tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33019603984332442862024-03-13T15:31:58.072+01:00The Virtual Community Blog'There is nothing more practical than a good theory.' (Kurt Lewin, 1952)Jürgen Derlathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13180222385475786385noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3301960398433244286.post-26721016266076944032019-03-06T21:45:00.000+01:002019-06-07T21:46:11.964+02:00Storytelling - or why we should become suspicious when someone wants to tell us stories<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhU_AhCsJT2JD_T06DfRGlIPMna23bl6gpj0FGfrIN_KT2i__PXX3h0rwPXXOyWXWVoGwgP6lsmJYumTM-TAI9legG9KmDPh1qhyphenhyphen6kAncxk5gsMgTrBXOWRTUFR7Ff68axBe-pU5Q-PCWD0/s1600/Story+telling.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="1200" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhU_AhCsJT2JD_T06DfRGlIPMna23bl6gpj0FGfrIN_KT2i__PXX3h0rwPXXOyWXWVoGwgP6lsmJYumTM-TAI9legG9KmDPh1qhyphenhyphen6kAncxk5gsMgTrBXOWRTUFR7Ff68axBe-pU5Q-PCWD0/s400/Story+telling.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
Storytelling is a very powerful way to spread your message - hence the hype about storytelling in business and politics. That's how it reads, for example:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The most successful companies in the world have profound stories behind them (often deeply tied to their founders) that instill a sense of bigger purpose and meaning into what they do. For example, Apple, Tesla and Google are so much more than companies - they are legacy brands created by visionaries who aspire(d) to change the world." </blockquote>
Most of these "profound stories", however, belong to the field of hagiographic edification literature for executives. They are post-hoc rationalizations in which the interplay of talent and (happy) coincidences is subsequently interpreted as the work of an entrepreneur led by visionary foresight. But where do stories get this power from?<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<h2>
The brain organizes knowledge as stories</h2>
Schank and Abelson [1], two American psychologists who, among other things, have made fundamental contributions to AI research, assume that stories (as remembered personal experiences and experiences of third parties) are fundamental components of human memory, knowledge and social communication. They argue that<br />
<ul>
<li>practically all human knowledge is based on stories (= reconstructions of remembered experiences); </li>
<li>new experiences are interpreted in the form of old stories;
the content of remembered stories depends on whether and how they are told to others;
the reconstructed memories form the basis for the remembered self of the individual; </li>
<li>memories of shared stories within social groups define the social self; memories only take on a stable form in memory when they are told and retold. This stable structure takes precedence over the "individual parts" that were originally stored in scattered places; </li>
<li>stories help to retrieve information because they contain many indices. These indices can be locations, attitudes, beliefs, dilemmas, decisions, conclusions or the like. The more indices we have, the more likely it is that we will remember a story. </li>
</ul>
Understanding an issue from this point of view means finding a reference (perhaps even a match) to stories that have already been indexed. The known story serves to interpret the new experience. A complex task is thus solved with a manageable heuristic: find a story similar to the one here and Bingo! To understand another person means to be able to map the other person's story(s) to one's own stories.<br />
<br />
New things are difficult to do, because we would have to rework convictions, make new generalizations and carry out other complex cognitive operations - an effort that we rather shy away from. If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail to you.<br />
<h2>
Stories are not there to be questioned.</h2>
The Israeli psychologist and winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, Daniel Kahneman [2], explains very clearly why we tend to react sluggishly to new developments. He divides mental activities into two systems:<br />
<ul>
<li>There is the automatically working system 1. It works fast, with little or no noticeable effort and without the human being having the feeling to control it deliberately. Example: If you see someone and spontaneously have the feeling that you´d better watch out, then this "gut feeling" comes from system 1. </li>
<li>But there is also a system 2. It shows itself in (strenuous) mental activities that require concentration. When system 2 is "switched on", its activities are often associated with the subjective experience of action, choice and concentration. Example: System 2 is in play when you consciously revise your gut feeling. Over time you may have more information that does not justify your gut feeling or you tend to blandish your initial feeling. </li>
</ul>
Both systems were and are essential for survival. The survival reaction 'escape or fight' is not met "after inclusion of all circumstances and appreciation in a judgmental overall view". Individuals who acted in this way left no descendants. System 1 rather presents an assessment of the situation in fractions of a second and the individual can act. System 2, on the other hand, is especially important in a social context. The question of whether someone is a trustworthy group member, for example, can only be answered reliably<b> </b>on the basis of one's own experience and/or that of third parties.<br />
<br />
In other words: System 1 proposes a story from a small amount of information. System 2 lets the story pass if it is plausible, i.e. essentially free of contradictions. The paradox is that the less information there is, the more consistent a story is. In case of doubt, therefore, more information leads to System 2 being activated. The acceptance of information is quasi the default setting in the brain. Critical reasoning must be initiated consciously. We do this to the point of believing wrong statements in a fictional text that are wrong in the real world. Only if for some reason we are motivated and able to judge the truthfulness of information do we begin to question it [3].<br />
<br />
Another feature is that system 1 uses only available information. Kahneman calls this "what you see is all there is". But this promotes false conclusions. He gives the following example: A person is described as shy and withdrawn, helpful but with little interest in people or the world. But he can be enthusiastic about order and structure. Is this person more of a librarian or a farmer? System 1 will "intuitively" guess a librarian and be wrong. Because for the answer to the question all available information is irrelevant. One would have to know rather whether there are more librarians or farmers. If the question had been presented to system 2, perhaps, it would have tried to find the answer via a detour: "Are there probably more agricultural enterprises or more libraries? System 1, however, does not make any creative detours.<br />
<h2>
In stories nothing happens without reason</h2>
Nassim Talib [4] points to another weakness inherent in thinking in stories - narrative fallacy. Our ability to leave a sequence of facts as such is limited. To "understand", we connect the facts, give them a direction, or explain one fact from the other. By giving "meaning" to the facts, we not only make them more memorable, we also reinforce our impression that we understand them. The setback comes when we try to analyze current events with such stories.<br />
<h2>
Stories make us dumber</h2>
Tyler Cowen, an American economist with a very recommendable blog (<a href="http://marginalrevolution.com/">marginalrevolution.com</a>), lists his problems with storytelling [5]. Stories are not only created solely from existing information. They don't even process all available information. On the contrary - they act like filters. Anything that doesn't fit into the narrative logic is made to fit or is left out. There are several reasons for this:<br />
<ul>
<li>Stories simplify for the sake of effect. Strong stories can be told in a few sentences. Details fall by the wayside. There are no such things as opportunity costs or unpleasant side effects.
Stories serve dual "worldviews" and conflict situations. </li>
<li>Often the same stories are told again and again; in most cases, these stories are stories of good versus evil. In the case of stories that call for a tough stance against a foreign group, the conclusion always comes before weighing up the arguments. </li>
<li>The theme is interchangeable. The same facts can theoretically be told as a quest, as the story of a rebirth, a struggle or a triumph. </li>
<li>A story always has actors with intentions. In reality, however, there is not a consciously acting actor or group behind every event. In stories, therefore, chance is not coincidence, but conspiracy. </li>
<li>Stories distort history: Even stories that everyone knows never happened like they are remembered and passed on. Cowen cites the legends of Washington's cherry tree and of Paul Reveere's ride. </li>
</ul>
Cowen's message is that we need to be more aware of the context in which we use stories. We need to realize how stories influence the choices we make in the real world. Akerlof & Shiller [6] offer a good example of the real consequences storytelling can have<b> </b>using the Mexican oil boom in the late 1970s. After the discovery of further oil deposits, the then president López Portillo began to spin the story of unimagined prosperity and the influence of Mexico as an oil-exporting nation in the world. Confidence in this "new Mexico" actually led to (credit-financed) economic growth, which at the end of his term in office ended in a devastating crash, 100% inflation and a recession that lasted well into the 1980s.<br />
<h2>
In a nutshell</h2>
Obviously we cannot do without stories, but if stories are really <b>so</b> dangerous, then one must wonder that the last story of Homo Sapiens was not been told 200,000 years ago at the campfire in the cave. Therefor, the problem is probably not so much that we organize our thinking with stories. It's that we often tell ONE story, think it's true, and defend it with teeth and claws. Especially economy and politics are full of such examples.<br />
<br />
The Nigerian-American writer, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, sums up the danger of ONE story: Stories contain (also) stereotypes. Stereotypes do not have to be wrong, but they are always incomplete. To balance this out, we need many stories. In her own words:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Stories matter. Many stories matter. Stories have been used to dispossess and to malign, but stories can also be used to empower and to humanize. Stories can break the dignity of a people, but stories can also repair that broken dignity." [7]</blockquote>
<b>______________________________</b><br />
<strong><br /></strong>
<strong>Further information</strong><br />
<strong><br /></strong>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[1] Schank, R. C. & Abelson, R. P. (1995). Knowledge and Memory: The Real Story. In: Robert S. Wyer, Jr (ed) Knowledge and Memory: The Real Story. Hillsdale, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1-85. (<a href="http://www.cogprints.org/636/1/KnowledgeMemory_SchankAbelson_d.html">link</a>)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[2] Kahneman, D., & Egan, P. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[3] Prentice, D. A., Gerrig, R. J., & Bailis, D. S. (1997). What readers bring to the processing of fictional texts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4(3), 416-420. (l<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=What%20readers%20bring%20to%20the%20processing%20of%20fictional%20texts&author=D.%20A..%20Prentice&author=R.%20J..%20Gerrig&author=D.%20S..%20Bailis&journal=Psychonomic%20Bulletin%20%26%20Review&volume=4&pages=416-420&publication_year=1997">ink</a></span><span style="font-size: x-small;">)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[4] Taleb, Nassim. (2007). The Black Swan.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[5] Cowden, Tyler. (2009). Be suspicious of simple stories. (<a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/tyler_cowen_be_suspicious_of_stories">link</a>)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[6] Akerlof, G. A., & Shiller, R. J. (2010). Animal spirits: How human psychology drives the economy, and why it matters for global capitalism.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[7] Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. (2009). The danger of a single story. (<a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story">link</a>)
</span>Jürgen Derlathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13180222385475786385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3301960398433244286.post-66278168710110488222018-12-03T14:45:00.000+01:002019-03-20T14:46:07.621+01:00Fake News are a frontal attack on the fourth estate in a democracy<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwN1F5a5ObkVhh7ifaon4q7zzPV0W8saB7JnN8mUiCNBh_m1AbQz4ayRYITKfBNqm9SystvBDdzb9BjQE00zfuHtbwcFSttmAAwa1eNzA-CULvNoYoSASIpZCRrCOeQJpgTz3KibrROdgb/s1600/fake+news.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="1200" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwN1F5a5ObkVhh7ifaon4q7zzPV0W8saB7JnN8mUiCNBh_m1AbQz4ayRYITKfBNqm9SystvBDdzb9BjQE00zfuHtbwcFSttmAAwa1eNzA-CULvNoYoSASIpZCRrCOeQJpgTz3KibrROdgb/s400/fake+news.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
The phenomenon is not specific to the Internet era: In 1898, the USA and Spain were on the brink of the Spanish-American war. In January of the same year, the battleship USS Main had arrived in the port of Havana. A few days later it sank after a devastating explosion in which 268 people lost their lives. The public mood in the USA had been heated up further, among others, by two competing publicists: William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer. Hearst's instruction to his correspondent in Havana has been passed down: "You furnish the pictures. I'll furnish the war." [1] At the time, the press market was an extremely lucrative business and any means was fine in the fight for an increase in circulation. Possibly, the Spanish-American war would not have broken out if this bitter battle for market share had not taken place. These and similar excesses were the reason for various press codes. And it took decades for the press to build the confidence that a fourth power in a democracy needs. [2]<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<h3>
The rules of the game have changed</h3>
But now, the phenomenon is back. This time, it is not a greedy press that destroys social capital regardless of individual fates or social collateral damage. [2a] On the contrary. The fourth power itself is being pilloried and being accused of spreading lies. At the same time, "alternative facts" (Trump-consultant Kellyanne Conway) are distributed and shared millions of times in the social media. There, they have reached a part of the public that seems to be lost to the traditional media.<br />
<br />
Apparently, the rules of the game have been changed without the democratic forces really noticing. Whether it's the Brexit, the election of Donald Trump or, most recently, the election of Bolsonaro in Brazil, the picture is always the same: a country with a strong prosperity gap and an already highly polarized public is further divided by huge amounts of false news that are deliberately distributed via the social media.<br />
<br />
False news has a number of characteristic features in common which make for its high toxicity [3]:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><b>High emotionality:</b> False messages have a high emotional potential. Long before reason has inquired whether it can be true the false news has already been shared.</li>
<li><b>High popularity:</b> When they reach us, false news have already been extensively shared (by bots) and commented upon. This suggests that there must be something to it and it makes it difficult to contradict. As social beings we react rather conformally.</li>
<li><b>Hit the bogeyman:</b> A position is built up that no one on the other side represents. This makes it easier to demonize the other side. Or it simply claims that the other side has an interest in the information being swept under the table.</li>
<li><b>False dilemmas:</b> The possibilities are narrowed down to two and they are also wrong. The opposing side is put under a false claim, its own claim is also unfounded.</li>
<li><b>Personal attacks. </b>Certain persons (groups) who have exposed themselves to the other side are covered with mockery and verbal attacks.</li>
</ul>
<br />
It is precisely through the highly emotional content of fake news that it is obviously possible to bring those to the ballot box who would not have gone to the polls otherwise. If necessary, you can achieve wafer-thin majorities thereby. Silke Jäger has analyzed in detail how exactly this procedure works, using Brexit as an example. [4]<br />
<br />
The real facts, on the other hand, have a hard time for several reasons. As a rule of thumb, they do not have any of the features described above. In addition, fact checkers often come late. If they have identified a message as fake news their real facts don`t matter, because new false news has been spread already. Thus, the facts go lost in the garbage of fake news. Donald Trump has achieved a special achievement in this field. The Washington Post did the math: Trump has made 3,251 false or misleading claims during his first 497 days in office. That's an average of more than 6.5 untruths per day! [5]<br />
<h3>
Lack of trust in traditional media as a necessary prerequisite</h3>
A very important component is a lack of trust in the traditional media. This mistrust varies from country to country and over time. [6] In the USA, for example, confidence in traditional news sources has been declining for years. According to Gallup, 2016 was the year with the lowest confidence rates ever recorded. Less than a third of American adults, 32 percent, had "a lot" or "quite a lot" of trust in the media. In 1976, it was 72 percent. [3] By the way, this mistrust is another obstacle to fact checking.<br />
<br />
Keeping silent about fake news is no option either. If people feel that information is being censored, they seem to think the information is even more credible. [7] This probably even applies to information that is merely claimed to be suppressed by the "ruling classes" - a characteristic of false news, by the way ("hit the bogeyman").<br />
<br />
Another important circumstance is the manipulability of social media and the limited insight of company management. Already in 2012 a remarkable book was published: "Trust me, I'm lying". In it a marketer named Ryan Holiday reports how he systematically manipulated the blogger scene for his customers [8]. The mistakes of Facebook and Twitter in dealing with leaked user data, dark ads and conspiracy theorists justified their own post.<br />
<br />
Last but not least, media behaviour itself is not unproblematic. Let us take the example of Donald Trump again. Reporting on his statements provides reach and reach is important for media financed by advertising - as well as for those who spread fake news. It doesn't help that hastily convened and proportionally balanced expert panels dissect the statements until the public has lost all orientation. It's no wonder that citizens are now finding out about satirical shows such as the Late Night Show (Stephen Colbert) or Last Week Tonight (John Oliver).<br />
<h3>
But what does that concern us in Germany?</h3>
Compared to the other countries like the USA, GB or Brazil it seems to be (still) rather quiet in Germany. [9] In Germany, confidence in traditional news media is still comparatively high at 56 percent, a good 10 points above the EU average (Eurobarometer of the European Commission, November 2017). [6] Fortunately, Germans are not as dependent on the social media for information as they are in the US for example. [2a] But in Germany, too, there are topics that polarize strongly, the accusation of manipulative reporting "(Lügenpresse" - literally: the press of lies) is already being raised, and the Germany is the target of disinformation campaigns from abroad (the "Lisa case"). [10] This will not change in the foreseeable future.<br />
<h3>
In a nutshell</h3>
The case of fake news shows how closely democracy and a functioning fourth estate depend on each other. This is also confirmed by a EU survey. Satisfaction with democracy and trust in the media go hand in hand. The clear majority of those who are satisfied with democracy in Germany trust the media (65 percent). However, 25 percent are not satisfied with democracy in Germany. Only 30 percent of them trust the media. This is similar in other EU countries. [6] But no democracy can survive without journalists who bring light into the darkness. Or as the Washington Post puts it: Democracy in the dark.<br />
<br />
_________________________________________________________________________________<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #555555; font-family: DINWeb; line-height: 1.35em; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[1] Bethke, Martin (2001): Macht und Ohnmacht der Worte: William Randolph Hearst und der Weg der USA zur Weltmacht, 1898-1917 (<a href="https://goo.gl/RhYwt7" style="backface-visibility: hidden; border: 0px none; box-sizing: border-box; color: #00305e; cursor: pointer; font-family: DINWeb-Medium; margin: 0px; opacity: 1; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; transition: opacity 0.3s ease-in 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">https://goo.gl/RhYwt7</a>)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[2] Samuel, Alexandra (2016): To fix fake news, look to yellow journalism (https://goo.gl/1yHRd8)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[2a] Derlath, J. (2018): „Zerstören soziale Netzwerke unser gesellschaftliches Gefüge?“ (https://goo.gl/3sQwrq)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[3] Harrison, Guy P. (2017):Think before you like.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[4] Jäger, S. (2018): Wie manipuliert man eine Wahl. (</span><a href="https://goo.gl/uoDQ7K" style="backface-visibility: hidden; border: 0px none; box-sizing: border-box; color: #00305e; cursor: pointer; font-size: small; margin: 0px; opacity: 1; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; transition: all 0.3s ease-in 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">https://goo.gl/uoDQ7K</a><span style="font-size: x-small;">)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[5] Parker, Ashley (2018): President Trump seems to be saying more and more things that aren’t true (</span><a href="https://goo.gl/9gAQpo" style="backface-visibility: hidden; border: 0px none; box-sizing: border-box; color: #00305e; cursor: pointer; font-size: small; margin: 0px; opacity: 1; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; transition: all 0.3s ease-in 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">https://goo.gl/9gAQpo</a><span style="font-size: x-small;">)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[6] Sander, Uwe (2018): Eurobarometer: Vertrauen in Presse auf 10-Jahres-Hoch (</span><a href="https://goo.gl/BNveBS" style="backface-visibility: hidden; border: 0px none; box-sizing: border-box; color: #00305e; cursor: pointer; font-size: small; margin: 0px; opacity: 1; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; transition: all 0.3s ease-in 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">https://goo.gl/BNveBS</a><span style="font-size: x-small;">)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[7] Cialdini, Robert (2009): Influence</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[8] Holiday, Ryan (2012): Trust me, I‘m lying.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[9] Gavrilis Panajotis (2018): Wie Fake News verbreitet werden (</span><a href="https://goo.gl/yubCJF" style="backface-visibility: hidden; border: 0px none; box-sizing: border-box; color: #00305e; cursor: pointer; font-size: small; margin: 0px; opacity: 1; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; transition: all 0.3s ease-in 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">https://goo.gl/yubCJF</a><span style="font-size: x-small;">)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[10] Jolkver, Nikita (2017): Der „Fall Lisa“ ein Jahr danach. War da was? (</span><a href="https://goo.gl/9UiFNv" style="backface-visibility: hidden; border: 0px none; box-sizing: border-box; color: #00305e; cursor: pointer; font-size: small; margin: 0px; opacity: 1; outline: none 0px; padding: 0px; transition: all 0.3s ease-in 0s; vertical-align: baseline;">https://goo.gl/9UiFNv</a><span style="font-size: x-small;">). The Lisa case is a political issue in the context of the refugee crisis in Germany from 2015 onwards that arose from a missing person case in German-Russian circles in January 2016. A girl with German-Russian parents had falsely stated that she had been abducted and raped by refugees. The case led to intensive reporting, especially in the Russian media, and to diplomatic tensions between Germany and Russia.</span></div>
Jürgen Derlathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13180222385475786385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3301960398433244286.post-67285692376396219852018-09-05T18:55:00.002+02:002018-09-05T21:02:50.580+02:00Do virtual social networks destroy the social fabric?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpKfd-HW10_ud31_WI_9XeWx06njA0Na4bV2KbgKDzCECIKTcpSIGwu7-0MAQGg4vxMV-2iC_WzhzTDYUMYOw1yUmeqEdU-1SIuHqswW7eLb_2fUIhcFY3W26ZPXy6q6D8HJr7R8oHL1Li/s1600/social+fabric+and+social+media.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="1200" height="159" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpKfd-HW10_ud31_WI_9XeWx06njA0Na4bV2KbgKDzCECIKTcpSIGwu7-0MAQGg4vxMV-2iC_WzhzTDYUMYOw1yUmeqEdU-1SIuHqswW7eLb_2fUIhcFY3W26ZPXy6q6D8HJr7R8oHL1Li/s320/social+fabric+and+social+media.png" width="320" /></a></div>
There is some debate as to whether virtual social networks have a net beneficial or net detrimental effect on society. [1] And it must be admitted that the question is difficult to answer. For instance, what is the social fabric that is threatened by social networks? Research on social capital could provide an answer.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<h3>
Social capital is important for society</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
The term 'social capital' is defined differently by different researchers. [2] A very comprehensive definition comes, for example, from David Halpern. According to this, social capital is any social structure that has not yet "solidified" into a formal institution and facilitates cooperation and interpersonal trust. [3] Robert Putnam focuses more on the components of this social structure or fabric. For him, social capital consists of the connections in a social network and the norms such as reciprocity and trust that follow from them. [4a]<br />
<br />
Many studies have examined the positive effects of social capital. They can be seen not only at the macro level (e.g. the democratic capacity, performance of social institutions, positive economic development), but also at the meso level and at the micro level (more moral behaviour, greater willingness to cooperate, better cognitive and social development of children, etc). [2] Putnam emphasizes, however, that social capital, like any other form of capital, can also be directed at malicious, antisocial purposes. [4a] In addition, compensatory and reinforcing processes between the levels are possible, e.g. when processes at the micro level (e.g. loosening of family ties) are absorbed by institutions on the meso level. [3]<br />
<br />
Central to the understanding of social capital is that it occurs in two forms, namely as bonding and bridging social capital. [4a]<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Bonding social capital means bonds, norms, trust in groups of similar people. An increase does not have to be exclusively positive, for example when the group isolates itself from others. </li>
<li>Bridging social capital creates connections between groups and/or their members. From the individual's point of view, this can mean that they also have access to the resources of another group. It is also particularly useful when different groups face a common challenge. [3] </li>
</ul>
Mutually reinforcing or compensating processes are also possible between the components. The net effect of changes is thus uncertain.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Social capital is a variable</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
Social capital can vary in a society over time or from society to society [5]. The changes over time are of particular interest here.<br />
<br />
The book 'Bowling alone' was published in 2001. In this book, Robert Putnam explained that the social capital of US society had declined dramatically in the last decades of the 20th century. While until the 1960s the Americans became increasingly socially committed, the trend was consistently reversed in the last third. And if participation in public life is dropping - according to Putnam - democracy is in danger. [4a] Putnam had observed that since 1960 participation in social networks and organizations (e.g. membership in church groups, trade unions/parties, scouts, etc.) had declined in contrast to the rise of other organizations and social groups (e.g. environmental associations, non-profit organizations such as foundations and self-help groups). However, from Putnam's point of view, the new forms do not replace the old ones to the same extent, because membership in the new forms is much less intensive. Membership is limited to the paying of membership fees instead of taking on tasks in a community [4a]. Putnam blamed a number of factors (the rise in educational attainment, the increase in average working hours, the welfare state, the increase in spatial mobility, etc.) - and above all television. [4b]<br />
<br />
Television destroys social capital by changing leisure behaviour. With its high proportion of the time budget, television prevents social participation, leads to a loss of confidence due to an overestimation of crime and promotes aggressiveness, especially among children. [2] Both the findings [6] and the analysis of causes did not go unchallenged. Pippa Norris notes, for example, that television as a whole does not necessarily have to have a negative effect on social capital and civic engagement. It depends on the usage behaviour. [7] This argument should also apply to the Internet and the social media. On the one hand, the usage of digital media tends to support the social capital of groups, as it enables social relationships. On the other hand, it can also reduce social capital when people withdraw from real social networks. It is difficult to establish causal relationships because real and virtual social contacts are interwoven. [8] All in all, it is therefore not surprising that different results were found for the connections between social media and social capital, depending on the design of the study. However, I would like to pick out two aspects.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Internet and social media promote extremism and polarization</h4>
The engagement mechanisms of social media sites (e.g. like or sharing on Facebook) can be responsible for people thinking and communicating in a more and more extreme manner. Kozinets et al. proved this in the area of food porn. They noticed that the pictures of burgers and cakes became more and more extreme over time. Apparently, people tried to outdo each other with ever more extreme images in order to get any feedback at all on their own posts. The formerly extreme thus becomes the new standard. The researchers concluded that social media are built for polarization and extremes. [10] This trend is reinforced by algorithms that feed users with content that is already popular anyway.<br />
<br />
The phenomenon of group polarization can also be detected in virtual groups. People become more extreme in their beliefs the more often they spend thinking or talking about those beliefs. [11] This explains why the tone increases from anger to open hatred on some issues. Repetition increases anger. The tendency towards the extreme and group polarization may increase the bonding social capital, but not the bridging one.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Internet and social media offer a highly curated user experience</h4>
