and group dissimilarity

ABSTRACT

Online communities can help people form productive relationships. Unfortunately, this potential is not always fulfilled: many communities fail, and designers don't have a solid understanding of why. We know community activity begets activity. The trick, however, is to inspire participation in the first place. Social theories suggest methods to spark positive community participation. We carried out a field experiment that tested two such theories. We formed discussion communities around an existing movie recommendation web site, manipulating two factors: (1) similarity-we controlled how similar group members' movie ratings were; and (2) uniqueness-we told members how their movie ratings (with respect to a discussion topic) were unique within the group. Both factors positively influenced participation. The results offer a practical success story in applying social science theory to the design of online communities.

REFERENCES

• 1: Brian S. Butler, Membership Size, Communication Activity, and Sustainability: A Resource-Based Model of Online Social Structures, Information Systems Research, v.12 n.4, p.346-362, December 2001 [doi>10.1287/isre.12.4.346.9703]
• 2: Dan Cosley , Shyong K. Lam , Istvan Albert , Joseph A. Konstan , John Riedl, Is seeing believing?: how recommender system interfaces affect users' opinions, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, April 05-10, 2003, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA [doi>10.1145/642611.642713]
• 3: Dan Cosley , Pamela Ludford , Loren Terveen, Studying the effect of similarity in online task-focused interactions, Proceedings of the 2003 international ACM SIGGROUP conference on Supporting group work, November 09-12, 2003, Sanibel Island, Florida, USA [doi>10.1145/958160.958212]
• 4: Fehr, E. & Schmidt, K. A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics 114 (1999), 817--868.
• 5: Fischer, C. To Dwell Among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City. University of Chicago Press, 1982.
• 6: Fischer, C., et al. Networks and Places: Social Relations in the Urban Setting. New York: Free Press, 1977.
• 7: Fishkin, J.S. The Voice of the People. Yale University Press, 1997.
• 8: Friedman, E. & Resnick, P. The Social Cost of Cheap Pseudonyms. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 10, 2 (2001), 173--199.
• 9: Andreas Girgensohn , Alison Lee, Making web sites be places for social interaction, Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, November 16-20, 2002, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA [doi>10.1145/587078.587098]
• 10: Guerin, B. Language use as social strategy: A review and an analytic framework for the social sciences. Review of General Psychology 7, 3 (2003), 251--298.
• 11: Hemetsberger, A., & Pieters, R. Fostering cooperation on the Internet: social exchange processes in innovative virtual consumer communities. Proc. Association for Consumer Research (2001).
• 12: Ingham, A.G., Levinger, G., Graves, J., & Peckham, V. The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 10, 4 (1974), 371--384.
• 13: Jackson, R.M. Social Structure and Process in Friendship Choice. In Fischer et al.: Networks and Places. New York: Free Press, 1977, 59--78.
• 14: Karau, S.J., & Williams, K.D. Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 65, 4 (1993), 681--706.
• 15: Kim, A.J. Community Building on the Web. Peachpit Press, Berkeley, CA, 2000.
• 16: Kollock, P. Design Principles for Online Communities. Proc. Harvard Conf. on the Internet and Society (1996).
• 17: Kraut, R.E. Applying Social Psychological Theory to the Problems of Group Work. In J. Carroll (ed): HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks. 2003, 325--356.
• 18: David R. Millen , John F. Patterson, Stimulating social engagement in a community network, Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, November 16-20, 2002, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA [doi>10.1145/587078.587121]
• 19: Oliver, P.E., & Marwell, G. The Paradox of Group Size in Collective Action: A Theory of the Critical Mass. II. American Sociological Review 53, 1 (1998), 108.
• 20: Parks, M., & Floyd, K. Making Friends in Cyberspace. Journal of Communication 46, 1 (1996), 80--97.
• 21: Jenny Preece, Empathic communities: reaching out across the Web, interactions, v.5 n.2, p.32-43, March/April 1998 [doi>10.1145/274430.274435]
• 22: Jenny Preece, Online Communities: Designing Usability and Supporting Socialbilty, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 2000
• 23: Putnam, R. Bowling Alone. Simon & Schuster, 2000.
• 24: Paul Resnick , Hal R. Varian, Recommender systems, Communications of the ACM, v.40 n.3, p.56-58, March 1997 [doi>10.1145/245108.245121]
• 25: Rabin, M. Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics. American Economic Review 83 (1993), 1281--1302.
• 26: Resnick, P. Beyond Bowling Together: SocioTechnical Capital <http://www.si.umich.edu/~presnick/papers/stk/index.html>. In J. Carroll (ed): HCI in the New Millenium. Addison-Wesley, 2002, 247--272.
• 27: Badrul Sarwar , George Karypis , Joseph Konstan , John Reidl, Item-based collaborative filtering recommendation algorithms, Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web, p.285-295, May 01-05, 2001, Hong Kong, Hong Kong [doi>10.1145/371920.372071]
• 28: Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. Transforming Public Volunteer Work. Proc. Intl. Conf. on the Economic and Social Implications of Information Technology (2003).
• 29: Van Alstyne, M. & Brynjolfsson, E. Electronic Communities: Global Village or Cyberbalkans? Proc. 17th International Conf. on Information Systems (1996).
• 30: Verbrugge, L.M. The Structure of Adult Friendship Choices, Social Forces 56, 2 (1977).

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.3 Group and Organization Interfaces
          Subjects: Computer-supported cooperative work

Keywords:
online communities, recommender systems, similarity, social psychology, uniqueness