Another factor that should at best strengthen the bonding but not the bridging social capital are the possibilities for filtering. Online media not only allow us to decide with whom we connect, we can also filter the content we want to deal with. In the US, for example, 31% of social media users have changed their settings to see fewer posts from someone in their feed. [12] Algorithms reinforce this effect, in that they infer our preferences from our behaviour and subsequently show us only the content - they think - we want to see. People who get their information from such sources usually have a highly curated experience. According to the Pew Research Center, 62% of adults in the US are dependent on social media for their news. Of these, 44% are primarily dependent on Facebook and 64% will remain on a social site when using news media. [13]<br />
<br />
<h3>
To the point</h3>
<br />
Let us return to the question asked at the beginning. In view of the complex construct of 'social capital' and the wide range of possible uses of the Internet and social media, it quickly becomes clear that there can be no simple answer. Even if two events such as the rise of the Internet and the decline of social capital occur at the same time, this does not mean that one event causes the other. For example, both events can correlate randomly or they have a common cause.<br />
<br />
But the question is probably not asked correctly either. I think it makes more sense to ask how the Internet and the social media influence the social fabric. There is evidence that they, in particular, strengthen the bonding social capital. But as the groups move closer together, the gaps between them become wider, and the bridging social capital that is important for coping with community tasks becomes weaker. The crucial point is, therefore, how can we strengthen the bridging social capital and what contribution can the Internet and the social media make?<br />
<br />
<h4>
__________</h4>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[1] Suleyman, A. (2017) "Facebook is destroying society and making users feel vacant and empty" The Independent (12.12.17). (<a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-society-destroy-social-media-network-users-damage-communicate-connect-chamath-palihapitiya-a8105131.html">Link</a>)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[2] Haug, S. (1997). Soziales Kapital – Ein kritischer Überblick über den aktuellen Forschungsstand (No. Arbeitspapiere Arbeitsbereich II / 15). (<a href="http://www.mzes.uni-mannheim.de/publications/wp/wp2-15.pdf">Link</a>) </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[3] Halpern, D., 2005, Social Capital, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[4a] Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[4b] Putnam, R. D. (1995). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. Political Science and Politics, 28, 664-683. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[5] Sarracino, F., & Mikucka, M. (2015). Social capital in Europe from 1990 to 2012: trends, path-dependency and convergence. (<a href="http://consirt.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CONSIRT-Working-Papers-Series-7-Sarracino-Mikucka.pdf">Link</a>) </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[6] Clark, A. K. (2015). Why we need to think again about the decline in social capital (<a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2015/07/20/why-we-need-to-think-again-about-the-decline-in-social-capital/">Link</a>) </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[7] Norris, P. (1996). Does Television Erode Social Capital? A Reply to Putnam. PS: Political Science and Politics (Vol. 29). (<a href="https://sites.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Articles/Articles%20published%20in%20journals_files/Does_TV_Erode_Social_Capital_1996.pdf">Link</a>) </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[8] Rasmussen, T. (2014). Personal media and everyday life: A networked lifeworld. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[9] Carmichael, D. , Archibald, J. & Lund, G. (2015). Social Capital Theory in Social Media research. (<a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2612872_code2372252.pdf?abstractid=2612872&mirid=1">Link</a>) </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[10] Kozinets, R., Patterson, A., & Ashman, R. (2016). Networks of desire: How technology increases our passion to consume. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(5), 659-682. (<a href="http://people.southwestern.edu/~bednarb/media-culture/articles/kozinets-etal.pdf">Link</a>) </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[11] Cass Sunstein 2011 The Daily We – Is the Internet really a blessing for democracy? Boston Review (<a href="http://bostonreview.net/archives/BR26.3/sunstein.php">Link</a>) </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[12] Duggan, M. & Smith, A. (2016) The Political Environment on Social Media Pew Research Center 25.10.2016 (<a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/25/the-political-environment-on-social-media/">Link</a>) </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[13] Gottfried, J. & Shearer, E. (2016) News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2016 Pew Research Center (26.5.2016). (<a href="http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/">Link</a>)</span>Jürgen Derlathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13180222385475786385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3301960398433244286.post-23186012906249007512018-06-11T23:08:00.002+02:002018-09-05T21:01:55.213+02:00The social Internet has come to stay<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmBNxZYNv2xWS-Jg5vRG0uoQYubhGoS-_ifUO6-h4T8LkZujvW273fKNqkH4azZr2M3dxn4tKa0tuz_CT-axkG9i629D0eRqFdp-1kMrN4YEQegLl8QAC1E7CL9gxM-LFeSN454JvJt6cg/s1600/Social+Media+seduction.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="1200" height="159" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmBNxZYNv2xWS-Jg5vRG0uoQYubhGoS-_ifUO6-h4T8LkZujvW273fKNqkH4azZr2M3dxn4tKa0tuz_CT-axkG9i629D0eRqFdp-1kMrN4YEQegLl8QAC1E7CL9gxM-LFeSN454JvJt6cg/s320/Social+Media+seduction.jpg" width="320" /></a>Critical voices have accompanied the development of the internet from the very beginning. Recently, there have been increased warnings against the dangers of the social media. The main reason for this: Facebook's blatant misconduct and the way in which the company deals with its mistakes. However, we will all have to get used to the social internet, because it has come to stay. The social media are the expression of our human nature.</div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<h3>
Addicted to the people's drug internet?</h3>
Relatively early, studies emerged that pointed to the dangers of internet use, such as the disruption of social relationships and threats to psychological well-being - both paradoxically triggered precisely by virtual human exchange via the internet (internet paradox). [1] Subsequently, much research was conducted into the internet and its various forms. It turned out that there was no simple formula "the more internet consumption, the more depressed". Too many factors in the individuals and in their environment had to be taken into account.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, the addiction-narrative is a constant companion in the discussion. "Drugs" dealt include the internet itself ('internet addiction','online addiction'), (online) shopping addiction, (online) gambling addiction, the addiction to online pornography and, most recently, social media addiction. [2] There are even handy online tests where you can determine your addiction level. [3]<br />
<br />
So is the internet successful because we have become addicts of a people's drug [4]? I don't think so. Whether internet addiction can be classified as a disease is still controversial. However, gaming disorder has already made it into the WHO classification system, probably because it already contained gambling disorder. [5] And the medium's success is hardly explained in terms of addiction. Alcohol, for example, is not so widespread only because it is addictive. However, it is true that it is not always easy to control the use of the internet and social media. Remember the last time you tried to watch "just this one video" or read "just this one news".<br />
<br />
<h3>
Victims of our evolution!</h3>
Another explanation, perhaps even more disturbing, is that we can't help but being 'social'. The human brain has a social default mode. It is - from an evolutionary view point - in our nature to connect with other people: Comparatively immaturely born, human babies could only survive because there was a strong parent-child bond. Adults could only survive because they were part of a group.<br />
<br />
Much of what constitutes an individual has to do with other people: In the course of our lives we learn from others. We do not only learn how to imitate their behaviour. We also learn to understand the behaviour of others because we can take their perspective. Through socialization we adopt the standards of our group, which become part of our self-image. Self-control gives us the ability to live in harmony with the group and to contribute to it. Pain caused by social events (separation, death of loved ones, bullying, etc.) feels as real as pain caused by physical impact. [6] Our urge to be in agreement with the group leads so far that we think and act against our better knowledge in order to remain in harmony with our group. [7]<br />
<br />
The social media take advantage of this human disposition which makes us exploitable.<br />
<br />
<h3>
About features and exploits</h3>
Just as computer software offering exploits, our brain is vulnerable to the features of the apps on our smartphones. Here is a small selection of exploits and features that keep us busy with the internet and above all with social media.<br />
<br />
<h4>
The social default mode of the brain</h4>
When we are idle and have nothing to do that requires our attention and mental strength, the brain does not take a break. Some regions remain active. Remarkably, these are exactly the regions that are activated when researchers study social cognitions. This social pre-setting of the brain is explained by the fact that it was evolutionarily crucial for the social success of humans in the group to interpret the behaviour of the other group members correctly at all times. [7]<br />
<br />
That's why so many people immediately pull out their mobile phones during periods of mental rest. Social pre-setting, curiosity and play instinct go hand in hand. What's new on my social network? Who is currently available for an online game? Thanks to our mobile phones, we carry "anyone anytime, anywhere" with us and are almost always "on". And to keep it that way, the apps offer contact suggestions, invite our contacts to the app or send invitations to our (previously read) contacts without our assistance.<br />
<br />
<h4>
The need for belonging</h4>
Being part of it is a fundamental human need. We need a minimum of lasting, positive and meaningful interpersonal relations. The feeling of belonging is decisive for our well-being. Isolation or even exclusion have serious physical and psychological consequences. [8]<br />
<br />
This need is also satisfied. In online communities like-minded people come together, photo enthusiasts e.g. at flickr. People with the same condition (e.g. a serious illness) help each other in online groups. And dating communities offer the possibility to find a romantic partner.<br />
<br />
<h4>
The rule of reciprocity</h4>
Reciprocity describes urge to return a favor. This strong impulse is universal and had - from an evolutionary view point - probably an advantage. If you helped a group member out of a jam you could expect her or him to help you next time when you were in trouble (reciprocal altruism). Free riders, on the other hand, had to reckon with disapproval by the group or even exclusion from the group. The impulse for reciprocity is so strong that it can be used against us, e.g. in a sales situation where the seller imposes a free sample on us hoping that we will then buy the product. [9]<br />
<br />
Reciprocity too plays an important role in the social media. In order to expand reach e.g. social media managers follow other participants on Twitter, hoping that they will follow back. And what do we do if we receive a contact request on Facebook or Xing/LinkedIn from someone whom we hardly know? We will probably accept it.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Status and Social Recognition</h4>
The position in the group is highly relevant for the individual because it determines its access to the resources of the group. Accordingly, we are sensitive to signals that allow us to recognize our own social position and send out signals that indicate our own position. [10]<br />
<br />
On the internet, this is made possible by interaction mechanisms such as likes and comments. Whoever posts something hopes for appreciative feedback from fans or followers and is disappointed or frustrated if it fails to materialize. In the comments under some posts battles are raging in which the participants are no longer concerned with the controversial topic, but with the disparagement of the opponent or the opposing group.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Conformity and confirmation bias</h4>
Two other weaknesses may not be directly tapped by social media features, but they do have an impact on behavior in the social media.<br />
<br />
Conformity describes the effort to remain in accordance with the group's standards of thought and conduct. [7] The pursuit of conformity not only ensures that we rarely oppose the opinion of our own group openly. It may even lead us to stick to the wrong group opinion, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary. The followers of Donald Trump are a particularly blatant example. They were shown pictures of the inauguration of Trump and Obama. 12% of the Trump supporters described the crowd in the picture of Trump's inauguration as larger, even though this was in stark contradiction to the actual proportions on the pictures presented. [11] People who see so much what they believe are no longer accessible for factual arguments. The social media conformity feature par excellence is the "Like". To my knowledge only youtube has a dislike possibility.<br />
<br />
The confirmation error describes the tendency to look only for information that confirms one's own view (or that of one's own group) and to hide or devalue contradictory information. In this way, the individual succeeds in reducing cognitive dissonances that are triggered by the contradiction. [12] Along with the tendency to conformity, the confirmation error ensures that group members immunize against conflicting information. The urge to eliminate cognitive dissonances goes so far that individual group members try to convert people with contrary opinions in order to find confirmation for the group opinion.<br />
<br />
<h3>
To the point</h3>
<br />
The internet has undergone a remarkable development in a short time. From around the 1990s onwards, it became accessible to a wider public as a medium for information and its exchange. Commercialization through sales platforms also began in the 1990s. Blogs and virtual communities made the internet more personal before it finally became 'social'. This development was supported by the ubiquity of the smartphone. And - in hindsight - this development was foreseeable; for the social internet is an expression of the social human nature. With ever better features, the platforms have managed to exploit our social "blind spots" and made themselves indispensable.<br />
<br />
____________________<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: x-small;">[1] Nimrod, G. (2013). Challenging the Internet Paradox: Online Depression Communities and Well-Being. International Journal of Internet Science, 8(1). <a href="https://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=16007745867518005598&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5" target="_blank">Link</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: x-small;">[2] Gesundheitsstadt Berlin (2018). Wie süchtig machen soziale Medien? (DAK-Studie). <a href="https://www.gesundheitsstadt-berlin.de/wie-suechtig-machen-soziale-medien-12142/" target="_blank">Link</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: x-small;">[3] Z Internet Addiction Test. </span><a href="https://psychology-tools.com/internet-addiction-test/" target="_blank">Link</a><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: x-small;">[4] Füller, C. (2016). Die neue Volksdroge. Der Freitag 25/2016. <a href="https://www.freitag.de/autoren/christian-fueller/die-neue-volksdroge" target="_blank">Link</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: x-small;">[5] WHO (2018). Gaming disorder. <a href="http://www.who.int/features/qa/gaming-disorder/en" target="_blank">Link</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: x-small;">[6] Lieberman, M. D. (2013). Social: Why our brains are wired to connect. OUP Oxford.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: x-small;">[7] Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological monographs: General and applied, 70(9), 1. <a href="https://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=10061992750329903777&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5" target="_blank">Link</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: x-small;">[8] Baumeister R. F., & Leary M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529. </span><a href="https://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=4433998184170471570&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5" target="_blank">Link</a><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: x-small;">[9] Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New York: Collins. </span><a href="https://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=16192630826010895621&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5" target="_blank">Link</a><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: x-small;">[10] Van Vugt, M., & Tybur, J. M. (2015). The evolutionary foundations of hierarchy: Status, dominance, prestige, and leadership. The handbook of evolutionary psychology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: x-small;">[11] Schaffner, B. & Luks, S. (2017). This is what Trump voters said when asked to compare his inauguration crowd with Obama’s. The Washington Post. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/01/25/we-asked-people-which-inauguration-crowd-was-bigger-heres-what-they-said/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.53a0c80a22f4" target="_blank">Link</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: x-small;">[12] Tavris, C., & Aronson, E. (2008). Mistakes were made (but not by me): Why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. </span><a href="https://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=9181344411598599034&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5" target="_blank">Link</a><br />
<br />Jürgen Derlathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13180222385475786385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3301960398433244286.post-7278236863131298862018-02-18T20:23:00.000+01:002018-06-05T09:37:20.230+02:00“Can we go back to using Facebook for what it was originally for - looking up exes to see how fat they got?” (Bill Maher)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCKIilDDrEhztjdYVL7hEBEBF650zinjBSbWCEouDeY1z4G4pRikX2o1YC3nsfb6wC8xkMRv0fvJSot0_FMbveBD9jJ7yuWbK6LYu5I5ZuZw8vCnAUGWn3d4BxV38qdm9pG8UsLnLB2tjU/s1600/Social+Media.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="1200" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCKIilDDrEhztjdYVL7hEBEBF650zinjBSbWCEouDeY1z4G4pRikX2o1YC3nsfb6wC8xkMRv0fvJSot0_FMbveBD9jJ7yuWbK6LYu5I5ZuZw8vCnAUGWn3d4BxV38qdm9pG8UsLnLB2tjU/s320/Social+Media.png" width="320" /></a>Recently, Apple CEO Tim Cook made a name for himself when he spoke out in favour of restricting the use of technology in schools, suggesting that he had banned his nephew from participating in social networks. And Sean Parker, co-founder of Napster and long-time Facebook consultant, is quoted as saying,"God only knows what it's doing to our children's brains". Social media has a problem, and not just since Facebook's inglorious role in the American election campaign. Platforms whose self-declared goal it is to bring us all closer together and make us happy seem - indeed - to have the opposite effect.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<h4>
Tell me what you post and I'll tell you what you are. </h4>
It should be noted that the frequently quoted argument that social media are used to promote unrestrained self-presentation can be refuted. Contrary to what is commonly assumed, the online behaviour corresponds quite well to the offline behaviour [1]. If so, it may make sense to take a closer look at the relationship between personality traits and postings [2]. For this purpose, a user's personality profile is created and then set in relation to her/his Facebook usage and the number of Likes or comments in response to the posts. A study showed that the personality profile of a participant predicted not only the topic of posts but also the number of likes and comments. The following insights could be gained:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>People scoring high on conscientiousness are organized and goal-oriented. They used Facebook to communicate and share content and - remarkably - released more status updates about their children. </li>
<li>Openness is associated with the joy of new and unusual experiences. People who are strong in this personality trait created more status updates on "intellectual issues". They use Facebook more as a source of information and less to connect socially with other users. </li>
<li>People with high extraversion values are sociable and outgoing. They used Facebook primarily as a means of communication and tended to post more frequently about social activities and daily life. </li>
<li>Neuroticism is characterized by anxiety and insecurity. Participants with a high level of neuroticism used Facebook as a means of affirmation: They posted to get support from friends for their feelings and opinions when they felt isolated in their views. </li>
<li>Narcissistic users are concerned about their self-presentation and want to impress and influence their own image with others. Similar to users with a high level of neuroticism, they used Facebook as a means of confirming and assuring others. Narcissists tended to publish more status updates that relate to their personal performance in life (diets, fitness routines). They were encouraged to do so by the fact that they received more feedback and comments on their posts than the other users reported. </li>
<li>People with low self-esteem used Facebook for self-expression rather than for affirmation. If they were in a relationship, they posted more updates with their partner. The researchers interpreted this in such a way that they wanted to make the claim to their partner publicly clear. </li>
</ul>
<h4>
The influence of the Dark Triad. </h4>
Now Facebook and other social media are not the focus of criticism because conscientious parents post too many pictures of their children or narcissists post too many pictures from the gym, but because there is a problem with hatred and psychological violence. The cause is known as the "dark triad". The term refers to three overlapping personality traits: Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy. People with a strong Machiavellian character are cynical, unprincipled and see manipulation as the key to success. Narcissists show grandiosity, claim, dominance and superiority. Both properties are closely related to psychopathy. Psychopaths show a low degree of empathy, combined with a high degree of impulsivity and the desire for thrills. The border to sadism is fluid [3].<br />
<br />
Internet trolls are characterized by such personality traits [4]. Trolls are only a minority, but they face a passive majority. Trolling others gives them the kick they are looking for and so they agree with statements like these taken from the GAIT-questionnaire (Global Assessment of Internet Trolling):<br />
<br />
‘I have sent people to shock websites for the lulz’’,<br />
‘‘I like to troll people in forums or the comments section of websites’’,<br />
‘‘I enjoy griefing other players in multiplayer games’’<br />
‘‘The more beautiful and pure a thing is, the more satisfying it is to corrupt’’<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
Another study [5] investigated which profiles trolls prefer to attack. An important result: Perceived popularity can attract attention and harassment. The individual characteristics of the dark triad predicted different behaviours towards popular and less popular Facebook profiles, associating psychopathy and narcissism with popular Facebook profiles.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Social media can make you feel lonely and envious</h4>
But you don't have to be the victim of trolls. The mere use of social media seems to be sufficient. It was found [6] that the more people used Facebook the previous time, the worse they felt the next time. And the more they used Facebook for two weeks, the more their life satisfaction decreased over time. An effect that direct interaction with other people did not have. The effect was also not moderated by the size of people's Facebook networks, their perceived helpfulness, the motivation for using Facebook, gender, loneliness, self-esteem or depression. (6) These results fit well into the early research on alienation through the Internet: The more intensively people used the web, the more lonely and depressed they felt. [7]<br />
<br />
The cause of the decline in life satisfaction was also identified: envy of "Facebook friends". Particularly affected are those who themselves hardly communicate in social networks, but only lurk. In some cases, envy leads to a more pronounced self-presentation in the social network, which in turn creates feelings of envy in others. Incidentally, #1-object of envy in Germany (both offline and online) is the subject of travel and leisure. [8]<br />
<br />
<h4>
Social media - cause or symptom? </h4>
Just because people are social beings by nature, they are not automatically competent in dealing with social media. Obviously, we have to learn how to handle it responsibly. And it must be possible to hold people accountable who act irresponsibly. Here the suppliers have to do their homework. It is also possible to find a positive relationship between the intensity of the use of social media and life satisfaction, and even variables such as civic engagement and political participation [9]. It all depends on how the individual deals with it. Anyone who exchanges information on common topics with people who mean something to him or her is better off than anyone who scrolls through posts with large audiences and only gets a click-feedback. [10] Other media such as television ("TV makes kids sick, stupid, violent, fat and lazy") also had a bad reputation at first, but over time they were able to develop their positive potential.<br />
<br />
____________________________________________________________________________<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">(1) Back, M. D., Stopfer, J. M., Vazire, S., Gaddis, S., Schmukle, S. C., Egloff, B., et al. (2010). Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychological Science, 21, 372–374. (<a href="https://www.simine.com/docs/Back_et_al_PSYCHSCIENCE_2010.pdf)" target="_blank">Link</a>)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">(2) Marshall. Tara C., Lefringhausen, Katharina, Ferenczi, Nelli (2015).The Big Five, self-esteem, and narcissism as predictors of the topics people write about in Facebook status updates. Personality and Individual Differences 85, 35-40. (<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886915003025" target="_blank">Link</a>)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">(4) Buckels, Erin E., Trapnell, Paul B., Paulhus, Delroy L. (2014).Trolls just want to have fun. Personality and Individual Differences 67, 97-102. (<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914000324" target="_blank">Link</a>) </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">(5) Lopes, Barbara, Yu, Hui (2017). Who do you troll and Why: An investigation into the relationship between the Dark Triad Personalities and online trolling behaviours towards popular and less popular Facebook profiles. Computers in Human Behavior 77, 69-76. (<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563217305034" target="_blank">Link</a>) </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">(6) Kross, E., Verduyn, P., Demiralp, E., Park, J., Lee, D. S., Lin, N., Ybarra, O. (2013). Facebook use predicts declines in subjective well-being in young adults. PLoS ONE, 8(8). Article ID e69841. (<a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-30399-001" target="_blank">Link</a>) </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">(7) Kraut, Robert, Patterson, Michael, Lundmark, Vicki, Kiesler, Sara, Mukophadhyay, Tridas, Scherlis, William (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, Vol 53(9), 1017-1031.(<a href="http://kraut.hciresearch.org/sites/kraut.hciresearch.org/files/articles/kraut98-InternetParadox.pdf" target="_blank">Link</a>) </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">(8) Krasnova, H., Wenninger, H., Widjaja, T., & Buxmann, P. (2013). Envy on Facebook: A Hidden Threat to Users’ Life Satisfaction? Paper for the 11th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik. (<a href="https://www.ara.cat/2013/01/28/855594433.pdf" target="_blank">Link</a>) </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">(9) Valenzuela, S., Park, N., Kee, K. F. (2009), Is There Social Capital in a Social Network Site?: Facebook Use and College Students' Life Satisfaction, Trust, and Participation1. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14: 875–901. (<a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01474.x/full" target="_blank">Link</a>) </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">(10) Burke, M., Kraut, R. E. (2016), The Relationship Between Facebook Use and Well-Being Depends on Communication Type and Tie Strength. J Comput-Mediat Comm, 21: 265–281. (<a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcc4.12162/full" target="_blank">Link</a></span><span style="font-size: x-small;">)</span>Jürgen Derlathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13180222385475786385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3301960398433244286.post-81430193855967486212017-12-18T16:20:00.000+01:002018-01-24T13:35:54.673+01:00What makes a good instructional video? <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRGxjoyDu0qZoIdJWi5pEoY-tOjAX-FDLxCg7OzuQsku0494yUVQ6p2Mt3Ojo7dZ07vhDlytbWjbenBr1iQBJ9uRWJ7V5OEqs4uyAEQ2kZ9Q_Jau9sRr4hprV2fAEGmJAgzQvbS1RcAhyphenhyphenQ/s1600/Video_2.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="601" data-original-width="1200" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRGxjoyDu0qZoIdJWi5pEoY-tOjAX-FDLxCg7OzuQsku0494yUVQ6p2Mt3Ojo7dZ07vhDlytbWjbenBr1iQBJ9uRWJ7V5OEqs4uyAEQ2kZ9Q_Jau9sRr4hprV2fAEGmJAgzQvbS1RcAhyphenhyphenQ/s320/Video_2.png" width="320" /></a></div>
Video supports education in many areas and online courses regularly include instructional videos. Video transports the content both audibly and visually, creating a multisensory learning environment that is said to be particularly conducive to learning. The fact that multisensory learning environments can be beneficial to learning (and when it does so) has been investigated a lot of times in laboratory experiments. In practice, however, there is still uncertainty about what really makes a good video.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<h4>
Advantages and disadvantages </h4>
<br />
As technology evolves, it becomes easier and easier to create one's own videos. Convincing results can already be achieved with apps on the smartphone. Facebook has gone one step further and allows to create very simple videos (in fact slide-shows consisting of images and background music) in the shortest time possible. The expectations of video producers are correspondingly high.
But the use of videos has advantages and disadvantages. Here is an (incomplete) list of pros and cons that one can find on the internet:<br />
<br />
Possible advantages of videos:<br />
<ul>
<li>Videos are comparatively stronger in attracting and engaging users to the content.
</li>
<li>Videos reduce reading stress and free users from the monotony of reading and browsing.
</li>
<li>Multi-sensory content is easier to understand and the information processing time is shorter.
</li>
<li>Multi-sensory processing promotes the understanding and retention of information.
</li>
<li>In a video, it is easier to demonstrate something than in a textual description.
</li>
<li>Pausing, fast-forwarding and rewinding make it possible to learn as flexibly as flipping backwards and forwards in a book.</li>
<li>Videos are particularly suitable for consumption on mobile devices.
</li>
<li>The production of videos is becoming simpler and cheaper. </li>
</ul>
Possible disadvantages:<br />
<ul>
<li>Video itself does not guarantee quality and bad videos do more harm than good.
</li>
<li>Videos encourage the individualisation of the learner, which can make learning more difficult. </li>
<li>Videos are rarely watched until the end. </li>
<li>The production of videos is time-consuming, expensive (equipment, logistics of production) and new questions have to be answered (Which repository should be used? etc.). </li>
<li>Videos pose requirements for the equipment of the learner (sufficient bandwidth, devices for playing etc.). </li>
<li>It's a lot of work to edit and re-edit a video if corrections are needed. </li>
</ul>
It seems as if advantages for the user are accompanied by increasing requirements for the production. However, production costs are no longer a particularly hot topic.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Videos in education and training</h4>
Different types dominate depending on the provider. The most commonly used video style across all providors such as Coursera, Udacity etc. is the Talking Head followed by slideshows with and without speakers. Sometimes the use of a type varies considerably depending on the provider (e. g. in the slideshow with speaker). [1]<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQRm5su3Mhu8_GNAJywbXnGt1a-fKWad59175jA5b3reXJOnn9DTy0MV8YyblTVhqfMKV9CB3mEr_hIVgDGVvHRsIYJyWbKIICZVK6Y4d6z46jSDF5koebI_SM6R9I5_4kEhjKV-gKa37y/s1600/Grafik-video.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="538" data-original-width="650" height="332" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQRm5su3Mhu8_GNAJywbXnGt1a-fKWad59175jA5b3reXJOnn9DTy0MV8YyblTVhqfMKV9CB3mEr_hIVgDGVvHRsIYJyWbKIICZVK6Y4d6z46jSDF5koebI_SM6R9I5_4kEhjKV-gKa37y/s400/Grafik-video.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Reutemann (2016) [1]</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<h4>
What do viewers say?</h4>
<br />
So far, the focus has been on the provider. But what do users think about videos. Some preliminary insights can be gained from from the university background and the MOOC movement:<br />
<ul>
<li>Videos are more widely used when embedded in a context: Videos are viewed more often when the content conveyed in the video is used to solve a task or for a discussion post in the course. Stand-alone-videos do not perform that well. [2] </li>
<li>Videos should be as short as possible: Whether the optimal video does not take longer than four minutes is a matter of doubt. However, users clearly appreciate it when you get to the point: The longer a video, the higher the viewers' loss rate. If you want to convey a lot of content via video, don't put it in one video. Maybe a sequence "video - activity - video - activity etc." makes more sense. [3] </li>
<li>A video is not viewed linearly, users want to interact with the video: The interaction is especially evident in video tutorials. They are often set up as step-by-step instructions, although not all steps are equally simple and users often re-visit difficult steps. However, videos in the style of a lecture also have parts that are accessed more frequently, e. g. when switching between a presentation slide and the Talking Head. Everything that facilitates this interaction and selective consumption (e. g. a minute-by-minute structure with entry points, especially to key passages in the video) is advantageous for the user. [3] Interactivity also seems to be the key to reducing the drop-out rate. [4] </li>
<li>Mobile is nice, but it's not mandatory: Educational content is still consumed on the PC (or laptop). Smartphone and tablet play a minor role. At first glance, this seems to contradict the dominance of mobile devices, which oneexperiences every day. But people learn at home or in the office, and much less often at busstops and on public transport vehicles. [2] </li>
<li>Videos must offer a noticeable advantage over text: Users usually like to learn with visualizations. After all, showing a picture is easier than describing it. But the videos are not per se considered better. In particular, they must offer added value over pure text. So if you want to make a video, you should have something to show. [2,5] </li>
<li>People expect more from videos than from pure text, e. g. that videos are entertaining: In videos in which the focus is on a person, users appreciate the fact that the topic is conveyed with humour, for example, a expectation that is not placed on a technical text in this way. [2] It is also important to keep in mind that professional expertise alone does not guarantee videos that are well designed in terms of media and didactics. [5] </li>
</ul>
<h4>
Takeaways</h4>
As has already been noted elsewhere (LINK), three points are important: Videos are useful when there is something to see and you should not waste the viewers time but get to the point as soon as possible. Due to the still higher production costs (and viewers' expectations), it is also advisable to plan the use of videos strategically and to embed them in a comprehensive didactic concept.<br />
<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[1] Reutemann, J. (2016). Differences and Commonalities–A comparative report of video styles and course descriptions on edX, Coursera, Futurelearn and Iversity. <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeanine_Reutemann/publication/296331322_Differences_and_Commonalities_-_A_comparative_report_of_video_styles_and_course_descriptions_on_edX_Coursera_Futurelearn_and_Iversity/links/56d459dd08aefd177b0f4bbf/Differences-and-Commonalities-A-comparative-report-of-video-styles-and-course-descriptions-on-edX-Coursera-Futurelearn-and-Iversity.pdf" target="_blank">Link</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">M. Khalil, M. Ebner, M. Kopp, A. Lorenz y M. Kalz, Proceedings of the European Stakeholder summit on experiences and best practices in and around MOOCs (EMOOCS 2016), 383-392. <a href="https://www.researchgate.netpublication296331322_differences_and_commonalities__a_comparative_report_of_video_styles_and_course_descriptions_on_edx_coursera_futurelearn_and_iversity/" target="_blank">Link</a> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[2] Hibbert, M. C. (2014). What makes an online instructional video compelling?.Educause Review Online. </span><a href="https://er.educause.edu/articles/2014/4/what-makes-an-%20online-instructional-video-compelling" style="font-size: small;" target="_blank">Link</a><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[3] Kim, J., Guo, P. J., Seaton, D. T., Mitros, P., Gajos, K. Z., & Miller, R. C. (2014, March). Understanding in-video dropouts and interaction peaks inonline lecture videos. In Proceedings of the rst ACM conference on Learning@ scale confe-rence (pp. 31-40). ACM. </span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/(https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/hand-%20le/1/30856855/81292876.pdf?sequence=1)" style="font-size: small;" target="_blank">Link</a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[4] Geri, N., Winer, A., & Zaks, B. Probing the Effect of Interactivity in Online Video Lectures on the Attention Span of Students: A Learning Analytics Approach. </span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/(http://www.openu.ac.il/innovation/chais2017/a2_3.pdf)" style="font-size: small;" target="_blank">Link</a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[5] Hansch, A., McConachie, K., Schmidt, P., Hillers, L., New- man, C., & Schildhauer, T. (2015). The role of video in online learning: ndings from the eld and critical re ections. Top- MOOC Research Project, Alexander von Humboldt, Institut für Internet und Gesellschaft. </span><a href="http://www.hiig.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Top-%20MOOC_Final-Paper.pdf" style="font-size: small;" target="_blank">Link</a>Jürgen Derlathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13180222385475786385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3301960398433244286.post-27790852630637027322017-09-14T14:29:00.000+02:002018-01-24T11:03:12.682+01:00What's with the hype about videos in Social Media?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuhnFOxxALtj22I35Ae5qSpFa6Tfx3gc3wf_ILB0zIIGS-Hbb3ploO8uF5w9osNXDdVUF8LhNmB-7i1MAPpUco62LP16cxqy5s2fOwepftoykR0AK7ZzC42axh7Opnmax3nNnQ8RjLfngj/s1600/Video_1.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="597" data-original-width="1200" height="159" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuhnFOxxALtj22I35Ae5qSpFa6Tfx3gc3wf_ILB0zIIGS-Hbb3ploO8uF5w9osNXDdVUF8LhNmB-7i1MAPpUco62LP16cxqy5s2fOwepftoykR0AK7ZzC42axh7Opnmax3nNnQ8RjLfngj/s320/Video_1.png" width="320" /></a></div>
Videos are currently being hyped in connection with social media. Look at your social media accounts and you will see that videos have become a dominant form of content. And apparently, the supply is matched by a corresponding demand. A company like Facebook would not place so much emphasis on videos if it hadn't come to the conclusion that this kind of content is particularly popular with users.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Indeed, a change in user behaviour seems to favor videos. The following insights draw on the Video Effects 2016 (Burda) study which, in turn, is based on a survey of the BurdaForward Panel (for the panel's socio-demographics cf.[1]). The term "video" is interpreted in a broad sense including films and series. Accordingly, the study summarizes video sharing-websites, media archives and streaming services among the providers. Here are some of the results:<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>The willingness to watch videos has increased from 66 % (2015) to 86 % (2016).</li>
<li>49 % watch videos every day (2015: 35 %). </li>
<li>Videos are consumed most frequently at home (88 %). </li>
<li>Only 3 % use videos at school, university or work. </li>
<li>About 42 % watch videos up to 10 minutes in length. </li>
<li>70 % watch videos on their notebooks or laptops, 57 % on their smartphones.</li>
<li>Heavy video users prefer to watch them on the smartphone.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
So, videos have indeed become increasingly popular. The usage is intended for private rather than educational or professional purposes which may be due to the fact that the range of videos available for educational or professional purposes is simply not large enough. Furthermore, successful videos must work on mobile devices because they have outstripped stationary devices at home too.<br />
<br />
<h4>
What motivates video consumption? </h4>
<br />
Nearly eight out of ten respondents want to inform themselves by means of video and only every second person watches videos for entertainment. I would have seen the relationship the other way around.<br />
<br />
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Reasons for video consumption</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<ul>
<li> ... for information (78%) </li>
<li> ... for learning (35%) </li>
<li> ... because it's fun (50%) </li>
<li> ... as a pastime (50%) </li>
<li> ... to relax (45%) </li>
<li> ... because friends recommended or send me the video (28 %)</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br />
In terms of content, music, news and movies lead the ranking:<br />
<br />
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Information/Learning</th>
<th>Entertainment</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<ul>
<li>news from politics (39 %) </li>
<li>instructions (e. g. computer programs, <br />cooking, cosmetics, DIY) (29 %) </li>
<li>gaming videos (e. g. previews, tests, solutions) (14 %) </li>
<li>product tests (20 %) </li>
<li>household tips (14 %)</li>
</ul>
</td>
<td><br />
<ul>
<li>music (45 %) </li>
<li>movies (35 %) </li>
<li>documentaries (29 %) </li>
<li>series/soaps (29 %) </li>
<li>sports (19 %) </li>
<li>fashion (9 %)</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
The classification "information/learning vs. entertainment" does not appear in the study, and is, of course, worth discussing. Sports and documentaries, for example, can - depending on one's interests - also be used for information or learning purposes. But it does reflect the two broad reasons for video usage - information and entertainment - quite well and is consistent with the theory of uses and gratifications. [2]<br />
<br />
Expanding the category "instructions (29 %)" further, the following picture emerges:<br />
<br />
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Drill-down: "instructions"</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<ul>
<li>computer (hardware and software) utorials (57 %) </li>
<li>cooking (55 %)</li>
<li>DIY (42 %) </li>
<li>handicrafts (28 %)</li>
<li>gardening (22 %)</li>
<li>cosmetics / styling (20 %) </li>
<li>photography (20 %)</li>
<li>sewing (12 %)</li>
<li>other (8 %)</li>
</ul>
</td>
<td><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
A provisional conclusion can already be drawn here: Perhaps with the exception of computer/software tutorials, videos are mainly watched to see how things are done. Most probably, this how-to-approach also applies to computer hardware tutorials and software handling. What one doesn't find on the list is abstract information. And there's probably a reason for that: there's nothing to see.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Get to the point! </h4>
<br />
It depends on the length of the video whether it is watched until the end. 75 % stop a video if it is too long (2015: 47 %). Unfortunately, the study does not include data on when a video is too long. Another source [3] (and probably in the context of advertising videos) has these following numbers:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3f88wpSAn78ZFzY-7mwWRLQlOvMXus2jj35j2w0_c9L-rvO4AldeoaKC0buu760Xgbg_sJZinnlr24ZSAYcP6apgM68TYX_ZXHXLF7mOypzLEylYLtXXVLo02IDaGrxE4OiulilHUWIrZ/s1600/Video+Zuschauerverluste.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="670" data-original-width="670" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3f88wpSAn78ZFzY-7mwWRLQlOvMXus2jj35j2w0_c9L-rvO4AldeoaKC0buu760Xgbg_sJZinnlr24ZSAYcP6apgM68TYX_ZXHXLF7mOypzLEylYLtXXVLo02IDaGrxE4OiulilHUWIrZ/s320/Video+Zuschauerverluste.png" width="319" /></a></div>
<br />
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Loss of viewers depending on video duration</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<ul>
<li>after 10 seconds: 10 %</li>
<li>after 20 seconds 20 % </li>
<li>after 30 seconds 34 % </li>
<li><b>after 60 seconds 54 %</b> </li>
<li>after 2 min 76 % </li>
<li>after 3 min 83 % </li>
<li>after 5 min 90 %</li>
</ul>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
After 60 seconds, half the audience has gone! The diagram describes the decreasing marginal utility of each further second. Unfortunately, the source doesn't give more detailed information about these numbers. My hunch is that they are applicable to videos with less than 5 minutes in length and that different "laws" are applicable to series or movies (binge-watching!). But the direction is clear. The viewer decides during the first minute whether she/he feels informed, entertained or bored.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Takeaways</h4>
<br />
<ul>
<li>Videos do the trick if there is really something to see. Do you read instruction booklets? Or do you like following the dots, numbers, and arrows in graphical setup instruction? Probably not. A video shows how it is done - if necessary, repeatedly. The viewer does not have to translate an abstract description into real-life sequences of action. Thus, the video has a relieving effect on cognitive load. </li>
<li>What is true with texts is even more important for videos: Get to the point. A video is a grab bag for the viewer. She/he has to open it to see what's inside. A long but well-structured text, on the other hand, has a big advantage. It can be scanned to find the right place to get started. In principle, this is also possible with a video, e. g. with a transcription. But in this case, many viewers will stick to the text right away. </li>
<li>Make sure that you get the viewer through the first minute. If you want to inform or instruct the viewer open the grab bag for her/him. If you want to entertain the viewer create the necessary suspense as soon as possible. Whenever possible tell an engaging story.</li>
</ul>
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[1] Burda (2016) Video Effects (2016). <a href="https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjRjYOfwOvYAhUD3aQKHZxyCA0QFggqMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.burda-forward.de%2Fuploads%2Ftx_mjstudien%2FBF_VideoEffects_2016.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0mJc18i3e2Y5k1nH80PPAy" target="_blank">Link</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[2] Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. <i style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Mass communication & society</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">, </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">3</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">(1), 3-37.</span> <a href="https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjwzfW8kO7YAhVB66QKHbAcCt0QFggtMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kayesweetser.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2007%2F08%2Fadpr5990_ruggerio.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2IlQSpnIESa8M_1kBC_TyN" target="_blank">Link</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[2] Optimal video length on the Internet (2015?) <a href="http://www.learn2use.de/optimale-videolange-im-internet/" target="_blank">Link</a></span>Jürgen Derlathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13180222385475786385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3301960398433244286.post-81620230210192612532017-03-24T14:04:00.000+01:002018-01-18T14:06:02.057+01:00Involvement as the driving force behind sharing<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibBUlArfcqUvT5DadnoR2Lpj_jdBKHxx67SoQVYXM0HLK445Q8LPB3IjSVohG3a45r4EurY5kd6ImByyosq9x0imYYUWaOt3SveGiU9pYSWZqD7ObD3FNycrmP4wiqGeHuLWeGooym-Qp5/s1600/involvement.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="1200" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibBUlArfcqUvT5DadnoR2Lpj_jdBKHxx67SoQVYXM0HLK445Q8LPB3IjSVohG3a45r4EurY5kd6ImByyosq9x0imYYUWaOt3SveGiU9pYSWZqD7ObD3FNycrmP4wiqGeHuLWeGooym-Qp5/s320/involvement.png" width="320" /></a></div>
Why is some content shared on the web and other content is not? How can you get more people to share blog posts, tweets or Facebook posts? This article deals with the prerequisites for sharing content that are all strongly related to the concept of ego-participation (involvement). It ends with hints on how to promote sharing.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
In 2011, the New York Times [1] reported on what inspires and motivates people to share links, videos, images and offers online:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><b>Define/realize yourself: </b>People share content to give others a better sense of who they are and what interests them (68%). In addition, sharing gives them the opportunity to contribute more strongly (69%).</li>
<li><b>Sharing as a form of information management: </b>73% say that they process information more thoroughly when they share the information. 85 % help others to better understand and process information and events.</li>
<li><b>Maintain relationships: </b>People share information online to stay in touch with other people to whom they have no other connection (78%). It also helps them connect with others who share their interests (73%).</li>
<li><b>Valuable and entertaining content: </b>94% consider in advance whether the information will be useful for the recipients. And 49% report that sharing allows them to inform others, influence their opinions or encourage them to act.</li>
<li><b>Stand up for a cause: </b>84% share content because it is an opportunity to support a cause or a topic that interest them.</li>
</ul>
<br />
It is noteworthy that these reasons lie all in a triangle of I, others and content. So, it is not just about showing off.<br />
<br />
<h4>
There is a driving force behind sharing.</h4>
<br />
As early as 1966, Ernest Dichter [2, 3, 4], who was looking for the factors of successful word-of-mouth propaganda in advertising, outlined four - more or less equally strong - motivations to share content.<br />
<br />
Every single one has to do with involvement. Involvement is a term with many conceptualizations [5]. Sometimes the focus is more on the attitudes of the individual, sometimes it is more on the behavioral aspect. Generally, involvement can be defined as the degree of subjectively perceived meaning of behaviour, e. g. in decision-making processes. As involvement increases, the cognitive and emotional engagement of the individual increases. The purchase of a house, for example, triggers more involvement than the purchase of a toothbrush, and - accordingly - the behaviour will be different.<br />
<br />
Dichter distinguished four types of involvement in the consumer's relationship to the product:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><b>Product Involvement</b> describes the urge to report a personal experience (e. g. the user's experience with a product). This kind of engagement can be observed on a company's social media websites when people photograph how they use the product.</li>
<li><b>Self-involvement</b> has to do with satisfying emotional needs, such as "getting attention","showing that you belong to it". People share content that expresses their knowledge and opinions. They feel important when they can share the latest news, for example.</li>
<li><b>Other-Involvement</b> describes a rather altruistic component. People feel good when they help others. For example, by sharing coupons or product reviews or tagging a friend in a Facebook post.</li>
<li><b>Message Involvement</b> refers to the advertising message. Some advertising is so original and entertaining that it itself becomes an object of word-of-mouth propaganda.</li>
</ul>
<br />
These four types can be transferred almost 1:1 to content sharing on the Internet. Thus, product involvement can also be interpreted as content involvement.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Sharing is shaped by motivation.</h4>
<br />
In an empirical study, Hennig-Thurau et al. [6] analyzed the motivational structure of users of a Deutsche Bahn opinion platform. They identified eight factors that motivated people to visit the platform:<br />
<ul>
<li>strengthening self-esteem, </li>
<li>seeking advice,</li>
<li>getting support from the platform, </li>
<li>gaining social benefits from connecting with others, </li>
<li>worrying about others, </li>
<li>talking about negative things with the company, </li>
<li>receiving economic incentives such as web miles, </li>
<li>helping the company.</li>
</ul>
<br />
In this context, the authors empirically formed four types of users, which differ by a different combination of the eight factors:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><b>Self-interested helpers</b> are strongly influenced by their concern for others and by economic incentives.</li>
<li><b>Consumers</b> with multiple motives are motivated by all factors except economic incentives.</li>
<li><b>Altruists</b> are motivated to help other consumers and businesses.</li>
<li><b>Consumer "advocates"</b> are primarily driven by their concern for other consumers.</li>
</ul>
<br />
There are other such typologies or persona approaches that sometimes differentiate even more precisely. It is important to realize that there are different forms of involvement behind these as well. Those who know the motivation of their visitors can address them with tailored content and increase the likelihood that this content will be shared.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Virality of content can be influenced.</h4>
<br />
To answer the question of why some content performs better, Berger & Milkman [7] looked at all articles in the New York Times for several months. They found that virality was partly dependent on the emotion that was triggered. Content that provoked an activating emotion (awe, anger or fear) was more viral than content that evoked a rather disabling emotion (e. g. sadness). This result was also valid when controlled for other variables - e. g. the type of content (surprising, interesting, practical - all positively linked to virality) or the type of presentation (prominent, less prominent).<br />
<br />
These and other findings led to Berger's six STEPPS [8] for "contagious" contents:<br />
<ul>
<li><b>S</b>ocial awareness: We are concerned about what others think about us. And we want to feel "special". That's why we tend to share content that makes us look "good".</li>
<li><b>T</b>rigger:<b> </b>This is about staying in touch with your own content and remembering it from time to time.</li>
<li><b>E</b>motions: Feelings are a strong impulse for sharing, especially when they have an activating effect.</li>
<li><b>P</b>ublicity: People are looking for information. In order to be found, the content should be clearly visible.</li>
<li><b>P</b>ractical value:<b> </b>Useful information is often shared. Therefore, the practical value of the content should be emphasized.</li>
<li><b>S</b>tories:<b> </b>Stories are particularly suitable to be passed on because we are used to thinking in stories.</li>
</ul>
If you would like to find out more about the STEPPS, I recommend this interview on <a href="https://youtu.be/xgCMqC64bD8)" target="_blank">Youtube</a>.<br />
<h4>
<br /></h4>
<h4>
Takeaways</h4>
<ul>
<li>Virality is not necessarily an inherent feature of content.</li>
<li>Rather, it depends on the value that users recognize in the content for themselves and others.</li>
<li>This value is more obvious for some content and less obvious for others.</li>
<li>It is worthwhile for content providers to highlight this value (e. g. with the six STEPPS).</li>
</ul>
____________________________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[1] The New York Times Insights (2011): </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">The Psychology of Sharing. <a href="http://www.iab.net/media/%20le/%20POSWhitePaper.pdf" target="_blank">Link </a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[2] Dichter, Ernest (1966), "How Word-of-Mouth Advertising Works," Harvard Business Review, 44 (6), 147-66.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[3] o. V. (2011). Sex and advertising - Retail and therapy <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/21541706" target="_blank">Link</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[4] Moore, J. (?). Ernest Dichter on Word of Mouth Marketing - Ernest Dichter is a name every marketer should know. <a href="http://brandautopsy.com/2013/09/ernest-dichter-on-word-of-mouth-marketing.html" target="_blank">Link</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[5] Robert N. Stone (1984),"The Marketing Characteristics of Involvement", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 11, eds. Thomas C. Kinnear, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 210-215.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[6] Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">D. (2004). Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet?. Journal of interactive marketing, 18(1), 38-52. <a href="http://www.brandautopsy.com/2013/09/ernest-dichter-on-word-%20of-mouth-marketing.html" target="_blank">Link</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[7] Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online content viral? Journal of marketing research, 49(2), 192-205. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[8] Berger, J. (2016). Contagious: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">Why things catch on. Simon & Schuster.</span><br />
<br />Jürgen Derlathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13180222385475786385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3301960398433244286.post-21945313219317994952017-02-06T22:57:00.000+01:002018-01-17T22:08:50.425+01:00Training on the go - mobile learning with audio media.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5it6xRBacF2vPsMkQce_h9oc_qogzrGQkeqHJ8JBT7ywbzl_Cg5J7BoDXTT-FwJY4vVMBxTABTqBut6lhLqxeTl95YavLSCRoroAU5A1ZCz2CEyM-jxQSjFglaXDT5ESgYXi0pdFKJJnD/s1600/Mobile-Audio.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="598" data-original-width="1200" height="158" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5it6xRBacF2vPsMkQce_h9oc_qogzrGQkeqHJ8JBT7ywbzl_Cg5J7BoDXTT-FwJY4vVMBxTABTqBut6lhLqxeTl95YavLSCRoroAU5A1ZCz2CEyM-jxQSjFglaXDT5ESgYXi0pdFKJJnD/s320/Mobile-Audio.png" width="320" /></a></div>
Today, every occupation, whether dependent or self-employed, requires that you keep your knowledge up to date at all times. Often, however, the activity itself leaves little time for further training. In addition, many forms of learning require temporal and spatial planning (e. g. the face-to-face seminar). Mobile learning (M-learning), on the other hand, promises that learning can take place spontaneously at any location - i. e. at the bus stop, in the subway or during car journeys. This is tempting because especially those who travel a lot in the car might want to use their free time for learning.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Since the smartphone has become a permanent and versatile companion in everyday life, it is believed that mobile learning will become even more important. According to a Trend Study 2016, 86 percent of the e-learning experts surveyed see mobile applications/apps as the most economically successful learning format in the coming years. [1]<br />
<h4>
</h4>
<h4>
Mobile learning as a complement to traditional media</h4>
There exist different definitions of mobile learning. But there are two distinguishing features: the possibility to learn everywhere and at any time, and the use of mobile devices (primarily smartphones and tablets rather than laptops). Thus, the mobility of the learning location and the technological support of learning are at the forefront. [2] Some even say that mobile learning should take device-specific features (e. g. the camera or the position sensor) into account, but this refers more to the design of mobile learning content. Mobile learning itself should not be a substitute for traditional learning media or e-learning but should be a sensible alternative to it.<br />
<br />
At the same time, there is a disadvantage : If spontaneous learning is to be made possible, the content must be designed accordingly. After all, spontaneous learning often only takes place for a short time and is often interrupted.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Advantages and disadvantages of mobile learning</b> [3]</div>
<br />
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Pros</th>
<th>Cons</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>- learning anywhere anytime<br />
- individual learning speed<br />
- high familiarity with the smartphone<br />
- use of different media (image, sound, video)<br />
- combinable with databases, forums, chats</td>
<td>- high development costs<br />
- high self-learning competence required<br />
- concentration problems<br />
- "<a href="https://www.learningsnacks.de/#/welcome?channel=Learning%20Snacks" target="_blank">snack-learning</a>"<br />
- low processing depth of the learned material</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<h4>
</h4>
<h4>
Media for mobile learning </h4>
Mobile learning is possible in any media format that can be used on a smartphone/tablet in a user-friendly manner. Text as (enhanced) EPUB or PDF and video is just as much a part of it as audio content. Audio content offers a number of benefits for mobile learning. It is certainly interesting for the user that they can "subscribed to" it in the form of a podcast, so you don't have to worry about the updates yourself every time. Podcasts have been around for about 10 years. They are, for example, very successful in the entertainment sector (see the media libraries of public broadcasters). They are not so widespread in the field of specialist information, especially when compared with visual content. This may also be due to the fact that the auditory channel is not believed to be as efficient as the visual channel. Here are two examples why.<br />
<br />
<h4>
"I'm more of a visual learner."</h4>
Since the 1970s, classifying learners to certain typologies is still very popular (e. g. in the German-speaking world according to Vester's typology [4]: auditive, optical-visual and haptic-cognitive). According to this and similar theories, each learner has a dominant/preferred "channel" on which he or she receives and processes information particularly well. Those who are of the auditory type should, therefore, learn best by listening. In order to enable successful information processing, the information must, therefore, be prepared according to type. However, learning research could not find any empirical evidence. Ok, each learner is different and, yes, there may be learners who prefer to read something rather than listen to it. But the specific link with learning performance could not be established. On the other hand, there is a clear connection with the learning topic: Suppose someone were to ask:"I want to teach you something. What would you prefer: a series of illustrations, a text, a podcast or a performance in the form of movements?" Who would answer the question immediately and not ask first what to learn: an equation, a song or a dance? [5]<br />
<br />
<h4>
"20% is what you keep when you hear..."</h4>
The following statement is no less problematic: The learning success increases to the extent that several sensory channels are used simultaneously in learning:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>20 percent is retained when listening</li>
<li>30 percent for vision</li>
<li>50 percent when you see and hear the learning material</li>
<li>70 percent when you see, hear and talk about it, and</li>
<li>90 percent when you see it, hear it, talk about it and become active yourself. </li>
</ul>
This fact is often also presented as a (learning) pyramid.<br />
<br />
One practical consequence of this is that video beats audio. But that is not tenable. Because in the "learning pyramid" two completely different concepts are mixed. On the one hand, it is the "cone of experience" by Dale. In 1946 he proposed a continuum - and no hierarchy - of different teaching methods. In the meantime, it has been proven that there is no "superior method", but that all methods can be effective depending on the context. [6] The percentages, in turn, can be traced back to an article in the Journal of Education (Boston, 1913). The figures show the significance of learning for action within the context of Montessori pedagogy. Unfortunately, the figures do not stand up to empirical examination. [7]<br />
<br />
<h4>
Special features of listening</h4>
Of course, listening compared to reading has a number of special features - not least from the practical point of view of the learner. For example, if attention fluctuates, then it is easy to return to any place when reading. This is not possible without interrupting a lecture in real time. In the case of a recording, the problem arises to get back to the correct position with the controller.<br />
<br />
But listening can be combined with other activities. This includes simple mechanical tasks such as jogging and cleaning up, but also complex automated tasks such as driving a car. The prerequisite, however, is that the content has been prepared in a correspondingly structural and linguistic manner. This is demanding for the producers. [8] For print media, there are a number of structuring options: Structures are conveyed by means of subheadings, meaningful connections are established by means of paragraphs and enumerations are indicated by a bullet. Graphics help to illustrate complex correlations. In graphics, in turn, certain parts can be highlighted to facilitate understanding. The importance of these cues to understanding is already known to adults. Cueing is also possible for audio media (e. g. modulation, speaker change, jingles, dramatization etc.). Unlike an indent in a list, the meaning of the cue is not clear from the outset. It must be learned while listening.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Takeaway</h4>
Perceiving is not learning. In order to learn something, simply put, a meaning must be taken from the sensory impression, it must be combined with previous knowledge and stored in a retrievable memory. For many people, seeing is a dominant channel. However, it does not always prove to be the optimal channel in every situation. Audio media can be particularly effective as part of a media mix. They supplement e. g. print media for self-instruction (as audio files of a language course). Audio media can also be used to prepare and follow up knowledge offers (record a lecture or textbook). Well-edited audio content, e. g. with elements of dramatization, also has a motivational effect. [8] Especially those who travel a lot can use idle time to keep up to date. Short, self-contained units are particularly suitable for this purpose.<br />
<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[1] mmb Trendstudie (2016): Die Zukunft gehört dem Mobile Learning. <a href="http://www.mmb-institut.de/mmb-monitor/trend-monitor/mmb-Trendmonitor_2016_I.pdf" target="_blank">Link</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[2] Traxler, J. (2009): Current State of Mobile Learning. in Ally, M. Mobile Learning Transforming the Delivery of Education and Training. <a href="http://www.aupress.ca/books/120155/ebook/99Z_Mohamed_Ally_2009-MobileLearning.pdf" target="_blank">Link</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[3] Krauss-Hoffmann, P., Kuszpa, M., Sieland-Bortz, M. (2007): Mobile Learning - Grundlagen und Perspektiven. <a href="http://www.inqa.de/SharedDocs/PDFs/DE/Publikationen/inqa-24-mobile-learning.pdf?__blob=publicationFile" target="_blank">Link</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[4] Vester,F.(1975) Denken,Lernen,Vergessen.Stuttgart. Deutsche Verlagsanstalt GmbH</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[5] Riener, C., & Willingham, D. (2010). The myth of learning styles. Change: The magazine of higher learning, 42(5), 32-35. <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Cedar_Riener/publication/249039450_The_Myth_of_Learning_Styles/links/0046353c694205e957000000.pdf" target="_blank">Link </a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[6] Lalley, J. P., & Miller, R. H. (2007). The learning pyramid: Does it point teachers in the right direction? Education, 128(1), 64.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[7] Betrus, A. (2016). The Corruption of Dale's Cone of Experience <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/thecorruptedconeoflearning/home" target="_blank">Link</a> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[8] Schmidt, C. (2014): Podcasts in pädagogischen Kontexten: Einsatzmöglichkeiten und effektive didaktische Ausgestaltung innovativer Audiomedien. Diplomica Verlag GmbH, Hamburg.</span><br />
<br />
<br />Jürgen Derlathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13180222385475786385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3301960398433244286.post-20291168967895971292016-11-21T21:43:00.001+01:002018-01-17T22:43:03.509+01:00How reading on screen influences our thinking<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW3astty9AbZv1NG-_In8EeCAv4xkbS_M0RVm6AvStMqs3rzHK36U48ysNTvlL9pAYZnohWxHEFLSrPvko4fm9d6D0WYrxfvZeEqdNqCOjT_ZJlFRUdjmminPWvRQLIwj0OOuATLYlc-lz/s1600/Screens2.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="602" data-original-width="1200" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW3astty9AbZv1NG-_In8EeCAv4xkbS_M0RVm6AvStMqs3rzHK36U48ysNTvlL9pAYZnohWxHEFLSrPvko4fm9d6D0WYrxfvZeEqdNqCOjT_ZJlFRUdjmminPWvRQLIwj0OOuATLYlc-lz/s320/Screens2.png" width="320" /></a></div>
We are influencing the environment with our technology. But it's not a one-way street. The technology in our environment affects us too. It literally changes our thinking. And not just thoughts and attitudes, but our basic thinking processes. According to a recent study, it makes a difference whether we read information on paper or on screen. Depending on the medium, different processes of information are activated.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<b>A cultural bias towards paper?</b><br />
Until the early 1990s, most studies came to the conclusion that people read more slowly, less accurately, and less comprehensively on screens than on paper. At first, lack of user experience with screens was held responsible. Later, the phenomenon could be attributed to display quality. [1]<br />
<br />
Since then, the quality of computer monitors and displays has improved considerably. Recent studies therefore tend to lead to inconsistent results or do not find any differences between the media. Nevertheless, there still is a certain preference for paper. In a study from 2013, scientists compared eye movement, brain activity, reading speed and reading comprehension while reading on paper, on an e-reader (e-ink) and a tablet computer. Interestingly, all participants said beforehand that they would rather read on paper. The study itself did not provide any evidence for the assumption that digital media are more strenuous. On the contrary, older participants read faster and with less effort on the tablet computer because the backlight provides better contrast for older eyes. Why then the preference for paper? The authors point to "a general cultural attitude" against reading on screens. [2]<br />
<br />
<b>(Dis-)fluency matters</b><br />
But on a completely different level, there seems to be a difference between reading on paper and on screen. And this time it's the fluency with which we read on modern screens that is viewed critically. [3] It is argued that reading on screen is way too easy now. Sometimes we tend to remember information better when it was harder to process the information. Thus, it was shown that modest "disfluency" actually improves retention performance, because the information is processed more precisely and people engage on a deeper level with its content. [4] And this effect can be seen not only in reading comprehension: It is less effective for learning when students take notes in lectures on the laptop instead of writing them down by hand. The high road into the brain still seems to lead along the right (or left) hand. [5]<br />
<br />
<b>Abstract and concrete thinking</b><br />
And yet another effect has recently been discovered: Anyone who reads on tablet computers and laptops tends to focus on specific details rather than to process information abstractly. For example, in a study, 66 % of print readers answered questions correctly that required an abstract understanding, whereas only 48 % of digital readers answered the questions correctly. Questions for specific content were answered correctly by 73 % of digital readers, while only 58 % of print respondents answered them correctly.[6]<br />
<br />
If this result should be confirmed in further studies, digital media influence HOW we process information. This could have long-term consequences. Because abstract thinking not only shows us the "big picture" but also longer-term consequences. Abstract thinking is also associated with empathy and creativity. However, it is not per se superior to concrete thinking. Both ways of processing information are necessary for optimal cognitive performance.<br />
<br />
<b>How about computers at school?</b><br />
In some (Asian) countries, computers or tablets are already firmly integrated into school teaching. According to an OECD study from 2015, the results are not very surprising given the findings described here are: learning performance did not improve per se with digital media. Rather, it was crucial how digital media were used in the classroom. [7] <span style="background-color: white; color: #212121; font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px; white-space: pre-wrap;">As is often the case, it is pointless to give people a new tool and to expect that the benefits will come naturally. One must also enable them to reap the benefits.</span><br />
<br />
_________________________________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Noyes, J. M., & Garland, K. J. (2008). Computer-vs. paper-based tasks: Are they equivalent?. Ergonomics, 51(9), 1352-1375.</li>
<li>Kretzschmar, F., Pleimling, D., Hosemann, J., Füssel, S., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. and Schlesewsky, M. (2013). Subjective Impressions Do Not Mirror Online Reading Effort: Concurrent EEG-eyetracking Evidence From the Reading of Books and Digital Media. PLOS ONE 8(2): e56178.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056178 (accessed 5 June 2015).</li>
<li>Benartzi, S., & Lehrer, J. (2015). The smarter screen: Surprising ways to influence and improve online behavior. Portfolio.</li>
<li>Diemand-Yauman, C., Oppenheimer, D.M., and Vaughan E.B. (2011). Fortune favors the Bold and (the Italicized). Effects of Disfluency on Educational Outcomes. Cognition 118.1, 111-115.</li>
<li></li>
<li>Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological science, 25(6), 1159-1168. <a href="https://sites.udel.edu/victorp/files/2010/11/Psychological-Science-2014-Mueller-0956797614524581-1u0h0yu.pdf">Google Scholar</a>.</li>
<li>Kaufman, G., Flanagan, M. (2016). High-Low Split: Divergent Cognitive Construal Levels Triggered by Digital and Non-digital Platforms. #chi4good, CHI 2016, San Jose, CA, USA</li>
<li>Sadegh, M. (2015). Pisa-Studie - Computer machen den Unterricht nicht automatisch besser. Die Zeit, http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/schule/2015-09/pisa-computer-internet-international</li>
</ol>
Jürgen Derlathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13180222385475786385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3301960398433244286.post-28222531981793232012014-10-15T17:28:00.001+02:002018-09-06T22:53:51.397+02:00Measuring the Sense of Community in Online Communities<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglfofMuIc-Ma0GuzxBaPH1A53x87X1xB5V-BMQNiTAJw6-Y7xxUMNQud3IvEsijGYNVmkH-kLmJUbs7cEFkow5u5VhOBQLF_QwTgftdDfOIz26Ket2OblcXn0_sgqjheZ7r-oz_uOM88Vt/s1600/measuring+SOC.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="1200" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglfofMuIc-Ma0GuzxBaPH1A53x87X1xB5V-BMQNiTAJw6-Y7xxUMNQud3IvEsijGYNVmkH-kLmJUbs7cEFkow5u5VhOBQLF_QwTgftdDfOIz26Ket2OblcXn0_sgqjheZ7r-oz_uOM88Vt/s320/measuring+SOC.png" width="320" /></a>A strong sense of community (SOC) is considered to be desirable because it fosters pro-social behavior of community members and helps deal with external challenges/threats (cf. <a href="http://the-virtual-community-blog.blogspot.de/2013/08/p-margin-bottom-0.html" target="_blank">Sense of community in virtual communities</a>). So every community manager should be highly interested in assessing the SOC of her/his community. But measuring the SOC and interpreting the result is by no means easy.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<h3>
Sense of Community: Face-to-face communities vs. online communities</h3>
Originally, the SOC-concept was developed for face-to-face communities (geographical neighborhoods). McMillan and Chavis (1986) [1] suggest four dimensions which work together dynamically in order to create and maintain an overall sense of community:<br />
<br />
<strong>1. Membership [MEM]:</strong> The concept includes emotional safety derived from membership, the sense of belonging and identification with the community, personal investment in the community leading to stronger bonds, and some kind of common symbol system, which unites a community. These attributes go together in a mutually self-reinforcing way.<br />
<br />
<strong>2. Influence [INFL] </strong>means a reciprocal relationship between individuals and the community in terms of their impact on one another. Influence is a bi-directional concept, as for a group to be attractive, an individual must feel they have some control and influence over it, while, on the other hand, for a group to be cohesive it must also influence its individual members. McMillan and Chavis (1986) state that pressure of conformity from community members actually comes from the needs of individual members for consensual validation. In turn conformity serves as a force for cohesiveness.<br />
<br />
<strong>3. Integration and Fulfillment of Needs [IFN]:</strong> Members must perceive the association to the community as rewarding for the individual (like status of membership, or the possibility to share in the success of the community, and the perceived competence of other individuals in the community who might help the member with her/his own issues).<br />
<br />
<strong>4. Shared Emotional Connection [SEC]:</strong> The more people interact, the more likely they are to form close relationships. The more positive this interaction, the stronger the bond developed.<br />
<br />
SOC soon became an important enabler for the success of face-to-face communities. It was said to<br />
<ul>
<li>increase participation and feelings of belonging, </li>
<li>hold community development efforts together, </li>
<li>lead to satisfaction with and commitment to the community, </li>
<li>enhance involvement and problem focused coping behavior, </li>
<li>have a positive impact on the sustainability of a community </li>
<li>lead to higher satisfaction, participation, and commitment within social structures (cf. [10] for the relevant literature). </li>
</ul>
In 2002, Obst et al. [1a] published the results of their investigation about the sense of community (cf. <a href="http://the-virtual-community-blog.blogspot.de/2014/05/sense-of-community-is-there-fifth.html" target="_blank">Sense of community - Is there a fifth dimension?</a>) They had asked 359 members of SF fandom attending Aussiecon 3, the 1999 World Science Fiction Convention how they feel about the fandom community (a - relational - community of interest with membership from all over the world) and about their neighborhood (a geographical community). McMillan and Chavis' four dimensions of SOC could be established in both communities (SF fandom and neighborhood). BUT: In-group identification was a separate 5th dimension in both community types.<br />
All five dimensions were significant predictors of overall sense of community in both community types but acted differently with respect to the community type:<br />
<ul>
<li>Conscious identification with fandom emerged as the strongest predictor, while in the neighborhood setting it was the weakest predictor.</li>
<li>Belonging was a strong predictor in both communities. This suggests that belonging is an important dimension of sense of community in whatever context we are examining.</li>
<li>Identification, however, seems to be more important in the communities to which we choose to belong than in those communities which we may have made a less conscious decision to join.</li>
<li>Influence was an important predictor in geographical communities, however not at all important in the interest community. This may again be due to the element of perceived choice. If you choose to belong to an association due to common interest the need for influence over that association may be less than the need to feel some control or influence over the area in which you live. </li>
</ul>
Another researcher, Anita Blanchard [8], too, had found a considerable overlap between the senses of community for face-to-face and virtual communities, but there were also significant differences (cf. <a href="http://the-virtual-community-blog.blogspot.de/2013/01/sense-of-virtual-community-antecedents.html" target="_blank">Sense of virtual community: Antecedents and consequences for community management</a>):<br />
<ul>
<li>Influence may be less important to members in online communities than to members of face-to-face communities. (Note: Koh & Kim [8], on the other hand, stress the importance of influence in online communities, cf. <a href="http://the-virtual-community-blog.blogspot.de/2014/08/sense-of-community-alternative-approach.html" target="_blank">Sense of community - an alternative approach</a>).</li>
<li>Additionally, members in online communities feel that they know the personalities of others and experience and observe more personal relationships than do members of face-to-face communities.</li>
</ul>
Thus, there seem to be important differences between the sense of community in virtual communities (SOVC) and the sense of community in face-to-face communities (SOC). Using the same tool for measuring the sense of community in both communities may not be rewarding.<br />
<h3>
Measuring the SOC - The Sense of Community Index (SCI)</h3>
One tool for measuring the SOC in face-to-face communities is the Sense of Community Index (SCI) which is said to be the most widely used measure of the construct. It was developed as part of the seminal New York City Block Booster action-research project. [2] The scale items are published in the appendix of Perkins et al. (1990). [3].<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, there was never a confirmation of its intended dimensions or sub scales measuring the four aspects of SOC (MEM, INFL, IFN, SEC). Several studies tried to find out which item measured which aspect of SOC. The results are in the table. Item #10 (It is very important to me to live on this particular block.) for example "somehow" measures all four aspects, depending on the community under study.<br />
<br />
<b>Table:</b> <b>Comparison of factor structure found across studies</b> [6]<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdMmaQhMVVQ721ncu-QUJhINeRmWFMbDBWvC6TLeLsDJ3N2SFXOSzOT3WFAZdNbvp0Y-j2rLg-YtL9aHnbo87JwTzzULeLa6akwp2vlVBonaShYTr2zNGzR0BfHnWOWb9fmYHrdcLi0UUh/s1600/measuring_soc_table_1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdMmaQhMVVQ721ncu-QUJhINeRmWFMbDBWvC6TLeLsDJ3N2SFXOSzOT3WFAZdNbvp0Y-j2rLg-YtL9aHnbo87JwTzzULeLa6akwp2vlVBonaShYTr2zNGzR0BfHnWOWb9fmYHrdcLi0UUh/s1600/measuring_soc_table_1.png" /></a></div>
*) Original: resident survey data from 47 street blocks in five neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Queens, New York (1985 - 1986)<br />
**) Obst et. al: geographical community data<br />
***) Chipuer & Pretty: adult neighborhood data<br />
****) Obst & White: university students' community, two items removed because not applicable<br />
<h3>
Blanchard's SOVC - an adaption of the original SCI</h3>
Based on her prior findings, Anita Blanchard [7] developed a sense of virtual community (SOVC) measure, on the basis of the SCI. Given the differences between face-to-face communities, there may be items in the SCI that do not have relevance in virtual communities, and the SCI may be missing parts of the SOVC. The questionnaire had 22 items; four items from the SCI had to be eliminated because they were inappropriate. The resulting 18 items in the SOVC measure are evenly divided between the SCI and newly developed measures. The newly developed items were introduced in order to assess support and identification. The SOVC had a Likert type response set (1 = never to 4 = quite a lot), whereas the SCI had a true-false response set.<br />
Items adapted from the original SCI<br />
<ul>
<li>Q1. I think this group is a good place for me to be a member.</li>
<li>Q3. Other members and I want the same thing from this group.</li>
<li>Q4. I can recognize the names most members in this group.</li>
<li>Q5. I feel at home in this group.</li>
<li>Q7. I care about what other group members think of my actions.</li>
<li>Q9. If there is a problem in this group, there are members here who can solve it.</li>
<li>Q10. It is very important to me to be a member of this group.</li>
<li>Q12. I expect to stay in this group for a long time.</li>
</ul>
Deleted during the analysis<br />
<ul>
<li>Q2. Members of this group do not share the same values.</li>
<li>Q6. Very few other group members know me.</li>
<li>Q8. I have no influence over what this group is like.</li>
<li>Q11. Members of this group generally don’t get along with each other.</li>
</ul>
Additional items related to "support"<br />
<ul>
<li>Q13. I anticipate how some members will react to certain questions or issues in this group.</li>
<li>Q14. I get a lot out of being in this group.</li>
<li>Q15. I’ve had questions that have been answered by this group.</li>
<li>Q16. I’ve gotten support from this group.</li>
<li>Q17. Some members of this group have friendships with each other.</li>
<li>Q18. I have friends in this group.</li>
<li>Q19. Some members of this group can be counted on to help others.</li>
</ul>
Additional items related to "identification"<br />
<ul>
<li>Q20. I feel obligated to help others in this group.</li>
<li>Q21. I really like this group.</li>
<li>Q22. This group means a lot to me.</li>
</ul>
Interestingly, Blanchard circumvent the problem of attributing the items to different scales measuring different aspects of the SOVC, she measured an overall factor instead. The test in listservs and Usenet newsgroups ranging from pet lovers to human resource professionals showed that the 18-items SOVC questionnaire was a more sensitive measure than the SCI.<br />
<h3>
The Sense of Community Index 2 (SCI-2) © - a revision of the SCI [9]</h3>
In 2008, Chavis et al. [9] presented a revision of the SCI, a 24 item Sense of Community Index version 2 (SCI-2). The revised version comes with a Likert-scale response format (1 = not at all, 4 = completely) and was used in a survey with 1.800 people. Unlike SCI, it was able to cover all the attributes of a sense of community described in the original theory - but in a face-to-face community context. Here are the items:<br />
Reinforcement of Needs<br />
<ul>
<li>1. I get important needs of mine met because I am part of this community.</li>
<li>2. Community members and I value the same things.</li>
<li>3. This community has been successful in getting the needs of its members met.</li>
<li>4. Being a member of this community makes me feel good.</li>
<li>5. When I have a problem, I can talk about it with members of this community.</li>
<li>6. People in this community have similar needs, priorities, and goals.</li>
</ul>
Membership<br />
<ul>
<li>7. I can trust people in this community.</li>
<li>8. I can recognize most of the members of this community.</li>
<li>9. Most community members know me.</li>
<li>10. This community has symbols and expressions of membership such as clothes, signs, art, architecture, logos, landmarks, and flags that people can recognize.</li>
<li>11. I put a lot of time and effort into being part of this community.</li>
<li>12. Being a member of this community is a part of my identity.</li>
</ul>
Influence<br />
<ul>
<li>13. Fitting into this community is important to me.</li>
<li>14. This community can influence other communities.</li>
<li>15. I care about what other community members think of me.</li>
<li>16. I have influence over what this community is like.</li>
<li>17. If there is a problem in this community, members can get it solved.</li>
<li>18. This community has good leaders.</li>
</ul>
Shared emotional connection<br />
<ul>
<li>19. It is very important to me to be a part of this community.</li>
<li>20. I am with other community members a lot and enjoy being with them.</li>
<li>21. I expect to be a part of this community for a long time.</li>
<li>22. Members of this community have shared important events together, such as holidays, celebrations, or disasters.</li>
<li>23. I feel hopeful about the future of this community.</li>
<li>24. Members of this community care about each other.</li>
</ul>
Abfalter at al. [10] tested a German version of the SCI-2 in an online community for elderly Germans (http://feierabend.de, approximately 163k members as of May 2011, 312 respondents). Nine items of the SCI-2 had to be eliminated because they did not measure SOVC. However, the remaining 15 measures suggested a good fit of all four dimensions of the SOC. Here are the eliminated items:<br />
Reinforcement of Needs<br />
<ul>
<li>2. Community members and I value the same things.</li>
<li>3. This community has been successful in getting the needs of its members met.</li>
<li>4. Being a member of this community makes me feel good.</li>
</ul>
<span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Membership</span><br />
<ul>
<li>8. I can recognize most of the members of this community.</li>
<li>10. This community has symbols and expressions of membership such as clothes, signs, art, architecture, logos, landmarks, and flags that people can recognize.</li>
<li>11. I put a lot of time and effort into being part of this community.</li>
<li>12. Being a member of this community is a part of my identity.</li>
</ul>
Influence<br />
<ul>
<li>15. I care about what other community members think of me.</li>
</ul>
Shared emotional connection<br />
<ul>
<li>22. Members of this community have shared important events together, such as holidays, celebrations, or disasters.</li>
</ul>
Responsible for this elimination are several particularities of the Feierabend-Community:<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><strong>Community size:</strong> In a large community, members have little knowledge about each other. How should they know whether all other members value the same things? Furthermore, in a large community the members' needs and well-being are likely to vary enormously which may explain why item #3 and item #4 had to be dropped.</span></li>
<li><strong>Members' motivation:</strong> In communities where getting a certain information is the members' primary concern, the individual member may not have to invest a lot of time and effort, which would explain the exclusion of item #11. But, if the questionnaire had been accidentally distributed solely among the community's core members the result might have been different.</li>
<li><strong>Anonymity:</strong> The authors assume that anonymity is the main reason why so many items measuring the membership aspect of SOVC - in this study - did not measure SOVC significantly. For example, why should I care about what other community members think of me (item #15) if I can remain anonymous?</li>
<li><strong>Community type:</strong> Some items (like item #10) are only applicable to face-to-face communities (or at least to virtual communities where members meet face-to-face on a regular basis like sci-fi fandom conventions).</li>
</ul>
Therefore, Abfalter et al. suggest to rephrase some of the eliminated items from the perspective of a member of a large online community.<br />
<h3>
And how about the practical implications?</h3>
After so many studies and empirical evidence, can we help a community manager in this situation?<br />
<blockquote>
I've got a product support community (X active members, Y post per day) with a SOC-score of 2.4. Is that good? Can I improve that score, given the performance of other communities in this domain? The lowest sub-score is for shared emotional connection with 1.2. Should I invest more time in improving it or is this score generally low for communities like mine?</blockquote>
No, unfortunately, we can't (yet).<br />
<br />
Obviously, every approach to measure SO(V)C seems to be different - like the communities to which the measures are applied. The biggest difference is the one between face-to-face communities and online communities. Online communities, for example, use different means of communication, provide a media-rich and playful environment, and they are often anonymous. These differences raise doubt whether SOC measures for face-to-face communities can be applied to communities in a virtual setting [10].<br />
<br />
One could use for instance the SCI-2 as it is but it must be clear that what it measures is not the "true" SOVC of the community but only something somehow related to the original SOC-concept. (Of course, remeasuring the same community with the same index from time to time may give one valuable insights into the communities evolution). But the results of community A cannot be compared with those of community B because the SCI-2 may have measured two different SOC-related concepts. Therefore, benchmarking one's community in this way is impossible.<br />
But how about the adapted indices? Does taking one of those questionnaires and applying it to a community give one the community's "true" SOVC? The adapted versions omit several items which were irrelevant in the communities under study but which might be relevant in the community at hand. Much seems to depend therefore on the characteristics of the online community.<br />
<br />
So, what can be done?<br />
<br />
There is a proven SOC-concept. There are a lot of hints about how to apply it to online communities and there are items that seem to be appropriate to measure the SOVC (somehow). Suppose then, there is an index with applicable items. In a first step, one could use this same index in as many communities as possible to identify those items which measure the SOC best and form the four sub scales - controlling for such community characteristics as size, type (newsgroup, blog, support forum etc.), anonymity, members (gamers, business professionals, consumers etc.), demographics, participation level etc. At this stage, it is perhaps possible to filter out irrelevant items and variables. With many participating communities one could establish a definite set of items and variables to be controlled. The result would be a database for benchmarking purposes. Insert your community's characteristics and the database would provide you with the data from comparable communities.<br />
<br />
---------------------------------------------------------<br />
[1] McMillan, D., & Chavis, D. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=11547470462789155824&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>. See also Dr. David McMillan's <a href="http://www.drdavidmcmillan.com/category/community/" target="_blank">website</a> for a detailed description of SOC and the dynamics of its components and an instructive (and very entertaining) video from the CMX SUMMIT 2014.<br />
<br />
[1a] Obst, P., Zinkiewicz, L., & Smith, S. G. (2002). Sense of community in science fiction fandom, Part 1: Understanding sense of community in an international community of interest. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(1), 87-103. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=5009836727268317305&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>.<br />
<br />
Obst, P., Zinkiewicz, L., & Smith, S. G. (2002). Sense of community in science fiction fandom, Part 2: Comparing neighborhood and interest group sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(1), 105-117. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=2161608922812754981&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>.<br />
<br />
Obst, P., Smith, S. G., & Zinkiewicz, L. (2002). An exploration of sense of community, Part 3: Dimensions and predictors of psychological sense of community in geographical communities. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(1), 119-133. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=7848454100748160572&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>.<br />
<br />
[2] Long, D. A., & Perkins, D. (2003)."Confirmatory factor analysis of the sense of community index and development of a brief SCI." Journal of Community Psychology 31.3 (2003): 279-296. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=9447480177425943157&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>.<br />
<br />
[3] Perkins, D. D., Florin, P., Rich, R. C., Wandersman, A., & Chavis, D. M. (1990). Participation and the social and physical environment of residential blocks: Crime and community context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(1), 83-115. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=2648375085301746281&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>.<br />
<br />
[4] Obst, P., Smith, S. G., & Zinkiewicz, L. (2002). An exploration of sense of community, Part 3: Dimensions and predictors of psychological sense of community in geographical communities. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(1), 119-133. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=7848454100748160572&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>.<br />
<br />
[5] Chipuer, H. & Pretty, G. (1999). A review of the sense of community index: current uses, factor structure, reliability, and further development. Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 643-658. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=14907415277533433436&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>.<br />
<br />
[6] Obst, P. L., & White, K.M. (2004). Revisiting the sense of community Index: A confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Community Psychology, 32(6), 691-705. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=16607258671553547801&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>.<br />
<br />
[7] Blanchard, A. L. (2007). Developing a sense of virtual community measure. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(6), 827-830. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=3174299329794690512&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>.<br />
<br />
[8] Blanchard, Anita L. and Markus, M. Lynne (2004). The Experienced "Sense" of a Virtual Community: Characteristics and Processes. Database for Advances in Information Systems; Winter 2004; ABI/INFORM Global p. 65; <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=9846191673398390140&hl=de&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>.<br />
<br />
Koh, J., Kim, Y. G., & Kim, Y. G. (2003). Sense of virtual community: A conceptual framework and empirical validation. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(2), 75-94. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=17045903345260109094&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>.<br />
<br />
[9] Chavis, D.M., Lee, K.S., & Acosta J.D. (2008). The Sense of Community (SCI) Revised: The Reliability and Validity of the SCI-2. Paper presented at the 2nd International Community Psychology Conference, Lisboa, Portugal. <a href="http://www.communityscience.com/pdfs/Sense%20of%20Community%20Index-2(SCI-2).pdf" target="_blank">Google</a>.<br />
<br />
There is a SCI-2 questionnaire in the section <a href="https://communitygeek.com/content/measuring-sense-community-sci-2-questionnaire" target="_blank">Resources</a> of Community Geek.<br />
For further translations of the SCI-2 into French, Spanish and Portuguese as well as for further resources see: <a href="http://www.senseofcommunity.com/show-files.php?category=11" target="_blank">http://www.senseofcommunity.com/show-files.php?category=11</a><br />
<br />
[10] Abfalter, D., Zaglia, M. E., & Mueller, J. (2012). Sense of virtual community: A follow up on its measurement. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 400-404. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=11805960497804373731&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>.Jürgen Derlathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13180222385475786385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3301960398433244286.post-26528561463105717452014-08-19T13:41:00.000+02:002018-01-15T17:40:22.708+01:00Sense of Community: An Alternative ApproachThe empirical study of Koh & Kim (2003) [1] on the sense of community is interesting in three respects: Firstly, the authors offer an alternative conceptualization, secondly, they try to identify antecedents, and thirdly, this study reveals the importance of offline activities for the SOC in virtual communtities.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<h3>
<b>An alternative conceptualisation</b></h3>
Originally, McMillan & Chavis (1968) [2] developed a concept for the sense of community with four elements (cf. <a href="http://the-virtual-community-blog.blogspot.de/2013/08/p-margin-bottom-0.html">Sense of Community in Virtual Communities</a>):<br />
<ul>
<li>Membership: The feeling of belonging to a community.</li>
<li>Influence: The feeling that one can make a difference in the community.</li>
<li>Integration and fulfillment of needs: The perception that the community's resources will meet ones needs.</li>
<li>Shared emotional connection: Members share history, time, places, and experiences.</li>
</ul>
Koh & Kim (2003) integrate only membership and influence in their concept and add one new dimension - immersion. Integration and fulfillment of needs is omitted because it seems to be more of an antecedent than an element, and shared emotional connection is rather a part of the membership dimension than a independent element. The new aspect immersion is based on the flow concept of Csikszentimihalyi (1975) [3].<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Since virtual community members tend to display immersive (or addictive) behavior toward their community via daily on-line communications the concept of flow is also relevant in the virtual community context."</blockquote>
<h3>
<b>Possible antecedents of sense of community</b></h3>
By qualitative research (among others a series of in-depth interviews with a group of virtual community leaders) three meaningful antecedents were identified:<br />
<br />
<b>1. Leaders' enthusiasm:</b> Community leaders are people who manage (both commercial and non-commercial) virtual communities. They may be either community managers or core members that play a very active role in managing the community. Their engagement during the different stages of the community helps virtual community members feel greater membership toward their community.<br />
<br />
<b>2. Offline meetings</b> make up for the comparably low social presence in computer-mediated environments. Offline activities help members understand, trust, and identify other members more easily and they enhance the solidarity and cohesiveness of a virtual community and lead its members to higher levels of membership, influence, and immersion.<br />
<br />
<b>3. Enjoyability</b> refers to such outcomes as emotion, pleasure, and satisfaction result from the playfulness experience derived from the community's content and interactions with other members.<br />
<br />
<b>Community origin</b> (virtual vs. face-to-face) was introduced as a moderating variable which influences the relationship between the antecedents and the sense of virtual community. The moderator variable weakens or strengthens the effect that the independent variable (antecedent) has on the dependent variable (SOC).<br />
<br />
From a list of 50 virtual communities willing to participate in the study, six were dropped because they did not satisfy the selection criteria (i.e., less than 20 members, no interactions for at least two months). Each of the 44 community leaders got five paper-based (not electronic) questionnaires which they randomly distributed to five other community members (n = 220).<br />
<br />
On this basis a factor analysis was conducted in order to make sure that each item measured the right antecedent. The effects of the antecedents on the sense of virtual community were examined with three regression analyses.<br />
<h3>
<b>Results, conclusions and limitations</b></h3>
The sense of virtual community construct was confirmed to have three valid dimensions: membership, influence, and immersion. The dimensions were influenced by the antecedents in the following way:<br />
<ul>
<li>Membership was significantly affected by offline activities, leaders' enthusiasm, and enjoyability - in that order.</li>
<li>Influence was significantly affected by offline activities.</li>
<li>Immersion was influenced only by enjoyability,</li>
</ul>
Contrary to expectations, offline activities did not seem to have a significant effect on immersion (members' online activities). The author explain this result with the fact that offline activities is a double-edged sword: Offline activities encourage members to participate actively in the community but due to the loss of anonymity and heightened social presence, offline activities hinder members from becoming fully immersed in the virtual community.<br />
<br />
The relationship between antecedents and the dimensions of the sense of community was stronger for online originated virtual community members than for offline originated virtual community members. Or in other words: Members from online originated virtual communities displayed a much steeper rise in membership and influence values than those from offline originated virtual communities as the values of the two antecedents (i.e., leaders' enthusiasm and off-line activities) increased.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgefptKXK4wl_WsNnvFgrJwW-subBC3gUJI5CUKOIsJIS3mNXGOWUI2TmcA9P8mAUKysTtEloqstkoGBjGOXkLjAgK85SLLFKUGoN_VS58TaNfXBOSHSm86MvmZbu10f9fTQhTFDnQZJxa6/s1600/Schaubild1.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="282" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgefptKXK4wl_WsNnvFgrJwW-subBC3gUJI5CUKOIsJIS3mNXGOWUI2TmcA9P8mAUKysTtEloqstkoGBjGOXkLjAgK85SLLFKUGoN_VS58TaNfXBOSHSm86MvmZbu10f9fTQhTFDnQZJxa6/s1600/Schaubild1.png" width="400" /></a></div>
An unexpected and major finding of this study is certainly the important role of offline activities. This is a great opportunity for community management.<br />
<i><br /></i> Another interesting finding is the significant effect of enjoyability on membership and immersion. Enjoyability represents the pleasure the individual member gets from the virtual community's content and interactions with other members, perhaps a reflection of the needs-fulfillment dimension of the original SOC-concept.<br />
<br />
Community management, to be sure, had an impact on membership, but not on influence or immersion. This limited influence is a little bit disappointing.<br />
<br />
The authors admit that the study's general applicability may be limited. Although the research model was interpreted mostly in one direction (from antecedent to sense of virtual community), an opposite-direction interpretation is not strictly ruled out. Furthermore, the research model may not be relevant for business-to-consumer communities with few offline activities and few interactions among members.<br />
<br />
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
[1] Koh, J., Kim, Y. G., & Kim, Y. G. (2003). Sense of virtual community: A conceptual framework and empirical validation. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(2), 75-94. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=17045903345260109094&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>.<br />
<br />
[2] McMillan, D., & Chavis, D. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=11547470462789155824&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>. See also Dr. David McMillan's <a href="http://www.drdavidmcmillan.com/category/community/" target="_blank">website</a> for a detailed description of SOC and the dynamics of its components and an instructive (and very entertaining) video from the CMX SUMMIT 2014.<br />
<br />
[3] Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). <i>Beyond Boredom and Anxiety.</i> San Francisco: Jossey-Bass<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Jürgen Derlathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13180222385475786385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3301960398433244286.post-89067208507819346832014-08-18T20:46:00.003+02:002019-06-10T20:19:15.747+02:00Measuring the Sense of Community in Online CommunitiesA strong sense of community (SOC) is considered to be desirable because it fosters pro-social behavior of community members and helps deal with external challenges/threats (cf. <a href="http://the-virtual-community-blog.blogspot.de/2013/08/p-margin-bottom-0.html" target="_blank">Sense of community in virtual communities</a>). So every community manager should be highly interested in assessing the SOC of her/his community. But measuring the SOC and interpreting the result is by no means easy.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Sense of Community: Face-to-face communities vs. online communities</h3>
<br />
Originally, the SOC-concept was developed for face-to-face communities (geographical neighborhoods). McMillan and Chavis (1986) [1] suggest four dimensions which work together dynamically in order to create and maintain an overall sense of community:<br />
<br />
<strong>1. Membership [MEM]:</strong> The concept includes emotional safety derived from membership, the sense of belonging and identification with the community, personal investment in the community leading to stronger bonds, and some kind of common symbol system, which unites a community. These attributes go together in a mutually self-reinforcing way. <br />
<br />
<strong>2. Influence [INFL] </strong>means a reciprocal relationship between individuals and the community in terms of their impact on one another. Influence is a bi-directional concept, as for a group to be attractive, an individual must feel they have some control and influence over it, while, on the other hand, for a group to be cohesive it must also influence its individual members. McMillan and Chavis (1986) state that pressure of conformity from community members actually comes from the needs of individual members for consensual validation. In turn conformity serves as a force for cohesiveness. <br />
<br />
<strong>3. Integration and Fulfillment of Needs [IFN]:</strong> Members must perceive the association to the community as rewarding for the individual (like status of membership, or the possibility to share in the success of the community, and the perceived competence of other individuals in the community who might help the member with her/his own issues). <br />
<br />
<strong>4. Shared Emotional Connection [SEC]:</strong> The more people interact, the more likely they are to form close relationships. The more positive this interaction, the stronger the bond developed. <br />
<br />
SOC soon became an important enabler for the success of face-to-face communities. It was said to<br />
<ul>
<li>increase participation and feelings of belonging, </li>
<li>hold community development efforts together, </li>
<li>lead to satisfaction with and commitment to the community, </li>
<li>enhance involvement and problem focused coping behavior, </li>
<li>have a positive impact on the sustainability of a community </li>
<li>lead to higher satisfaction, participation, and commitment within social structures (cf. [10] for the relevant literature). </li>
</ul>
In 2002, Obst et al. [1a] published the results of their investigation about the sense of community (cf. <a href="http://the-virtual-community-blog.blogspot.de/2014/05/sense-of-community-is-there-fifth.html" target="_blank">Sense of community - Is there a fifth dimension?</a>) They had asked 359 members of SF fandom attending Aussiecon 3, the 1999 World Science Fiction Convention how they feel about the fandom community (a - relational - community of interest with membership from all over the world) and about their neighborhood (a geographical community). McMillan and Chavis' four dimensions of SOC could be established in both communities (SF fandom and neighborhood). BUT: In-group identification was a separate 5th dimension in both community types.<br />
All five dimensions were significant predictors of overall sense of community in both community types but acted differently with respect to the community type:<br />
<ul>
<li>Conscious identification with fandom emerged as the strongest predictor, while in the neighborhood setting it was the weakest predictor.</li>
<li>Belonging was a strong predictor in both communities. This suggests that belonging is an important dimension of sense of community in whatever context we are examining.</li>
<li>Identification, however, seems to be more important in the communities to which we choose to belong than in those communities which we may have made a less conscious decision to join.</li>
<li>Influence was an important predictor in geographical communities, however not at all important in the interest community. This may again be due to the element of perceived choice. If you choose to belong to an association due to common interest the need for influence over that association may be less than the need to feel some control or influence over the area in which you live. </li>
</ul>
Another researcher, Anita Blanchard [8], too, had found a considerable overlap between the senses of community for face-to-face and virtual communities, but there were also significant differences (cf. <a href="http://the-virtual-community-blog.blogspot.de/2013/01/sense-of-virtual-community-antecedents.html" target="_blank">Sense of virtual community: Antecedents and consequences for community management</a>):<br />
<ul>
<li>Influence may be less important to members in online communities than to members of face-to-face communities. (Note: Koh & Kim [8], on the other hand, stress the importance of influence in online communities, cf. Sense of community - an alternative approach).</li>
<li>Additionally, members in online communities feel that they know the personalities of others and experience and observe more personal relationships than do members of face-to-face communities.</li>
</ul>
Thus, there seem to be important differences between the sense of community in virtual communities (SOVC) and the sense of community in face-to-face communities (SOC). Using the same tool for measuring the sense of community in both communities may not be rewarding.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Measuring the SOC - The Sense of Community Index (SCI)</h3>
<br />
One tool for measuring the SOC in face-to-face communities is the Sense of Community Index (SCI) which is said to be the most widely used measure of the construct. It was developed as part of the seminal New York City Block Booster action-research project. [2] The scale items are published in the appendix of Perkins et al. (1990). [3].<br />
Unfortunately, there was never a confirmation of its intended dimensions or sub scales measuring the four aspects of SOC (MEM, INFL, IFN, SEC). Several studies tried to find out which item measured which aspect of SOC. The results are in the table. Item #10 (It is very important to me to live on this particular block.) for example "somehow" measures all four aspects, depending on the community under study.<br />
<br />
Table 1: Comparison of factor structure found across studies [6]<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmhMnFkbHgUeWRpPqQY52lJdfDQkW1B4MlHPg9nYq9fHVXxk4_NACUUB-LwI7f7eJi6O71m35KqpXuhtFxaBGJ-h1zCdHCQPnAlLruWsQW1qn6VcVzLqL-CRV4hZYB9K7kzwJcyPUzMxA3/s1600/Measuring_SOC_Table.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="290" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmhMnFkbHgUeWRpPqQY52lJdfDQkW1B4MlHPg9nYq9fHVXxk4_NACUUB-LwI7f7eJi6O71m35KqpXuhtFxaBGJ-h1zCdHCQPnAlLruWsQW1qn6VcVzLqL-CRV4hZYB9K7kzwJcyPUzMxA3/s1600/Measuring_SOC_Table.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><div style="font-size: medium; text-align: start;">
Obst, P. L., & White, K.M. (2004). Revisiting the sense of community Index: A confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Community Psychology, 32(6), 691-705. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=16607258671553547801&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>.</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
*) Original: resident survey data from 47 street blocks in five neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Queens, New York (1985 - 1986)<br />
**) Obst et. al: geographical community data<br />
***) Chipuer & Pretty: adult neighborhood data<br />
****) Obst & White: university students' community, two items removed because not applicable<br />
<br />
<h3>
Blanchard's SOVC - an adaption of the original SCI</h3>
<br />
Based on her prior findings, Anita Blanchard [7] developed a sense of virtual community (SOVC) measure, on the basis of the SCI. Given the differences between face-to-face communities, there may be items in the SCI that do not have relevance in virtual communities, and the SCI may be missing parts of the SOVC. The questionnaire had 22 items; four items from the SCI had to be eliminated because they were inappropriate. The resulting 18 items in the SOVC measure are evenly divided between the SCI and newly developed measures. The newly developed items were introduced in order to assess support and identification. The SOVC had a Likert type response set (1 = never to 4 = quite a lot), whereas the SCI had a true-false response set.<br />
Items adapted from the original SCI<br />
<ul>
<li>Q1. I think this group is a good place for me to be a member.</li>
<li>Q3. Other members and I want the same thing from this group.</li>
<li>Q4. I can recognize the names most members in this group.</li>
<li>Q5. I feel at home in this group.</li>
<li>Q7. I care about what other group members think of my actions.</li>
<li>Q9. If there is a problem in this group, there are members here who can solve it.</li>
<li>Q10. It is very important to me to be a member of this group.</li>
<li>Q12. I expect to stay in this group for a long time.</li>
</ul>
Deleted during the analysis<br />
<ul>
<li>Q2. Members of this group do not share the same values.</li>
<li>Q6. Very few other group members know me.</li>
<li>Q8. I have no influence over what this group is like.</li>
<li>Q11. Members of this group generally don’t get along with each other.</li>
</ul>
Additional items related to "support"<br />
<ul>
<li>Q13. I anticipate how some members will react to certain questions or issues in this group.</li>
<li>Q14. I get a lot out of being in this group.</li>
<li>Q15. I’ve had questions that have been answered by this group.</li>
<li>Q16. I’ve gotten support from this group.</li>
<li>Q17. Some members of this group have friendships with each other.</li>
<li>Q18. I have friends in this group.</li>
<li>Q19. Some members of this group can be counted on to help others.</li>
</ul>
Additional items related to "identification"<br />
<ul>
<li>Q20. I feel obligated to help others in this group.</li>
<li>Q21. I really like this group.</li>
<li>Q22. This group means a lot to me.</li>
</ul>
Interestingly, Blanchard circumvent the problem of attributing the items to different scales measuring different aspects of the SOVC, she measured an overall factor instead. The test in listservs and Usenet newsgroups ranging from pet lovers to human resource professionals showed that the 18-items SOVC questionnaire was a more sensitive measure than the SCI.<br />
<br />
<h3>
The Sense of Community Index 2 (SCI-2) © - a revision of the SCI [9]</h3>
<br />
In 2008, Chavis et al. [9] presented a revision of the SCI, a 24 item Sense of Community Index version 2 (SCI-2). The revised version comes with a Likert-scale response format (1 = not at all, 4 = completely) and was used in a survey with 1.800 people. Unlike SCI, it was able to cover all the attributes of a sense of community described in the original theory - but in a face-to-face community context. Here are the items:<br />
Reinforcement of Needs<br />
<ul>
<li>1. I get important needs of mine met because I am part of this community.</li>
<li>2. Community members and I value the same things.</li>
<li>3. This community has been successful in getting the needs of its members met.</li>
<li>4. Being a member of this community makes me feel good.</li>
<li>5. When I have a problem, I can talk about it with members of this community.</li>
<li>6. People in this community have similar needs, priorities, and goals.</li>
</ul>
Membership<br />
<ul>
<li>7. I can trust people in this community.</li>
<li>8. I can recognize most of the members of this community.</li>
<li>9. Most community members know me.</li>
<li>10. This community has symbols and expressions of membership such as clothes, signs, art, architecture, logos, landmarks, and flags that people can recognize.</li>
<li>11. I put a lot of time and effort into being part of this community.</li>
<li>12. Being a member of this community is a part of my identity.</li>
</ul>
Influence<br />
<ul>
<li>13. Fitting into this community is important to me.</li>
<li>14. This community can influence other communities.</li>
<li>15. I care about what other community members think of me.</li>
<li>16. I have influence over what this community is like.</li>
<li>17. If there is a problem in this community, members can get it solved.</li>
<li>18. This community has good leaders.</li>
</ul>
Shared emotional connection<br />
<ul>
<li>19. It is very important to me to be a part of this community.</li>
<li>20. I am with other community members a lot and enjoy being with them.</li>
<li>21. I expect to be a part of this community for a long time.</li>
<li>22. Members of this community have shared important events together, such as holidays, celebrations, or disasters.</li>
<li>23. I feel hopeful about the future of this community.</li>
<li>24. Members of this community care about each other.</li>
</ul>
Abfalter at al. [10] tested a German version of the SCI-2 in an online community for elderly Germans (http://feierabend.de, approximately 163k members as of May 2011, 312 respondents). Nine items of the SCI-2 had to be eliminated because they did not measure SOVC. However, the remaining 15 measures suggested a good fit of all four dimensions of the SOC. Here are the eliminated items:<br />
Reinforcement of Needs<br />
<ul>
<li>2. Community members and I value the same things.</li>
<li>3. This community has been successful in getting the needs of its members met.</li>
<li>4. Being a member of this community makes me feel good.</li>
</ul>
<span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Membership</span><br />
<ul>
<li>8. I can recognize most of the members of this community.</li>
<li>10. This community has symbols and expressions of membership such as clothes, signs, art, architecture, logos, landmarks, and flags that people can recognize.</li>
<li>11. I put a lot of time and effort into being part of this community.</li>
<li>12. Being a member of this community is a part of my identity.</li>
</ul>
Influence<br />
<ul>
<li>15. I care about what other community members think of me.</li>
</ul>
Shared emotional connection<br />
<ul>
<li>22. Members of this community have shared important events together, such as holidays, celebrations, or disasters.</li>
</ul>
Responsible for this elimination are several particularities of the Feierabend-Community:<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><strong>Community size:</strong> In a large community, members have little knowledge about each other. How should they know whether all other members value the same things? Furthermore, in a large community the members' needs and well-being are likely to vary enormously which may explain why item #3 and item #4 had to be dropped.</span></li>
<li><strong>Members' motivation:</strong> In communities where getting a certain information is the members' primary concern, the individual member may not have to invest a lot of time and effort, which would explain the exclusion of item #11. But, if the questionnaire had been accidentally distributed solely among the community's core members the result might have been different.</li>
<li><strong>Anonymity:</strong> The authors assume that anonymity is the main reason why so many items measuring the membership aspect of SOVC - in this study - did not measure SOVC significantly. For example, why should I care about what other community members think of me (item #15) if I can remain anonymous?</li>
<li><strong>Community type:</strong> Some items (like item #10) are only applicable to face-to-face communities (or at least to virtual communities where members meet face-to-face on a regular basis like sci-fi fandom conventions).</li>
</ul>
Therefore, Abfalter et al. suggest to rephrase some of the eliminated items from the perspective of a member of a large online community.<br />
<br />
<h3>
And how about the practical implications?</h3>
<br />
After so many studies and empirical evidence, can we help a community manager in this situation?<br />
<blockquote>
I've got a product support community (X active members, Y post per day) with a SOC-score of 2.4. Is that good? Can I improve that score, given the performance of other communities in this domain? The lowest sub-score is for shared emotional connection with 1.2. Should I invest more time in improving it or is this score generally low for communities like mine?</blockquote>
No, unfortunately, we can't (yet).<br />
Obviously, every approach to measure SO(V)C seems to be different - like the communities to which the measures are applied. The biggest difference is the one between face-to-face communities and online communities. Online communities, for example, use different means of communication, provide a media-rich and playful environment, and they are often anonymous. These differences raise doubt whether SOC measures for face-to-face communities can be applied to communities in a virtual setting [10].<br />
<br />
One could use for instance the SCI-2 as it is but it must be clear that what it measures is not the "true" SOVC of the community but only something somehow related to the original SOC-concept. (Of course, remeasuring the same community with the same index from time to time may give one valuable insights into the communities evolution). But the results of community A cannot be compared with those of community B because the SCI-2 may have measured two different SOC-related concepts. Therefore, benchmarking one's community in this way is impossible.<br />
But how about the adapted indices? Does taking one of those questionnaires and applying it to a community give one the community's "true" SOVC? The adapted versions omit several items which were irrelevant in the communities under study but which might be relevant in the community at hand. Much seems to depend therefore on the characteristics of the online community.<br />
<br />
So, what can be done? There is a proven SOC-concept. There are a lot of hints about how to apply it to online communities and there are items that seem to be appropriate to measure the SOVC (somehow). Suppose then, there is an index with applicable items. In a first step, one could use this same index in as many communities as possible to identify those items which measure the SOC best and form the four sub scales - controlling for such community characteristics as size, type (newsgroup, blog, support forum etc.), anonymity, members (gamers, business professionals, consumers etc.), demographics, participation level etc. At this stage, it is perhaps possible to filter out irrelevant items and variables. With many participating communities one could establish a definite set of items and variables to be controlled. The result would be a database for benchmarking purposes. Insert your community's characteristics and the database would provide you with the data from comparable communities.<br />
<br />
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
[1] McMillan, D., & Chavis, D. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=11547470462789155824&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>. See also Dr. David McMillan's <a href="http://www.drdavidmcmillan.com/category/community/" target="_blank">website</a> for a detailed description of SOC and the dynamics of its components and an instructive (and very entertaining) video from the CMX SUMMIT 2014.<br />
<br />
[1a] Obst, P., Zinkiewicz, L., & Smith, S. G. (2002). Sense of community in science fiction fandom, Part 1: Understanding sense of community in an international community of interest. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(1), 87-103. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=5009836727268317305&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>.<br />
<br />
Obst, P., Zinkiewicz, L., & Smith, S. G. (2002). Sense of community in science fiction fandom, Part 2: Comparing neighborhood and interest group sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(1), 105-117. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=2161608922812754981&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>.<br />
<br />
Obst, P., Smith, S. G., & Zinkiewicz, L. (2002). An exploration of sense of community, Part 3: Dimensions and predictors of psychological sense of community in geographical communities. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(1), 119-133. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=7848454100748160572&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>.<br />
<br />
[2] Long, D. A., & Perkins, D. (2003)."Confirmatory factor analysis of the sense of community index and development of a brief SCI." Journal of Community Psychology 31.3 (2003): 279-296. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=9447480177425943157&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>.<br />
<br />
[3] Perkins, D. D., Florin, P., Rich, R. C., Wandersman, A., & Chavis, D. M. (1990). Participation and the social and physical environment of residential blocks: Crime and community context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(1), 83-115. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=2648375085301746281&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>.<br />
<br />
[4] Obst, P., Smith, S. G., & Zinkiewicz, L. (2002). An exploration of sense of community, Part 3: Dimensions and predictors of psychological sense of community in geographical communities. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(1), 119-133. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=7848454100748160572&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>.<br />
<br />
[5] Chipuer, H. & Pretty, G. (1999). A review of the sense of community index: current uses, factor structure, reliability, and further development. Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 643-658. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=14907415277533433436&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>.<br />
<br />
[6] Obst, P. L., & White, K.M. (2004). Revisiting the sense of community Index: A confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Community Psychology, 32(6), 691-705. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=16607258671553547801&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>.<br />
<br />
[7] Blanchard, A. L. (2007). Developing a sense of virtual community measure. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(6), 827-830. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=3174299329794690512&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>.<br />
<br />
[8] Blanchard, Anita L. and Markus, M. Lynne (2004). The Experienced "Sense" of a Virtual Community: Characteristics and Processes. Database for Advances in Information Systems; Winter 2004; ABI/INFORM Global p. 65; <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=9846191673398390140&hl=de&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>.<br />
<br />
Koh, J., Kim, Y. G., & Kim, Y. G. (2003). Sense of virtual community: A conceptual framework and empirical validation. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(2), 75-94. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=17045903345260109094&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>.<br />
<br />
[9] Chavis, D.M., Lee, K.S., & Acosta J.D. (2008). The Sense of Community (SCI) Revised: The Reliability and Validity of the SCI-2. Paper presented at the 2nd International Community Psychology Conference, Lisboa, Portugal. <a href="http://www.communityscience.com/pdfs/Sense%20of%20Community%20Index-2(SCI-2).pdf" target="_blank">Google</a>.<br />
<br />
For further translations of the SCI-2 into French, Spanish and Portuguese as well as for further resources see: <a href="http://www.senseofcommunity.com/show-files.php?category=11" target="_blank">http://www.senseofcommunity.com/show-files.php?category=11</a><br />
<br />
[10] Abfalter, D., Zaglia, M. E., & Mueller, J. (2012). Sense of virtual community: A follow up on its measurement. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 400-404. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=11805960497804373731&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5" target="_blank">Google Scholar</a>.Jürgen Derlathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13180222385475786385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3301960398433244286.post-20894688052164855962014-07-22T06:53:00.000+02:002018-01-15T17:39:43.422+01:00Social Relationships in Massive Multiplayer Online GamesTwo studies offer very interesting insights into the social networking behavior of players of fantasy massive multiplayer online role playing games (MMORPG or MMOG). In a longitudinal analysis Shen et al. [1] analyzed the driving factors of social relationships in EverQuest II and Ang et al. [2] had a closer look at the players in a guild in World of Warcraft. At second glance, many results can be generalized to communities of practice.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<b>Massive multiplayer online role playing games </b><br />
<br />
Within a MMORPG each player creates a character to interact with the fictional world and with other players. The players explore the fantasy world, complete quests, kill monsters and gain treasures as well as experience either as solo-players or in player-created (spontaneous) groups or (stable) guilds. The game also has a 'tradeskill' system that allows players to create items for in-game use.<br />
<br />
In the creation of a character, the player may choose the character's race and class. Various classes have specialized abilities that are complementary to the skills of other classes. This is a strong incentive to play in groups when the quest turns out to be very difficult.<br />
<br />
MMORPGs enable social interaction with other players through grouping and through the creation of guilds. Like players, guilds can gain experience and levels, partially from players completing special tasks, but primarily from guild-oriented quests and tasks. Higher guild levels give access to special rewards unavailable to players who are not in guilds. [3]<br />
<br />
<b>Networking in a MMORPG</b><br />
<br />
As theoretical point of reference, Shen et al. chose Campbell's evolutionary framework [4] which explains change in human social systems in terms of an evolutionary selection process: Against the background of scarce resources, not every (randomly originating) variation (= mutation) could be accommodated by the environment, so that only those variations are selected that fit best. These selections are then preserved (retention), duplicated and diffuse into the social system. An extension of this approach to communication networks is described in Monge et al. [5]. In their framework, nodes represent organizations or populations of organizations in a community, and ties can be considered as mechanisms of resource exchange among these nodes. Following the evolutionary argument, an organizational community is constrained in its capacity to sustain the nodes as well as the ties. Monge et al. label them as:<br />
<ul>
<li>member carrying capacity, which defines the upper limit of nodes the community can support, and</li>
<li>relational carrying capacity, which defines the upper limit of ties the community can support. </li>
</ul>
Applying this concept, Shen et al. investigate the ties (relationships) between individual gamers (nodes) which differ for instance in age, gender, level etc. In this case the scarce resource is the (limited) capacity to initiate and maintain ties with other players (limited relational carrying capacity). This reflects the concept of Dunbar's number, a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationship with a commonly used value of 150. [6] Thus variation can be considered as the numerous possibilities of tie formation among all the available nodes in the network, and all possible ties are also selected based on their fitness, which is „the propensity of a relationship to sustain itself".<br />
<br />
And this is how a player's network evolves:<br />
<ul>
<li>In the beginning many relationships originate from random chance, but later the networking behavior becomes more selective (identifying compatible players) and the player is also better at maintaining these contacts. Therefore, the size of a player’s social network will shrink as the player advances in the game and gains more experience. </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>The longer a tie is maintained between two players, the less likely a disruption is. This reflects the fact that organizational structures tend to develop an internal inertia as long as they provide mutual benefits for those involved.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Given the built-in advantage for groups with players with complementary skills, one would expect that ties between players with the same skills are more prone to decay than ties between players with complementary skills. However, this hypothesis did not receive empirical support in the study</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Whether a quest is feasible, depends on the experience (level) of the player. Playing in a group, a clearly less experienced player has not much to contribute to the group’s success. Therefore, when level difference increases, tie decay increases as well. Furthermore, EverQuestII discourages teams of players with a great level difference because the high-level player gets most of the experience points.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Players who are members in a guild are much more likely to maintain the ties with other guild members.</li>
</ul>
Interestingly, being of the same gender or having the same age has no significant influence on tie decay. Being located in the same geographic area (measured by whether two players are from the same state) attenuates tie decay. This, of course, may be due to preexisting familiar or friendship networks. One would also expect that ties among players who spend a lot of time in the game are less likely to decay because these players are experienced and have routines for engaging in and keeping relationships. But this conclusion was not confirmed.<br />
<br />
<b>The guild - a community of practice</b><br />
<br />
Ang et al. [2] analyzed the social roles and interactions of guild members. A content analysis of the messages during a representative period revealed the following seven topic categories:<br />
<ul>
<li>group management: soliciting/responding to invitations, identifying group members, deciding meeting points, (re)structuring the group and leaving the group;</li>
<li>task coordination: pointing out targets, coordinating actions, looting, discussing strategies and trading;</li>
<li>ask for help: in situations that need immediate solutions such as the solution of quests, equipments, asking for game items and money;</li>
<li>give help/answer questions;</li>
<li>friendly remarks: apologizing, greeting, laughing, saying thank you, typing smileys for nonverbal communication (waving, making a bow etc.);</li>
<li>small talk not directed towards achieving game goal or completing game task (telling jokes, being sensitive to others, being supportive and being encouraging);</li>
<li>real life chats: chats that reveal the member's real life identities (real life gender, nationality, etc.) and chats about real life topics such as work/college life.</li>
</ul>
Using a special algorithm (CONCOR), the guild members were clustered in three blocks. The players were placed in the same block if they had similar ties to other players:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKCZzMz86xLd_Joh94YnLLh2vmuRRFowFRC4-6DIGelTo51x_iSDkci9RQkHSRPMEU-qIagxEKb8hFtKy7L72BebAYDtJBxHBCRZX3jmmDF1F_3p4MtfrQWCDCIKj4geJ9SEMsIrB8Kugt/s1600/Bildschirmfoto+2014-06-05+um+16.16.28.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKCZzMz86xLd_Joh94YnLLh2vmuRRFowFRC4-6DIGelTo51x_iSDkci9RQkHSRPMEU-qIagxEKb8hFtKy7L72BebAYDtJBxHBCRZX3jmmDF1F_3p4MtfrQWCDCIKj4geJ9SEMsIrB8Kugt/s1600/Bildschirmfoto+2014-06-05+um+16.16.28.png" width="295" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: start;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Ang, C. S., & Zaphiris, P. (2010). Social Roles of Players in MMORPG Guilds: A Social Network Analytic Perspective. Information, Communication & Society, 13(4), 592-614.</span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<ul>
<li><b>Core members:</b> They are densely inter-connected and moderately connected to other blocks. They are very likely to be players who have been longer in the guild and know each other well. They are actively involved in game chat, group management and give help, but not ask for help. Some core players excell primarily with their knowledge (knowledge players) others in socializing (social players). </li>
<ul>
<li>Knowledge players, by giving help, are the guild's resource which attracts other players into the guild. </li>
<li>Social players provide a friendly atmosphere and maintain the guild's cohesiveness (= more connections, closer and denser ties).</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><b>Semi-periphery members:</b> This block consists of loosely interconnected players who try to get involved in the guild community. They seek help and give help, and show active involvement by participating in game chat and group management.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><b>Periphery players:</b> These players are disconnected. Their main goal is to get help from the guild but not to get involved in the guild community. They have access to a lot of other players, thus increasing the chance of getting help. There are two types: newbie and freeloaders. </li>
<ul>
<li>Newbies are new to the game in general (low levels, needing help on basic issues). It seems that the career progression of a newbie first leads to the semi-periphery with a subsequent change of behavior and then to the core group. </li>
<li>Freeloaders (usually higher levels, typically asking quest-related questions) are using the guild only as an instrumental tool for their task interaction. </li>
</ul>
</ul>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgg1zAL2sUaUwK6avqGel-a-kW5WWbeUEbC5iUBvgKN_WlHtLXO4JYysaPjQXZ0l6UEQVbs34-PIrlTSvy151KB0e5EqJlg1jWglANaDwvVSfNgl8C7EnMN0RjrSjPyfoeyYRItHG21a4pm/s1600/Bildschirmfoto+2014-06-05+um+16.17.08.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="204" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgg1zAL2sUaUwK6avqGel-a-kW5WWbeUEbC5iUBvgKN_WlHtLXO4JYysaPjQXZ0l6UEQVbs34-PIrlTSvy151KB0e5EqJlg1jWglANaDwvVSfNgl8C7EnMN0RjrSjPyfoeyYRItHG21a4pm/s1600/Bildschirmfoto+2014-06-05+um+16.17.08.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: start;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Ang, C. S., & Zaphiris, P. (2010). Social Roles of Players in MMORPG Guilds: A Social Network Analytic Perspective. Information, Communication & Society, 13(4), 592-614.</span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b><br /></b>Although the core members interacted with members from all three blocks, they interacted largely within the block. They were particularly strongly connected internally in game chat and group management categories and least internally connected in give help category.<br />
<br />
Semi-periphery members interacted both within the block and with core members. They were more strongly connected to core members than to members from the same group. Although in general their interaction was external to the group, they tended to interact with core members the most through ‘ask for help’ and ‘give help’ categories. Their interaction was, however, the least external when it comes to ‘game chat’ activity, implying that their internal interactions revolved mainly around ‘game chat’.<br />
<br />
Interestingly, periphery members only interacted with core members.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiC_pnoINdjcJHNNEKW3SA1sDtoLYhD3nHQGG-k5VREdzJmhI5q83GqFRupTDfp2QGvsjCz622gyscRXVmSV9gnRI320rCeMMUjZoFgPGbSRp_lYtKuh3xanANHeeT1wCFT7NTK6XKcPsq5/s1600/Bildschirmfoto+2014-06-05+um+16.17.33.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="183" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiC_pnoINdjcJHNNEKW3SA1sDtoLYhD3nHQGG-k5VREdzJmhI5q83GqFRupTDfp2QGvsjCz622gyscRXVmSV9gnRI320rCeMMUjZoFgPGbSRp_lYtKuh3xanANHeeT1wCFT7NTK6XKcPsq5/s1600/Bildschirmfoto+2014-06-05+um+16.17.33.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: start;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Ang, C. S., & Zaphiris, P. (2010). Social Roles of Players in MMORPG Guilds: A Social Network Analytic Perspective. Information, Communication & Society, 13(4), 592-614.</span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b><br /></b>
<b>What are the major takeaways?</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
The <b>popular prejudice</b> („Online-relationships are random and short-lived and qualitatively inferior to real-life relationships.“) is wrong. Online too, people want to engage in stable and reliable relationships that match their needs for company, support, information and recreation. But low entry- and exit-costs mainly due to the possibility to remain anonymous make it possible „to try out“ more people than in real life.<br />
<br />
<b>Community of practice:</b> Although this may sound somewhat far-fetched, anything that requires special expertise qualifies as a domain for a community of practice. And in fact, running a guild needs a lot of experience. And so I wonder, whether the three groups (core, semi-periphery and periphery) and the interaction pattern, can be generalized to other communities of practice.<br />
<br />
<b>Personal bonds</b> among members (virtual or real) are essential for a lively, self-sustained community. And much depends on the members of the core group. Their expertise and their receptiveness for the needs of other members are crucial for the accumulation of social capital.<br />
<br />
<b>Gamification/Lurking</b>: There is an ongoing debate whether adding game features (rank lists, badges etc.) as an incentive for lurkers is either beneficial, detrimental (people will expect another reward for their contribution next time) or irrelevant. The example of the guild indicates that some players chose to associate themselves more closely to the community and some players chose to stay in the periphery. In other words, it doesn't seem to be a motivational problem. But qualifiers like ranks or badges can be useful if they convey an information about the "level" of the member like her or his expertise or the number of answered questions.<br />
<br />
<b>Socializing newbies</b>: New members face two problems: They must learn the rules of the game (= community) - mostly from observing the behavior of other members - and they must start to build their personal network. I'd bet that the more help they get from other members at this stage the more newbies will go to the semi-periphery. And once again, the burden lies on the members of the core group as the interaction patterns show.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Age, gender, time spent in the community</b> don't influence tie quality. This is (somewhat) obvious for age and gender because normally you don't know whether the other player is a man or a woman and how old she/he is. But the irrelevance of the time spent in the game is counter-intuitive. It seems that much depends on the quality of interaction instead.<br />
<br />
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
[1] Shen, C., Monge, P., Williams, D. (2014). The evolution of social ties online: A longitudinal study in a massive multiplayer online game. Journal of the association for information science and technology. Published online in Wiley Online Library. DOI: 10.1002/asi.23129<br />
<br />
[2] Ang, C. S., & Zaphiris, P. (2010). Social Roles of Players in MMORPG Guilds: A Social Network Analytic Perspective. Information, Communication & Society, 13(4), 592-614. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=11855541824695335600&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1">Google Scholar</a><br />
<br />
[3] EverQuest II (n.d.). Retrieved May 30, 2014 from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EverQuest_II">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EverQuest_II</a><br />
<br />
[4] Campbell, D. T. (1965). Variation and selective retention in socio-cultural evolution. In H. R. Barringer, G. I. Blanksten & R. W. Mack (Eds.), Social change in developing areas: A reinterpretation of evolutionary theory (pp. 19-48). Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.<br />
<br />
[5] Monge, P., Heiss, B. M., & Margolin, D. B. (2008). Communication Network Evolution in Organizational Communities. Communication Theory, 18(4), 449-477. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=4247570433406913725&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5">Google Scholar</a>.<br />
<br />
[6] Dunbar's number (n.d.). Retrieved May 30, 2014 from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number</a><br />
<br />
[7] Frost, J., Vermeulen, I. E., & Beekers, N. (2014). Anonymity Versus Privacy: Selective Information Sharing in Online Cancer Communities. <i>Journal of medical Internet research</i>, 16(5), e126. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?hl=de&q=Anonymity+Versus+Privacy%3A+Selective+Information+Sharing+in+Online+Cancer+Communities&btnG=&lr=">Google Scholar</a>.<br />
<br />Jürgen Derlathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13180222385475786385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3301960398433244286.post-59357375329780906342014-05-30T23:53:00.001+02:002018-01-15T17:50:42.103+01:00Communities of Action: Are Online Activists Different from Offline Activists?Theoretically, the question whether political online participation differs from offline participation can be answered in two ways [1]:<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<ul>
<li>The <b>mobilization thesis</b> argues that due to new information and communication technologies, previously not engaged groups can be reached. Therefore, online activists should be different from offline activists.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>The <b>reinforcement thesis</b> assumes that the Internet won't change existing patterns of political participation. It might even widen the participatory gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged populations. Or in other words: On- and offline activists should be more or less the same bunch of people.</li>
</ul>
Oser et al. [2] tried to settle the question analyzing the Pew Internet and American Life Project’s August 2008 survey (Pew Internet and American Life Project 2008). The survey was based on telephone interviews among adults (n = 2.251, age: 18+) who were asked questions regarding online and offline participation. The survey took place during the presidential campaign of 2008 (Obama vs. McCain) which hints to possible limitations of the survey as the Obama campaign was particularly successful at mobilizing traditionally less engaged populations such as young people and women.<br />
<br />
The authors used latent class analysis (LCA) and - based on the results - examined the characteristics (age, gender socio-economic status) of the identified participation types. In a latent class model people can be categorized into different types (latent classes) based on their observable behavior. Participation indicators used in the analysis were:<br />
<ul>
<li>signing a petition (offline, online)</li>
<li>donating money (offline, online)</li>
<li>contacting a government official in person, by phone, or by letter (offline) or by email (online)</li>
<li>starting/joining a political group or group supporting a cause on a social networking site (online)</li>
<li>being an active member of a group that tries to influence policy, except a political party (offline)</li>
<li>attending a political rally, speech, or organized protest (offline)</li>
<li>working/volunteering for a political party or candidate (offline)</li>
</ul>
The LCA identified four distinct groups: the disengaged (73 % of all respondents), the contacters (10 %), the offline activists (9 %), and the online activists (8 %). All four groups have a different participation repertoire.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIl8Ry-FwNPmrdr02AUmDy3SpOg25qfYUaQd6EvF982aqJRmnLGvQe8zW0GvPv06QSHpq3h5SHLzMwp621RhOb-3Y_Th4s-hNDLvul4jWKbF8J48EEqigwt9A18bmalCG3QwLTd7Yz0cme/s1600/Bildschirmfoto+2014-05-30+um+12.18.11.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="433" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIl8Ry-FwNPmrdr02AUmDy3SpOg25qfYUaQd6EvF982aqJRmnLGvQe8zW0GvPv06QSHpq3h5SHLzMwp621RhOb-3Y_Th4s-hNDLvul4jWKbF8J48EEqigwt9A18bmalCG3QwLTd7Yz0cme/s1600/Bildschirmfoto+2014-05-30+um+12.18.11.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="text-align: start;">Oser, J., Hooghe, M., & Marien, S. (2013). Is online participation distinct from offline participation? A latent class analysis of participation types and their stratification. </span><span style="text-align: start;">Political Research Quarterly</span><span style="text-align: start;">, 66 (1), 91-101.</span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Example: The online activist's probability of online donating is 51.3 % in comparison to 5.6 % in the sample population.<br />
<br />
<b>Online participation is a distinct type of participation</b><br />
The findings provided strong evidence in support of the mobilization thesis. Online activists are a distinct group in comparison to the three other identified participation types. Although online activists prefer online forms of participation, they are also involved in offline participation.<br />
<br />
<b>Mixed results for the influence of age, gender and socio-economic status</b><br />
Mobilization thesis is strongly confirmed regarding age, and it is also confirmed for gender. For socio-economic status, however, the findings suggest a reinforcement of traditional education and income inequalities in online political participation.<br />
<ul>
<li><b>Age:</b> Young people tend to engage with politics in a new way through online means.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><b>Gender: </b>There is no evidence for a gender divide for any of the participation types. Women seem to catch up with mens' early
adoption of new technologies, especially regarding the use of social media (note the inclusion of political social media
use in the survey).</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><b>Socio-economic status: </b>The socio-economic stratification is basically the same for the online as for the offline activist type. The advantaged are more active in both online and offline participation, suggesting a reinforcement of traditional education and income inequalities in online political participation and limiting the democratic potential of the Internet for impacting upon patterns of political participation and participatory inequality.</li>
</ul>
<b>Targeting potential activists for communities of action</b><br />
A community of action is a group of people brought together by their desire to change something. Often these communities are initiated by non-profit or fundraising organizations. [3] The study of Oser et al. gives certain hints how to optimize the activities:<br />
<ul>
<li>Online activists don't tend to donate offline. So offer them a possibility to donate online.</li>
<li>Contacters are relatively inactive in a number of participation acts (e.g., party work, donating offline, demonstrating) or essentially on par with the general population (e.g., active member of an offline and online political or social group and online donating). Therefore, efforts to stimulate other types of engagement in contacters may be futile.</li>
<li>Offer possibilities for online participation in order to reach out to younger people and use social media networks in order to reach out to women.</li>
<li>The chance of making a difference is higher, when the cause is suited for the mobilization of the advantaged.</li>
</ul>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
[1] Norris, P. (2000). <i>A Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Postindustrial Societies</i>. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. <a href="http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/VIRTUOUS/Chapter12.pdf">Chapter 12.</a><br />
<br />
[2] Oser, J., Hooghe, M., & Marien, S. (2013). Is online participation distinct from offline participation? A latent class analysis of participation types and their stratification. <i>Political Research Quarterly</i>, 66 (1), 91-101. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=12195228074837415133&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5">Google Scholar</a><br />
<br />
[3] Millington, R. (2014). Types of community and actives within the community. Retrieved May 28, 2014, from http://www.feverbee.com/2012/10/types-of-community-and-activity-within-the-community.html<br />
<br />
<br />Jürgen Derlathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13180222385475786385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3301960398433244286.post-51466216568326438842014-05-06T22:28:00.001+02:002018-01-15T17:50:25.334+01:00Sense of Community: Is there a fifth dimensions?In three papers, Obst et al. [1, 2, 3] published the results of their investigation about the sense of community (SOC). They had asked 359 members of SF fandom attending Aussiecon 3, the 1999 World Science Fiction Convention about the way they feel about the fandom community (a - relational - community of interest with membership from all over the world) and about their neighbourhood (a geographical community). The main research interest was to find out whether McMillan and Chavis' four dimensions of SOC played a role in both community types (relational and geographic) and whether there is a separate fifth factor - conscious ingroup identification. Both assumptions were confirmed by the results.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<b>What is sense of community?</b><br />
McMillan and Chavis (1986) [4] suggest four dimensions which work together dynamically in order to create and maintain an overall sense of community :<br />
<ul>
<li><b>Membership:</b> The concept includes emotional safety derived from membership, the sense of belonging and identification with the community, personal investment in the community, leading to stronger bonds, and some kind of common symbol system, which unites a community. These attributes go together in a mutually self-reinforcing way.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><b>Influence</b> means a reciprocal relationship between individuals and the community in terms of their impact on one another. Influence is a bi-directional concept, as for a group to be attractive, an individual must feel they have some control and influence over it, while, on the other hand, for a group to be cohesive it must also influence its individual members. McMillan and Chavis (1986) state that pressure of conformity from community members actually comes from the needs of individual members for consensual validation. In turn conformity serves as a force for cohesiveness.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><b>Integration and Fulfillment of Needs: </b>Members must perceive the association to the community as rewarding for the individual members (like status of membership, success of the community, and the perceived competence of other members).</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><b>Shared Emotional Connection:</b> The more people interact, the more likely they are to form close relationships. The more positive this interaction, the stronger the bond developed. </li>
</ul>
In 1996 McMillan [5] revisited the theory:<br />
<ul>
<li>Membership was reinterpreted as <b>Spirit</b>, emphasizing friendship and belonging over boundaries.</li>
<li>Influence was replaced with <b>Trust</b>, emphasizing the development of community norms leading to order, and the equal distribution of power leading to authority based on principle and clear decision making capacity, all of which allow spirit to grow and flourish.</li>
<li>Fulfillment of Needs was replaced with <b>Trade</b>, acknowledging the myriad kinds of rewards individuals gain from belonging to communities. The importance of similarity between members was also highlighted as an important bonding force previously neglected in this dimension.</li>
<li>Shared Emotional Connection, was replaced with <b>Art</b>, or collective memories, which McMillan described as stories of shared dramatic moments in which the community shares in common experiences representing the community’s values and traditions. However, the primacy of contact and of quality interaction to emotional connection is again highlighted in McMillan’s reinterpretation.</li>
</ul>
These dimensions work together to create an overall SOC. Art supports Spirit, Spirit with respected authority becomes Trust, Trust forms the basis of social Trade, and together these elements create a shared history symbolized by Art. In this way, McMillan’s four elements of SOC are linked together in a reinforcing circle.<br />
<br />
<b>And the results of Obst et al.?</b><br />
<ul>
<li>McMillan and Chavis' four dimensions of SOC could be estabished in both communities (SF fandom and neighbourhood).</li>
<li>In-group identification was a separate 5th dimension in both community types. These results suggest that separate aspects of identification may relate to different dimensions of SOC. While identification’s more affective components and connection with other members are subsumed within McMillan and Chavis’ theorized dimensions of PSOC, knowledge and awareness of group membership is a separate and important dimension, not included within the SCI.</li>
<li>Furthermore, participants reported higher levels of global SOC with fandom than with their geographical communities, a pattern that also emerged across all factors separately. This may be due to the fact that members choose to belong to such communities and are drawn together through a common interest. In the present study this finding is of particular significance, as SF fandom operates on an international basis with fewer geographical connections than in many other relational communities. However, this study is limited in making stronger conclusions in relation to this finding, as participants were in a fannish context (a SF convention) rather than in their local neighborhood. Replication of this research is needed with data collected in a more neutral context.</li>
<li>All five dimensions were significant predictors of overall sense of community in both community types.</li>
<ul>
<li>Conscious identification with fandom emerged as the strongest predictor, while in the neighborhood setting it was the weakest predictor. </li>
<li>Belonging was a strong predictor in both communities. This suggests that belonging is an important dimension of sense of community in whatever context we are examining. </li>
<li>Identification, however, seems to be more important in the communities to which we choose to belong than in those communities which we may have made a less conscious decision to join. </li>
<li>Influence was an important predictor in geographical communities, however not at all important in the interest community. This may again be due to the element of perceived choice. If you choose to belong to an association due to common interest the need for influence over that association may be less than the need to feel some control or influence over the area in which you live.</li>
</ul>
</ul>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
[1] Obst, P., Zinkiewicz, L., & Smith, S. G. (2002). Sense of community in science fiction fandom, Part 1: Understanding sense of community in an international community of interest. <i>Journal of Community Psychology</i>, 30(1), 87-103. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=5009836727268317305&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1">Google Scholar</a>.<br />
<br />
[2] Obst, P., Zinkiewicz, L., & Smith, S. G. (2002). Sense of community in science fiction fandom, Part 2: Comparing neighborhood and interest group sense of community. <i>Journal of Community Psychology</i>, 30(1), 105-117. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=2161608922812754981&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1">Google Scholar.</a><br />
<br />
[3] Obst, P., Smith, S. G., & Zinkiewicz, L. (2002). An exploration of sense of community, Part 3: Dimensions and predictors of psychological sense of community in geographical communities. <i>Journal of Community Psychology</i>, 30(1), 119-133. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=7848454100748160572&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1">Google Scholar.</a><br />
<br />
Obst, P. (2004) Community Connections: Psychological sense of community and identifcation in geographical and relational settings. Thesis. Retrieved March 14, 2014 from <a href="http://eprints.qut.edu.au/15971/1/Patricia_Obst_Thesis.pdf">http://eprints.qut.edu.au/15971/1/Patricia_Obst_Thesis.pdf</a><br />
<br />
[4] McMillan, D., & Chavis, D. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. <i>Journal of Community Psychology</i>, 14, 6-23. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=11547470462789155824&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5">Google Scholar</a>.<br />
<br />
[5] McMillan, D. (1996). Sense of community. <i>Journal of Community Psychology</i>, 24, 315-325. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=5276004748600934056&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5">Google Scholar.</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Jürgen Derlathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13180222385475786385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3301960398433244286.post-84544900225491369142014-05-01T20:38:00.000+02:002018-01-15T17:50:16.942+01:00Community feedback is likely to perpetuate undesired member behaviorThe feedback of other community members is considered to be an important corrective factor in moderating community discussions. Liking a post, voting on a comment, rating are the most common feedback mechanisms. Theoretically, feedback would lead users to behave in ways that benefit the community.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
But investigating four online sites,<br />
<ul>
<li>CNN.com (general news),</li>
<li>Breitbart.com (political news),</li>
<li>IGN.com (computer gaming), and </li>
<li>Allkpop.com (Korean entertainment</li>
</ul>
Cheng et al. [1] found some quite counter-intuitive results.<br />
<br />
One commonality of these sites is that users post comments on (news) articles, where each comment can then be up- or down-voted by other users.<br />
<br />
From a behaviourist point of view (here: operant conditioning), positive ratings should act as a “reward” and negative ratings as a“punishment”. So one would predict that feedback encourages users to generate better content in the future, and that users with negatively evaluated content will contribute less than rewarded users.<br />
<br />
<b>The impact on posting behavior</b><br />
<ul>
<li><b>Negative feedback: </b>Authors of negatively-evaluated content contribute more, their future posts are of also lower quality, and perceived by the community as even worse. Further, these authors are more likely to subsequently evaluate their fellow users negatively, percolating these effects through the community. </li>
<li><b>Positive feedback</b> neither encourages rewarded authors to write more, nor does it improve the quality of their posts. </li>
<li>Users that receive <b>no feedback</b> are most likely to leave a community. </li>
</ul>
Interestingly, evaluations polarize the community the most when positive and negative votes are equally split.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>The impact on voting behavior</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
User behavior is largely tit-for-tat: Users with predominantly negative/positive evaluations will negatively/positively evaluate others. But very negatively evaluated people actually respond in a positive direction: The proportion of up-votes they give is higher than the proportion of up-votes they receive. And users receiving many up-votes appear to be more “critical”, as they evaluate others more negatively.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>What are we to make of these findings?</b><br />
<div>
<br />
The authers conclude that community feedback does not automatically drive behaviour in a direction that is beneficial to the community. Instead, it is likely to perpetuate detrimental behaviour. This, of course, raises the question whether the content evaluation mechanisms currently implemented in social media systems have effects contrary to the interest of the community.<br />
<br />
Of course one could blame the theory: Despite of being a fundamental framework in behavioral psychology, there seems to be only limited empirical evidence that operant conditioning has noteworthy effects on human beeings. [2]<br />
<br />
But did Cheng et al. investigate communities after all? Probably not. In a very general sense, the term community designates people gathering on a virtual site, even though the term audience would be more appropriate. In a strict sense, a community comes into existence when users develop a significant sense of (virtual) community (SOVC). According McMillan and Chavis [2], sense of community consists has four components:<br />
<ul>
<li>membership (feelings of emotional safety with a sense of belonging and identification),</li>
<li>influence (exertion of one's influence on the community with reciprocal influence of the community on oneself),</li>
<li>integration and fulfillment of needs (beeing supported and giving support, thereby reinforcing one to behave in a manner acceptable to the community),</li>
<li>shared emotional connection (positive affect related to community membership, shared history).</li>
</ul>
So I would expect, that members with a high SOVC but negatively rated contributions are likely to try to do better next time. Members with a low SOVC, on the other hand, may behave like described by the authors in their study or they may leave the community.<br />
<div>
<div>
<div>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div>
<br />
[1] Cheng, J., Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., & Leskovec, J. (2014). How Community Feedback Shapes User Behavior. Retrieved May 1, 2014, from <a href="http://www-cs.stanford.edu/people/jure/pubs/disqus-icwsm14.pdf">http://www-cs.stanford.edu/people/jure/pubs/disqus-icwsm14.pdf</a></div>
<div>
<br />
[2] Baron, A., Perone, M., & Galizio, M. (1991). Analyzing the reinforcement process at the human level: Can application and behavioristic interpretation replace laboratory research?. <i>The Behavior Analyst, 14(2)</i>, 95. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=4828835490320173744&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5">Google Scholar</a>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">[3] McMillan, David W. and Chavis David M. (1986). Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory.<i>Journal of Community Psychology Volume 14, 6-23</i><b style="font-style: italic;">. </b><a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=11547470462789155824&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5">Google Scholar</a>.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b><br /></b></i></span></span></span></div>
<div>
For further information about the SO(V)C concept and possible ways to measure it, see the post: "Sense of community in virtual communities" (<a href="http://the-virtual-community-blog.blogspot.de/2013/08/p-margin-bottom-0.html">12.8.2013</a>)</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Jürgen Derlathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13180222385475786385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3301960398433244286.post-3793687762966108532014-04-28T21:15:00.002+02:002018-01-15T17:49:54.628+01:00Successfull Managment of Online Health CommunitiesBrowsing the Internet, I stumbled across these three interesting articles about the successful management of online health communities. Here are the (slightly modified) abstracts:<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<b>Community management that works: How to build and sustain a thriving online health community </b><br />
<br />
Colleen Young [1] (see her <a href="http://cyhealthcommunications.wordpress.com/">health care social media blog</a>) describes the community management strategies as well as the resources, the challanges and
the expertise needed to build and maintain a thriving online health
community. Her paper draws on
insights from an ongoing study and observation of online communities as
well as experience managing and consulting a variety of online health
communities. Discussion includes effective community building practices
relevant to each developmental stage of the community, such as outreach and relationship building, data
collection, content creation, and other techniques that ensure
the survival and steady growth of an online health community.<br />
<br />
<b>Enabling community through social media</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Anatoliy Gruzd and Caroline Haythornthwaite [2] demonstrate how social network analysis provides a vocabulary and set of techniques for examining interaction patterns via social media. Using the case of the #hcsmca online discussion forum (hscmca stands for Health Care Social Media Canada), this paper highlights what has been and can be gained by approaching online community from a social network perspective, as well as providing an inside look at the structure of the #hcsmca community. Social network analysis was used to examine structures in a 1-month sample of Twitter messages with the hashtag #hcsmca (3871 tweets, 486 unique posters). Network connections were considered present if the individual was mentioned, replied to, or had a post retweeted.<br />
<br />
Network analyses revealed patterns of interaction that characterized the community as comprising one component, with a set of core participants prominent in the network due to their connections with others. Analysis showed the social media health content providers were the most influential group based on in-degree centrality. However, there was no preferential attachment among people in the same professional group, indicating that the formation of connections among community members was not constrained by professional status.<br />
<br />
<b>Growing a professional network to over 3000 members in less than four years</b><br />
<br />
Noreen Frisch et al. [3] analyzed “InspireNet”, a virtual professional network for health professionals permitting documentation of when and how professionals take up Web 2.0 and social media. Overall evaluation methods included tracking website use, conducting two member surveys, and soliciting member feedback through focus groups and interviews with those who participated in electronic communities of practice (eCoPs) and other stakeholders.<br />
<div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Network growth exceeded all expectations. Members engaged with varying aspects of the network’s virtual technologies, such as teams of professionals sharing a common interest, research teams conducting their work, and instructional webinars open to network members. Members used wikis, blogs, and discussion groups to support professional work, as well as a members’ database with contact information and areas of interest. Nonetheless, creation of a Web 2.0 and social media platform is not sufficient, in and of itself, to attract or sustain a vibrant community of professionals interested in improving their practice. Essential support includes instruction in the use of Web-based activities and time management, a biweekly e-Newsletter, regular communication from leaders, and an annual face-to-face conference.</div>
</div>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
[1] Young, C. (2013). Community management that works: How to build and sustain a thriving online health community. <i>Journal of medical Internet research</i>, <i>15</i>(6). <span id="goog_1850367304"></span><a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=4662454102180698527&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5">Google Scholar</a><br />
<br />
[2] Gruzd, A., & Haythornthwaite, C. (2013). Enabling Community Through Social Media. <i>Journal of medical Internet research, 15(10). </i><a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=5907134546878949578&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5">Google Scholar</a>.<br />
<br />
[3] Frisch, N., Atherton, P., Borycki, E., Mickelson, G., Cordeiro, J., Lauscher, H. N., & Black, A. (2014). Growing a Professional Network to Over 3000 Members in Less Than 4 Years: Evaluation of InspireNet, British Columbia’s Virtual Nursing Health Services Research Network. <i>Journal of medical Internet research, 16(2)</i>. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3961696/">Google Scholar</a>.Jürgen Derlathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13180222385475786385noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3301960398433244286.post-24605947231244265202014-04-14T23:06:00.002+02:002018-01-15T17:49:42.272+01:00Virtual Communities of Practice - Start-up and CultivationSince the early 90s, Jean Lave's and Etienne Wenger's concept of communities of practice [1] has produced a huge amount of scholarly and more popular literature, first as a theory of learning and later in the field of knowledge management. In the advent of the digital era, communities of practice are not just organized as face-to-face communities but as virtual communities as well and so Wenger et al. [2] re-conceptualized communities of practice for digital environments.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<h3>
Why are communities of practice so interesting?</h3>
A community of practice is a group of people sharing a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly. In an organizational context this usually is a craft or a profession. Communities of practice can evolve spontaneously because people come together and engage in gaining and sharing knowledge. Or they can be created with that goal.<br />
An example within an organization is the community of practice which developed around the Xerox customer service representatives. They began exchanging tips and tricks how to repair machines over informal meetings. Realizing the potential, Xerox created the Eureka project a database set up in order to share this knowledge across the global network of representatives. Apparently, the database has saved the corporation $100 million. [3]<br />
<h3>
<strong>What are the characteristic features of a community of practice? </strong></h3>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm6_sKiW-R6mfUJyWsUktHXw5scrwBsWLD72d9pabV1R5KwCYmg56g4pO6mJnRhcc-HHpIF0rlHrQrI6_EIc4PjfURK0q67cDe0myPOTIy1fAVlNiXEPqymBddURjvUtMP7SvKxIFIBAAu/s1600/CoPStartup_Wenger.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm6_sKiW-R6mfUJyWsUktHXw5scrwBsWLD72d9pabV1R5KwCYmg56g4pO6mJnRhcc-HHpIF0rlHrQrI6_EIc4PjfURK0q67cDe0myPOTIy1fAVlNiXEPqymBddURjvUtMP7SvKxIFIBAAu/s1600/CoPStartup_Wenger.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source: <a href="http://www.kstoolkit.org/Communities+of+Practice">http://www.kstoolkit.org/Communities+of+Practice</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
These three characteristics are essential for a community of practice:<br />
<ul>
<li>a <b>domain</b> defined by the members' interest and competence;</li>
<li>a <b>community</b> as a result of members' engagement in joint activities like discussing problems and practices, exchanging information and providing support;</li>
<li>a <b>common practice</b>, i.e. a shared repertoire of experiences, stories, tools, ways of addressing problems etc. [4]</li>
</ul>
Members of communities of practice are thought to have privileged access to "tacit" knowledge (for instance best practices) that one can't find in formal sources of information like manuals or databases. This tacit knowledge might help avoid mistakes and steepen the learning curve. At least they have a community to turn to in case of problems. Not surprisingly, knowledge management became so important in the organizational context. [5]<br />
<br />
It is through the process of sharing information and experiences with the group and building relationships that the members accumulate social capital. Social capital is a multi-dimensional concept, with both public and private aspects and it provides value to both the individual and the group as a whole. Putnam's concept of social capital for instance has three components: moral obligations and norms, social values (especially trust) and social networks (especially voluntary associations). [6] Applying Putnam's central thesis to communities one might say that a self-sustained community with a stable core of contributors has accumulated social capital successfully.<br />
<h3>
How do communities of practice differ from other communities? [7]</h3>
Communities of practice should not be confused with communities of interest or teams. A community of interest provides a place where people who share a common interest can "go", exchange information, ask questions, and express their opinions about the topic. Membership is not dependent upon expertise - interest in the topic is sufficient. Membership in a project team, on the other hand, depends upon expertise. But typically, project teams have designated members who fulfill a certain role during the project and, hopefully, teams are dissolved once the task is completed. However, the classification isn't always simple: What about a company-sponsored product support forum where heavy users with all sorts of professional backgrounds help one another? Or what about one's own network of professionals on LinkedIn? Wenger gives this guideline (and following the link you can download an evaluation framework):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A personal network, for instance, is rarely a community as people in the network are not likely to have much in common except for being connected to the same person in various ways; and they may not even know about each other (even though they are potentially connected from a networked perspective). Conversely the community of donors to a cause may feel a strong allegiance and identity with the cause they share. They know about each other because they know that there is money flowing toward the cause beyond their own donations. And yet they do not necessarily form a network (except potentially), as there may not be any interactions or direct connections among them. [8]</blockquote>
<h3>
Are communities of practice really that effective?</h3>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEX2pwg75NcqYNuPTX0qbNzBlhOZKJ5t0UBN6vyjfi4KGRtDWWXK37T7aiJxiiWgrHjYCwCT-eCGHDUvbGLd614IaJMjSiXxxLPK8hnbzKBgY6UR63CxSaMInoupalStLz0Oi-Em5AUCc4/s1600/Hemmasi+and+Csanda.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="246" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEX2pwg75NcqYNuPTX0qbNzBlhOZKJ5t0UBN6vyjfi4KGRtDWWXK37T7aiJxiiWgrHjYCwCT-eCGHDUvbGLd614IaJMjSiXxxLPK8hnbzKBgY6UR63CxSaMInoupalStLz0Oi-Em5AUCc4/s1600/Hemmasi+and+Csanda.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source: Hemmasi & Csanda <span style="font-size: small; text-align: start;">[9]</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Hemmasi and Csanda [9] explored the effectiveness of a community of practice using data from an insurance company that operates in a decentralized structure. Hemmasi & Csanda (2009), Journal of Managerial Issues They found that communities of practice can indeed create value by contributing to increased effectiveness in employees' job performance through greater access that they provide to the ideas, knowledge, and best practices shared among community members. In addition, the results show that committed membership and active engagement in community activities tend to improve the direct impact of the community on participants' job performance. In turn, it appears, that members who see their community as having a positive impact on their own jobs and or feel more connected with other community members, also perceive their community as being more effective. The sense of identity and emotional connectedness that community members feel toward their peers in the community, the impact that community involvement has on their own jobs, and the cognitive assessment that they develop of the overall effectiveness of their community are all strong predictors of satisfaction with their community experience. The findings were consisted with studies of existing communities of practice. [10]<br />
<h3>
How can community management start up and cultivate a communities of practice?</h3>
Although the concept had a strong focus on face-to-face communities initially, many of the recommendations Wenger et al. [11, 12] give, apply to online communities of practice as well. In fact some of them apply to online communities in general.<br />
<br />
1. <b>Build on a preexisting core group (or develop one):</b> In preexisting social and organizational structures like personal networks or after an event (be it a meeting or a summit) one may be able to develop a passionate core group. Well-respected individuals can help with their personal network and later on with the coordination of the community. A core group is important because it can take on community projects and helps identifying important topics for the community.<br />
<br />
2. <b>Mentoring the community manager:</b> The core group is even more important if the community manager is not a practitioner. Only an insider can fully appreciate the issues and challenges at the heart of the domain and the latent potential in emerging ideas and techniques, so a community manager from outside needs the assistance of a mentor.<br />
<br />
3. <b>Access to the community:</b> In order to maintain a certain level of discussion,access controls may be an appropriate instrument. In fact, in some communities of practice assuring that members are among themselves may be even vital.<br />
<br />
4. <b>Clarify the topic: </b>The focus should lie on topics important to the business and community members. Key thought leaders may be a great help in creating real dialogue about cutting edge issues.<br />
<br />
5. <b>Build strong ties among members:</b> When the individual relationships among community members are strong, the events are much richer. Participants who know each other well often come to community events with multiple agendas: completing a small group task, thanking someone for an idea, finding someone to help with a problem. In fact, good community events usually allow time for people to network informally. Well-orchestrated, lively public events foster one-on-one connections.<br />
<br />
6. <b>Welcome all levels of participation:</b> Wenger discernes three levels of participation which are fairly self-explanatory: participation in the rather small (10 to 15 %) core group, in the equally rather small (10 to 15 %) active group and peripheral participation (usually the majority). The boundaries are fluid and one and the same member may shift from one level to another because of time restrictions or a shift in the focus of the community. Making it easy to contribute and to access the community’s knowledge and practices may invite free-riding but - on the other hand - they are essential for participation.<br />
<br />
7. <b>Allow evolution:</b> The nature of a community of practice is dynamic, in that the interests, goals, and members are subject to change, its forums should be designed to support shifts in focus.<br />
<br />
8. <b>Broaden the community's horizon by bringing input from outside:</b> The members and their knowledge are the communities most valuable resource. Nevertheless it is also beneficial to look outside. Thus, practitioners will find new possibilities and even stimulate change.<br />
<br />
9. <b>Make the social capital salient: </b>Participation is voluntary and so there must be something in it for the members. Therefore make the value of being a member salient - especially at the beginning.<br />
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
[1] Lave, J. Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=11874163294514826821&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5">Google Scholar</a>.<br />
[2] Wenger E., White, N., & Smith, J.D. (2009). Digital Habitats: stewarding technology for communities. Portland, OR: CPsquare. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=7631710037924684833&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5">Google Scholar</a>. <a href="http://technologyforcommunities.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/digitalhabitatsactionnotebook.pdf">Chapter 10 ("Action Notebook")</a><br />
[3] Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). Balancing act: how to capture knowledge without killing it. Harvard business review, 78(3), 73-80. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=6883437312063565392&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1">Google Scholar</a><br />
[4] Wenger E., Communities of practice - a brief introduction. Retrieved March 2, 2014 from <a href="http://wenger-trayner.com/resources/what-is-a-community-of-practice">http://wenger-trayner.com/resources/what-is-a-community-of-practice</a>.<br />
[5] Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Harvard Business Press. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=14164713454987187333&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5">Google Scholar</a><br />
[6] Siisiainen, M. (2003). Two concepts of social capital: Bourdieu vs. Putnam. International Journal of Contemporary Sociology, 40(2), 183-204. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=5786334737071255274&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5">Google Scholar</a><br />
[7] Communities versus teams. (2011). Retrieved March 7, 2014 from <a href="http://wenger-trayner.com/resources/how-are-communities-of-practice-different-from-more-familiar-structures-like-teams-or-task-forces/">http://wenger-trayner.com/resources/how-are-communities-of-practice-different-from-more-familiar-structures-like-teams-or-task-forces/</a><a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=5786334737071255274&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5"></a><br />
[8] Communites versus networks. (2011). Retrieved March 7, 2014 from <a href="http://wenger-trayner.com/resources/communities%20versus%20networks/">http://wenger-trayner.com/resources/communities versus networks/</a><br />
[9] Hemmasi, M., & Csanda, C. M. (2009). The effectiveness of communities of practice: an empirical study. Journal of Managerial Issues, 262-279. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=833703397975503771&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5">Google Scholar</a><a href="http://wenger-trayner.com/resources/communities%20versus%20networks/"></a><br />
[10] Dubé, L., Bourhis, A., & Jacob, R. (2005). The impact of structuring characteristics on the launching of virtual communities of practice. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18 (2), 145-166. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=7965674271065839298&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1">Google Scholar</a><br />
Gongla, P. & Rizzato, C.R. (2001).Evolving communities of practice: IBM Global Service Experience. IBM Systems Journal 40 (4), 842-863.<br />
Scholl, W., König, C., Meyer, B. & Heisig, P. (2004). The future of knowledge management: an international delphi study. Journal of Knowledge Management 8 (2), 19-35.<a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=5120148897500461620&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1"> Google Scholar</a><br />
[11] McDermott, R. (2000). Knowing in Community. IHRIM journal, 1-12. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=12097729673362575527&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5">Google Scholar</a><br />
[12] Wenger, E., McDermott, R. & Synder, R. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge - Seven Principles for Cultivating Communities of Practice. Retrieved February 23, 2014 from <a href="http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/2855.html">http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/2855.html</a>.Jürgen Derlathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13180222385475786385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3301960398433244286.post-25615017535054410212014-02-06T21:51:00.002+01:002018-01-15T17:49:30.775+01:00(Dis-)satisfaction with the online community - Herzberg’s two factors theory in a community contextIntuitively, one would say that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are like two poles on the same continuum. But that is not necessarily so. In the context of job satisfaction and job performance Herzberg developed his two factors theory and showed that there is a set of factors that causes satisfaction (motivators) and another one that causes dissatisfaction (hygiene factors) when absent. [1]. The practical implication is that to improve job attitudes and productivity, administrators must recognize and attend to both sets. The question is whether this theory can be applied to satisfaction with an online community and participation in community life as well.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<b>Herzberg’s two factors theory</b><br />
<br />
The theory posits that there is one set of factors that causes job satisfaction (motivators), while there is a separate set causing dissatisfaction, when these factors are absent (hygiene factors). It is important to know that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are not located on a continuum with satisfaction increasing as dissatisfaction diminishes. But they are independent phenomena, more specifically:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><b>motivators</b> (e.g. sense of personal achievement, status, recognition, challenging/stimulating work, responsibility, opportunity for advancement, promotion, growth) arise from intrinsic conditions of the job itself and give positive satisfaction, motivation and strong commitment.</li>
<li><b>hygiene factors</b> (e.g. salaries, wages and benefits, company policy and administration, good interpersonal relationship, quality of supervision, job security, working conditions, work life balance) prevent dissatisfaction. They don't give positive satisfaction but their absence gives dissatisfaction. They are extrinsic to the work itself.</li>
</ul>
<br />
In order to find possible motivators or hygiene factors the Critical Incident Technique (CIT) is used. According to this technique, the researcher collects direct observations of human behavior that have critical significance and meet methodically defined criteria. A critical incident can be described as one that makes a contribution—either positively or negatively—to an activity or phenomenon. Critical incidents can be gathered in various ways, but typically, respondents are asked to tell a story about an experience they have had. [2]<br />
<br />
The theory is quite intuitive: Imagine you love what you are doing at work. Your work is challenging and stimulating. Your collegues admire what you are doing. And you feel that there is a meaning in what your are doing. But, your boss is a control freak, your office is ugly and loud and within the last four years you haven't seen a pay rise. Can you feel the dilemma?<br />
<br />
Herzberg first presented his theory in 1959. Since then it has inspired many studies on job satisfaction and has led to such concepts as job enlargement and job enrichment (a way to motivate employees by giving them more responsibilities and variety in their jobs). [3]<br />
<br />
But the two factors theory has been criticized as well. Some studies are critical of the use of CIT as heuristic method or of the implications on job satisfaction and job performance. Others couldn’t replicate the division between motivators and hygiene factors or establish stable sets of these factors. Nevertheless, Herzberg's theory is still very influential. [4] <br />
<br />
<b>Herzberg’s theory in a community context</b><br />
<br />
In an exploratory study, Ridings and Gefen (2004) [5] investigated the reasons why people hang out in virtual communities (here: bulletin boards). They found four main reasons:
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>access to and exchange of information, </li>
<li>social support exchange, </li>
<li> friendship and </li>
<li>recreation.</li>
</ul>
<br />
A complimentary set of motivators might be
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>a large stock of resources,</li>
<li>members willing to share their knowledge, </li>
<li>good quality of messages and discussions, </li>
<li>members offering support emphatically, </li>
<li>hanging out together online is fun, </li>
<li>good treatment of new bees, </li>
<li>an entertaining community.</li>
</ul>
<br />
Being member of a community with high quality motivators should be satisfying and lead to further participation. <br />
<br />
Possible hygiene factors are perhaps<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>an easily discernable community topic, </li>
<li>the quality of the community management, </li>
<li>the usability of the website, </li>
<li>a good web design, </li>
<li>simple community norms, </li>
<li>real instead of anonymous/faked profiles, </li>
<li>good member visibility.</li>
</ul>
<br />
These factors don’t cause satisfaction with the community. But if they are absent the member feels dissatisfaction.<br />
<br />
Wang et al. [6] investigated an online travel community. They wanted to find out why members are willing (motivation) to make active contributions (participation) to their community. Based on extensive literature review and discussions with students twenty factors were identified:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>low costs of providing information online </li>
<li>sharing enjoyment </li>
<li>gaining a sense of helpfulness to others </li>
<li>seeking/providing advice </li>
<li>satisfying other members' needs </li>
<li>finding friends/peers </li>
<li>product suggestions/evaluations </li>
<li>enforcing service excellence </li>
<li>relationship building </li>
<li>controlling products/service quality </li>
<li>seeking future exchange from whom I provide help </li>
<li>seeking future exchange from anybody in the community </li>
<li>making arrangement </li>
<li>expressing my identity </li>
<li>group attachment/commitment </li>
<li>seeking/providing companions </li>
<li>seeking/providing emotional support </li>
<li>increasing self-esteem/respect </li>
<li>attaining status in the community
gaining prestige</li>
</ul>
<br />
As far as I know, Herzberg’s theory has not yet been applied to online communities. Of course, one should be careful if one wishes to apply a well-established theory to a new context it has not been developed for. But in the case of Herzberg's two factors theory it might work and it would give community managers a rationale for tackling community satisfaction issues.<br />
____________________________________________________
<br />
[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-factor_theory">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-factor_theory</a><br />
[2] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Incident_Technique">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Incident_Technique</a><br />
[3] Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Snyderman B.B. The Motivation to Work. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY USA, 2nd edition, 1959<br />
[4] Buettner, R. (2010). Zu den Einflussfaktoren der Arbeitsmotivation und -zufriedenheit: Eine empirische Studie zu Herzbergs 2-Faktoren-Theory. <a href="http://www.brainguide.de/upload/publication/b4/10iby/d69c3118b33f2ad7d058031e4214f3a3_1311535727.pdf">Google Scholar</a><br />
[5] Ridings, C. M., & Gefen, D. (2004). Virtual community attraction: Why people hang out online. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 10(1), 00-00. <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.de%2Fscholar%3Fcluster%3D5457481152581522882%26hl%3Dde%26as_sdt%3D0%2C5">Google Scholar</a><br />
[6] Wang, Y., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2003). Assessing motivation of contribution in online communities: An empirical investigation of an online travel community. Electronic Markets, 13 (1), 33-45. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=2803303226842974655&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5">Google Scholar</a>Jürgen Derlathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13180222385475786385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3301960398433244286.post-33102008785743605992014-01-23T07:41:00.002+01:002018-01-15T17:49:07.777+01:00Social information behaviour as a Driver of Online CommunitiesThe need for information is one of the reasons why people participate in communities and information exchange (like giving and receiving support) is a social phenomenon. But very often, seekers of information are seen as individuals and the focus in many studies lies on individual information behaviour - omitting socials aspect. Reddy & Jansen [1], on the other hand, argue that more emphasis should be put on these social aspects in information behaviour, that is why they investigate the driving forces that lie behind social information<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<h3>
Individual information behavior</h3>
<div>
<br />
Information behaviour is conceptualized as individual mainly for two reasons: the emphasis on individual rather than collaborative work needs and the interest for the interaction of a single user with some kind of information technology. The most common model type is the database query model in which a single user issues - according to her/his goal - a specific query against a data repository in order to gain meaningful results. The steps can be described as follows (Marchionini, 1995):<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>information problem identification</li>
<li>problem definition</li>
<li>search system selection</li>
<li>query formulation</li>
<li>search execution</li>
<li>results examination</li>
<li>information extraction</li>
<li>reflection/reiteration/stop</li>
</ul>
This type of model has been criticized on the individual level because many users don’t have clearly defined goals and well-formulated queries and the social context is totally omitted.<br />
A less technological and somewhat more emphatic model is Kulhthau's Information Search Process (1991). The following description is taken from Wikipedia (en.m.wikipedia.org). It is a literal quote because the description is so vivid:<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><b>Initiation: </b>During the first stage, initiation, the information seeker recognizes the need for new information to complete an assignment. As they think more about the topic, they may discuss the topic with others and brainstorm the topic further.This stage of the information seeking process is filled with feelings of apprehension and uncertainty.</li>
<li><b>Selection: </b>In the second stage, selection, the individual begins to decide what topic will be investigated and how to proceed. Some information retrieval may occur at this point. The uncertainty associated with the first stage often fades with the selection of a topic, and is replaced with a sense of optimism.</li>
<li><b>Exploration: </b>In the third stage, exploration, information on the topic is gathered and a new personal knowledge is created. Students endeavor to locate new information and situate it within their previous understanding of the topic. In this stage, feelings of anxiety may return if the information seeker finds inconsistent or incompatible information.</li>
<li><b>Formulation: </b>During the fourth stage, formulation, the information seeker starts to evaluate the information that has been gathered. At this point, a focused perspective begins to form and there is not as much confusion and uncertainty as in earlier stages..Formulation is considered to be the most important stage of the process. The information seeker will here formulate a personalized construction of the topic from the general information gathered in the exploration phase.</li>
<li><b>Collection:</b> During the fifth stage, collection, the information seeker knows what is needed to support the focus. Now presented with a clearly focused, personalized topic, the information seeker will experience greater interest, increased confidence, and more successful searching.</li>
<li><b>Search closure:</b>In the sixth and final stage, search closure, the individual has completed the information search. Now the information seeker will summarize and report on the information that was found through the process. The information seeker will experience a sense of relief and, depending on the fruits of their search, either satisfaction or disappointment.</li>
</ul>
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
Social information behavior</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
Social or collaborative information behaviour, on the other hand, comprises activities that a group or team of people undertakes to identify and resolve a shared information need. According to this definition the authors' (qualitative) studies focused on two teams of individuals in a hospital context (a surgical intensive care unit and an emergency department).<br />
The authors distinguish two information environments:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>the behavíoural environment (ranging from information searching to information seeking with the characteristics: problem [simple, complex], agents [single, multiple] and interaction [direct, conversational]) and</li>
<li>the contextual environment (ranging from individual to collective information behaviour).</li>
</ul>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgodhURHO4GSh_NVSQlYHDRYB-uwOIYi8vRbhhyphenhyphenk3YcbHx9kuKWTv6_AXHo7JOrsDfG8ipTwhcwT9sm37jVcHf6XBNUjF45A-JF9FLgFgn0vW-rjE6EMItoqD3IBwFQeFHkJDEk0eGo2CfM/s1600/Reddy:Jansen.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="350" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgodhURHO4GSh_NVSQlYHDRYB-uwOIYi8vRbhhyphenhyphenk3YcbHx9kuKWTv6_AXHo7JOrsDfG8ipTwhcwT9sm37jVcHf6XBNUjF45A-JF9FLgFgn0vW-rjE6EMItoqD3IBwFQeFHkJDEk0eGo2CfM/s1600/Reddy:Jansen.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
In this model an external trigger can lead to a direct search by the individual that expects the problem to be simple and that is that. But during the search the individual may feel the need to ask others because she/he initially underestimated the problem and so the whole team engages in collective information behaviour by pooling the individual expertise using different kinds of information technology.<br />
The triggers that shift a mainly individual to a collaborative behaviour are:<br />
<ul>
<li>complexity of information need</li>
<li>fragmented information resources (environments where information resources are in several, dispersed systems)</li>
<li>lack of domain expertise (the individual has not the required knowledge and needs help)</li>
<li>lack of immediately accessible information</li>
</ul>
<br />
The following table summarizes the model:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYSP-CwOWeOalFzS5iIyQixUedRZwD5KlSzlP6x86sITkqppfaasndyQPplUvdS9hWJSkK6dFdpoplk9im4eucP6p1krX3XvfxR3b67hBw9oU85fmRtKwhRWxK-6I7ulrZ5QSnkEAkvKSh/s1600/Tabelle.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="166" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYSP-CwOWeOalFzS5iIyQixUedRZwD5KlSzlP6x86sITkqppfaasndyQPplUvdS9hWJSkK6dFdpoplk9im4eucP6p1krX3XvfxR3b67hBw9oU85fmRtKwhRWxK-6I7ulrZ5QSnkEAkvKSh/s1600/Tabelle.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Possible conclusions for communities with with participants showing strong social information behaviour:<br />
<ul>
<li>Make sure that the community members can see which other members are available at that moment.</li>
<li>Facilitate 1:1-communication (messengers, chat, video conferencing).</li>
<li>Allow for team-communication (video conferencing).</li>
<li>Make sharing the results possible.</li>
<li>Visualize the users search process and the contributions of the collaborators.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Addendum (24.1.14): I've just stumbled across Jelly, an app for Android an iOS which seems to be designed exclusively in order to support social information behavior. See for yourselves, here is the link: <a href="http://blog.jelly.co/post/72563498393/introducing-jelly">http://blog.jelly.co/post/72563498393/introducing-jelly</a></div>
__________________________________<br />
<br /></div>
[1] Reddy, Madhu C., and Bernard J. Jansen. "A model for understanding collaborative information behavior in context: A study of two healthcare teams."Information Processing & Management 44.1 (2008): 256-273. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=5810996426321301079&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5" style="text-decoration: none;">Google Scholar</a><br />
<br />
[2] Marchionini, Gary. Information seeking in electronic environments. No. 9. Cambridge University Press, 1995. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=4246298117764108945&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5" style="text-decoration: none;">Google Scholar</a><br />
<br />
[3] Carol Kuhlthau’s Information Search Process <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Search_Process" style="text-decoration: none;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Search_Process></a>Jürgen Derlathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13180222385475786385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3301960398433244286.post-48735406882144197422013-11-27T21:40:00.000+01:002014-03-24T21:47:36.894+01:00Why People Participate in Online CommunitiesWhy do people hang out online and what motivates them to participate in online communities? There are two very interesting studies that provide some insight into the answers of these questions.(continue reading on <a href="http://thecommunitymanager.com/2013/11/26/why-people-participate-in-online-communities/">The Community Manager</a>)
Jürgen Derlathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13180222385475786385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3301960398433244286.post-20217105105280632672013-09-25T22:00:00.001+02:002018-01-15T17:48:34.371+01:00Social Presence, Social Identity and Participation in Online Communities<br />
In an empirical study from 2006, Shen et al. [1] combined two important concepts - social presence and social identity - in order to investigate their effect on community participation. The structural model revealed that social presence is a decisive factor in creating social identity and that the influence of social presence and social identity on participation is bigger than the fulfillment of information needs (one of the primary reasons why people join a community).<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<h3>
<b>1. Social presence theory [2], [3]</b></h3>
In “The social psychology of telecommunications” (1976), Short, Williams, and Christie analyzed the effect of telecommunications media on communication. They conceptualized social presence as the degree of salience between two communicators using a communication medium. Social presence varies with the type of communication media and plays an important role in how people interact. Some media have a higher degree of social presence (e.g., video, audio) others do not (e.g., text) - depending upon the extent to which nonverbal and relational cues common to face-to-face communication are filtred out. A medium with a high degree of social presence is perceived as being sociable, warm, and personal, whereas a medium with a low degree of social presence is seen as impersonal.<br />
<br />
<br />
Subsequently, several other important conceptualizations were developed: for example social presence as:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>the degree to which a person is perceived as a real person in mediated communication (Gunawardena, 1995);</li>
<li>the ability of participants in a community of inquiry to project themselves socially and emotionally, as real people (i.e., their full personality), through the medium of communication being used (Garrison et al., 2000);</li>
<li>the degree of feeling, perception, and reaction of being connected by computer-mediated communication to another intellectual entity through a text-based encounter (Tu & McIsaac, 2002);</li>
<li>a student’s sense of being in and belonging in an online course and the ability to interact with other students and an instructor (Picciano, 2002).</li>
</ul>
<br />
These definitions appear to be on a continuum between the feeling that someone is perceived as being present that is, simply there or real at one end and the existence of an interpersonal emotional connection between communicators at the other. The differences in how researchers define social presence have significant consequences on how they conceptualize it.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<b>2. Social identity theory [4]</b></h3>
Whereas personal identity is an individual's concept of personal attributes that are not shared with others, an individual's social identity is developed on the basis of group membership and consists of a shared definition of what attributes the group has and how it differs from others.<br />
<br />
The basis of social identity is social categorization, the continuous interplay between how we see ourselves, how we see others and how we are seen by them. Assigning others to a certain social category not just tells us things about them but we find out things about ourselves.<br />
<br />
To identify with any given group of people, whether it is an ethnic group or an online organization, we look for similarities between the group members and ourselves. By categorizing ourselves as members of a specific group and identifying ourselves with it, we tend to accept the group’s influence on us and we comply to its norms. On the other hand, as active group members we try to make our influence to be felt in the group as well. Group norms not only prescribe attitudes and perceptions, they also influence behaviour.<br />
<br />
If a group member strongly believes in the group she or he may even work harder to reach the group's goals instead of loafing. Members with a strong identification with the group may become very influential in the group and exert some kind of leadership because other member see them as very prototypical. On the other hand, less prototypical members have less influence and risk to stay on the fringes of the community.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<b>3. The influence of social presence and social identity on participation [1] </b></h3>
As mentioned in the introduction, Shen et al. combine both concepts and analyze their effect on participation in four different virtual communities of interest. The content of these communities is mainly contributed and only accessed by registered members. The basic functions are browsing, searching, synchronous and asynchronous discussion, multi-media exchanging and voting. Members can attach animated icons (e.g., facial expressions) to better express their feelings, as well as audio and video to enrich their exchanges.<br />
<br />
For each individual, they collect the total number of postings, the number of different threads where the postings were made, and the number of new threads created. The participation measures were gathered for a period of two weeks and were scaled by the averages of the associated communities.<br />
<br />
The other variables were measured with an online survey using validated scales.<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>For social presence, they used a reflective measurement which consists of 7-point bipolar items such as social - unsocial, sensitive - insensitive and warm - cold. </li>
<li>As for social identity, they adapted the “organizational identity” instrument which consists of reflective items rated on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. A sample item is “when someone criticizes this forum, it feels like a personal insult”.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghXDXG5u4R1oHbgTvvP1SdXtzsyhH6s7M3zWLSczSxEWcHjYEqsgSpwHizqcDfr5WRnq1aHeZsAKwKCbKengLkrr4UanMUO8LxpSKEU_3lDPJMxvF3LbaN6M_9VeWgKLzFzd0qF2GE2Kw0/s1600/TVCM_Blanchard2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="157" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghXDXG5u4R1oHbgTvvP1SdXtzsyhH6s7M3zWLSczSxEWcHjYEqsgSpwHizqcDfr5WRnq1aHeZsAKwKCbKengLkrr4UanMUO8LxpSKEU_3lDPJMxvF3LbaN6M_9VeWgKLzFzd0qF2GE2Kw0/s1600/TVCM_Blanchard2.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<b>Social presence positively affects the social identity of community members:</b> High social presence makes it more likely to build social relationships among members due to its capability to reduce discomfort, increase predictability and raise the level of affection toward others, thus increasing the possibility to develop attachment to the virtual community.<br />
<br />
<b>Social presence directly influences virtual community participation:</b> According to Shen et al. some individual factors may mediate the effects of social presence on community participation, e.g., extrinsic and intrinsic motivation or satisfaction and trust. Furthermore, social presence may exert a direct influence on community participation - a strong sense of social presence makes a virtual community more similar to a real one, the salient social stimuli presented in the virtual community may activate the direct access processing of existing goals or trigger an automatic perceptual interpretation.<br />
<br />
<b>Social identity has a positive influence on virtual community participation:</b> In order to maintain a positive self-defining relationship with other virtual community members, he or she will be motivated to engage in behaviors as the other members expected. For a virtual community, a large part of such behaviors is to actively participate in the social interaction and contribute to the community.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<b>4. Managing an Online Community of Interest</b></h3>
Social classification as a prerequisite for social identification can be achieved quite easily in face-to-face communities. A scarf with the logo of a football team is sufficient. In virtual communities much depends on the already more active members. Their communication behaviour and the expressiveness of their profiles shape the perception of the level of social presence in the community and they are the basis for the decision of others to participate.<br />
<br />
Interestingly, the influence of information fulfillment on participation is relatively low, even though information seeking is one of the primary reasons why people join a community. But: information fulfillment has a high impact on how social presence is perceived. Unfortunately, this point was not discussed any further in the study. My guess is that the perception of other community members as socially present increases with their willingness to provide information readily. Presumably, it is not even necessary that the information can be used immediately, it is more important that the individual member gets the impression that - if needed - it would get help quickly.<br />
<br />
<br />
____________________________________<br />
<br />
[1] Shen, K. N., Khalifa, M., & Yu, A. Y. (2006, December). <i>Supporting Social Interaction in Virtual Communities: Role of Social Presence. In AMCIS</i> (p. 527). <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=15511884149241017250&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5">Google Scholar</a><br />
[2] Lowenthal, P. R. (2010). The evolution and influence of social presence theory on online learning. Online education and adult learning: New frontiers for teaching practices. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=11870220467493265026&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5">Google Scholar</a>
<br />
[3] Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). <i>Social presence. Encyclopedia of distance and online learning</i> <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=5511446479481516487&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5">Google Scholar</a><br />
<a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?cluster=15511884149241017250&hl=de&as_sdt=0,5"></a>[4] Code, J. R., & Zaparyniuk, N. E. (2009). Social Identities, Group Formation, and the Analysis of Online Communities. Handbook of research on social software and developing community ontologies. <a href="http://scholar.google.de/scholar?hl=de&q=Social+Identities%2C+Group+Formation%2C+and+the+Analysis+of+Online+Communities&btnG=&lr=">Google Scholar</a>Jürgen Derlathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13180222385475786385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3301960398433244286.post-48114248888993796142013-08-30T18:48:00.000+02:002018-01-17T22:11:19.905+01:00Gamification – What is the benefit for community management?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLRWtI0aNTlwrc4zQCd3cVu2ZZTiFUqXWQNdkDO1rJR8BUAtmS1fiSKQzFTPzisRlB2JWWz9FZzB0Hh9otGwFB-fjSDP0F5TKuMtIQ4Ttgg8GUDeF0MSPfNDI6pH4V_EmVBfboLdW7WhYX/s1600/Gamification.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="799" data-original-width="1600" height="159" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLRWtI0aNTlwrc4zQCd3cVu2ZZTiFUqXWQNdkDO1rJR8BUAtmS1fiSKQzFTPzisRlB2JWWz9FZzB0Hh9otGwFB-fjSDP0F5TKuMtIQ4Ttgg8GUDeF0MSPfNDI6pH4V_EmVBfboLdW7WhYX/s320/Gamification.png" width="320" /></a></div>
Gamification is a very young and hot debating topic. The term was not existent before 2010 [1], a fact that might explain that there are so few empirical studies on this subject. Furthermore, the available studies show mixed results [2]. Apparently, the effectiveness of gamification depends on a whole set of interrelated factors (community topic, community type, community size, cultural factors, members' motives and appraisals, the design of the reward system itself etc.). This multitude of determinants makes it difficult to decide whether gamifying one’s own community site may be such a good idea after all.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<b>But, what is gamification?</b><br />
Gamification can mean two completely different things. According to the definition given by Wikipedia: "Gamification is the use of game thinking and game mechanics in a non-game context to engage users and solve problems." [3]<br />
In this context, gamification means the use of game concepts in order to solve problems of a non-gaming-domain with the help of engaged online-gamers. Very interesting examples can be found in the last four minutes (16:00) of Jane McGonigals speech [4]. Another good example is http://fold.it/portal/ with its claim: Solve puzzles for science.<br />
But the popular discourse omits the game concepts and the problem-solving aspect. Here, gamification simply refers to the application of game design features to non-game applications in order to make them more fun and engaging. [5] The most common features are points, badges and leaderboards. If you feel like having a déjà-vu now, then you are right. These are features of a non-financial incentive system which we find in customer loyalty programs or in the job context. And there are many studies dealing with the mechanisms and effects of such reward systems stressing either the benefits or the dangers. Only the fun factor is new.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<b>A basic behavioural model</b></h4>
Social psychology and learning psychology offer a lot of models and theories that try to explain how motives, attitudes and intentions shape our actual behaviour. The common denominator of these theories is the basic behavioural function in which the (observable) behavior is determined by personal factors (e.g. traits, dispositions, abilities) and by environmental factors (e.g. physical and social resources).<br />
<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> <span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> <span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> <span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><br />
When we add a behavioural norm such as „avoid pain – seek pleasure“ (avoidance – appetence) we get a very simple model with which we can try to predict behaviour.<br />
Of course, the basic function is just a black box. We do not know which (unobservable) psychological mechanisms lead from (observable and unobservable) personal and environmental factors to observable behaviour. So, we need further assumptions. It is in these assumptions that those theories differ. And needless to say, the more complicated the organism is, the more complicated it will be to predict/trigger a certain behaviour because the internal mechanisms are more complicated, the range of possible actions is wider and more factors from the environment have to be considered.<br />
This in mind, let us try to hypothesize some of the factors that might be relevant in an online community context.<br />
<h4>
<br /><b>Which factors might determine the effectiveness of gamification?</b></h4>
<b>Community Topic</b><br />
According to the Gamification Wiki, gamification can be applied to any industry and almost anything to create fun and engaging experiences, converting users into players. [5] But honestly, would you gamify an online community for cancer survivors and their relatives?<br />
<br />
<b>Community Type/Community Size</b><br />
According to Ren, Kraut & Kiesler [6] online-communities can be divided into two groups in terms of social psychology:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>In common-identity groups, members feel more attached to the group as a whole. Identity means that a member feels a commitment to the group’s purpose or topic. Seeking and providing information is a primary driver (e.g.: a movie-talk group).</li>
<li>In common-bond groups, a member feels socially and emotionally attached to particular members as well as to the group as a whole. Here, the focus lies on social interaction (e.g.: pupils who meet after class in a social network).</li>
</ul>
<br />
Please note that both types can coexist especially in large communities: The most active members of an interest-based community may form a bond-based subgroup for instance. And community type can change over time.<br />
<br />
Dholakia, Bagozzi & Klein Pearo [7] offer a similar distinction. They posit that, in general, participants of<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>a network-based online-community, where members show identification with the online site itself and not so much with particular members, are more purpose-oriented, they seek information and expect the community to bring them together with others who will provide this information.</li>
<li>In small-group based online-communities, where members maintain a dense web of relationships with other members and identify with them in the first place, interpersonal connectivity and engagement in social interactions are the drivers of participation.</li>
</ul>
<br />
Here is an example of what can happen when gaming elements are introduced in a community where both groups coexist:<br />
<br />
„In a community context, an e-learning community I worked for added a few gaming elements in 2011 such as individual points, organizational points and giving thanks to other members who gave them tips/shared a good course etc. We used the points system a couple of times to get members to complete certain actions in return for bonus points which worked well but it was those members who already enjoyed participating in the community who responded to this the most and most frequently used the gaming elements.<br />
<br />
A small group of active members who regularly communicated in the community and outside the community via email and events utilized the points system most as they were already close, felt comfortable enough in the community to publicly compete against each other and loved gloating to each other when they were in the lead.<br />
<br />
It was all in good humour and feedback from other members who perhaps didn't use the gaming elements in such a competitive way was that it was fun to observe.“ [8]<br />
It seems that the underlying motivation for taking part in the community was not affected. Those with the common-bond attachment were happy to get just another chance to express their close ties.<br />
<br />
A similar observation was made by Hamari [9]. The mere implementation of gamification mechanics didn’t automatically lead to significant increase in use activity of sharetribe members. But those who actively monitored their own badges and those of others showed increased user activity. (N = 3.234, experimental setting).<br />
<br />
<b>Cultural Background</b><br />
In a context where open competition and „ gloating to each other when they were in the lead“ is deemed inappropriate gaming elements are detrimental.<br />
<br />
<b>Members' Motives and Appraisals</b><br />
Cognitive models of human behaviour make several assumptions about the person's factors such as<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>motives e.g. affiliation, </li>
<li>achievement, </li>
<li>power (dominance, control)</li>
<li>self-determination: Do I pursue the goal for its own sake (intrinsic motivation) or do I pursue the goal because I will get a reward/I want to avoid a sanction (extrinsic motivation). Note: Motivation is not static it can shift from extrinsic to intrinsic (internalization) or from intrinsic to extrinsic (overjustification, see further below).</li>
<li>appraisals</li>
<ul>
<li>locus of control: Will my behaviour be causal to reach my goal (expectation of attaining a goal)? How much do I value the goal (how dear is the goal to me)? Can I control the attainment of the goal (internal locus of control) or does it depend on luck or other factors I cannot control (external locus of control)?</li>
<li> self-efficacy: Will I have the know-how necessary for the task? Will I have the resources</li>
<li>norms: What will the other members think of my behaviour?</li>
</ul>
</ul>
That these factors are indeed relevant shows a study on lurking behaviour [10] from 2006. It offers interesting details why community members don't participate. In checkbox questions and open-ended questions lurkers were asked to tell more about their reasons (for details see http://the-virtual-community-blog.blogspot.de/2013/02/from-lurking-to-posting-community.html). The options were derived from original statements of a previous study. Most of them can be attributed more or less to the above mentioned factors, for instance:<br />
<ul>
<li>lack of motivation: “didn't need to post”</li>
<li>lack of self-efficacy: “still learning about the group = I don’t know whether I already have enough knowledge to participate, couldn't make the software work”</li>
<li>low expectation for attaining one's goal by participation: “didn't like the group (poor dynamics, fit)”</li>
</ul>
Of course, in 2006 the concept of gamification was unknown. And so none of the interviewed lurkers could have possibly answered: No badges, no leaderboard. On the other, hand it is difficult to imagine how gamification could fit into this picture.<br />
<br />
<b>Social factors like norms or reciprocal benefits</b><br />
Hamari et al. [11] show the importance of social factors. Social influence (the individual’s perception of how important others regard the target behavior), recognition (social feedback the individual receives from other users), reciprocal benefit and network are strong predictors for attitudes towards gamification, continued use intentions and intentions to recommend the related services (n=107). Note: Intentions are only a predictor for behaviour.<br />
<br />
<b>Design of gaming elements</b><br />
Hakulinen et al. [12] found that achievement badges can affect student’s behaviour depending on the badge type. (Unfortunately, only the abstract of this study was available to me ). Liu et al. [13], after having conducted two case studies, argue that the design of the main functionalities has a much greater impact on behavior than the additional gamified components. But the study had only a small number of participants and the experiment was of short duration.<br />
<h4>
What are the possible risks of gamification? </h4>
<b>Overjustification - Do extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic motivations?</b><br />
The overjustification effect occurs when an expected external incentive such as money or prizes decrease a person's intrinsic motivation to perform a task. According to self-perception theory, people pay more attention to the external reward for an activity than to the inherent enjoyment and satisfaction received from the activity itself. The overall effect of offering a reward for a previously unrewarded activity is a shift to extrinsic motivation and the undermining of pre-existing intrinsic motivation. Once rewards are no longer offered, interest in the activity is lost; prior intrinsic motivation does not return, and extrinsic rewards must be continuously offered as motivation to sustain the activity. The overjustification effect is controversial because it challenges previous findings in psychology on the general effectiveness of (behaviourist) reinforcement on increasing behavior, and also the widespread practice of using incentives. In fact, a 2001 meta-analysis showed that rewards can increase intrinsic motivation for tasks that initially hold little intrinsic interest. [14]<br />
<br />
<b>Mean maximization distorts the decision outcome</b><br />
In their article from 2003, Hsee, Yu, Zhang & Zhang [15] demonstrate in several experiments that, when people are faced with options entailing different outcomes, the presence of a medium — for example, points or money — can alter what option they choose. The effect (= medium maximization) occurs because the medium presents several illusions. A medium is a token people receive as the immediate reward of their effort. It has no value in and of itself, but it can be traded for a desired outcome.<br />
<br />
<b>No guarantee of sustainability</b><br />
Typical online games give the gamer a chance to develop her/his skills and to reach new levels, a simple reward system with badges doesn't. So introducing such a system may achieve only a quick spike.<br />
___________________________________________<br />
References:<br />
[1] Xu, Y. (2011). Literature Review on Web Application Gamification and Analytics. CSDL Technical Report 11-05. Google Scholar<br />
[2a] Witt, Maximilian; Scheiner, Christian; Robra-Bissantz, Susanne. Gamification of online idea competitions: Insights from an explorative case. Informatik schafft Communities, 2011, S. 192.Google Scholar: Participants (n=30!) were asked about their motives for participation, flow, enjoyment and task involvement. Explorative study (no experimental design, small sample size, mixed results).<br />
[2b] Thom, J., Millen, D., & DiMicco, J. (2012, February). Removing gamification from an enterprise sns. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 1067-1070). ACM. Google Scholar: When the points deployment was introduced the contribution of employees’ content rose sharply. The experimental removal ten months after the introduction reduced participation. The study focused on 3.486 active members.<br />
[3] Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification (8.8.13)<br />
[4] http://www.gamification.org/wiki/Gamification_Videos#Jane_McGonigal:_Gam...<br />
[5] Gamification Wiki. http://www.gamification.org/wiki/Gamification (8.8.13)<br />
[6] Ren, Y., Kraut, R., Kiesler, S. (200?). Identity and bond theories to understand design decisions for online communities. Google Scholar<br />
[7] Dholakia, U.M., Bagozzi, R.P., Klein Pearo, L. (2004). A social influence model of consumer participation in network- and small-group-based virtual communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing 21 (2004) 241 – 263. Google Scholar<br />
[8] Community Geek. http://communitygeek.com/comment/16#comment-16 (8.8.13)<br />
[9] Hamari, J. (2013). Transforming Homo Economicus into Homo Ludens: a field experiment on gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications. Google Scholar<br />
[10] Nonnecke, B., Andrews, D., Preece, J. (2006). Non-public and public online community participation: Needs, attitudes and behaviour. Electron Commerce Res 6, p. 7-20. Google Scholar<br />
[11] Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2013, June). Social motivations to use gamification: An empirical study of gamifying exercise. In proceedings of the 21 st European conference in information systems. Utrecht, Netherlands. Google Scholar<br />
[12] Hakulinen, L., Auvinen, T., & Korhonen, A. Empirical Study on the Effect of Achievement Badges in TRAKLA2 Online Learning Environment.<br />
[14] Liu, Y., Alexandrova, T., & Nakajima, T. (2011, December). Gamifying intelligent environments. In Proceedings of the 2011 international ACM workshop on Ubiquitous meta user interfaces (pp. 7-12). ACM. Google Scholar<br />
[14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overjustification (8.8.13)<br />
[15] Christoper K. Hsee, Fang Yu, Jiao Zhang, Yan Zhang (2003). Medium Maximization. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30, June 2003 http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/christopher.hsee/vita/papers/mediummaximization.pdf<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Jürgen Derlathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13180222385475786385noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3301960398433244286.post-66808985080028624522013-08-12T23:33:00.000+02:002018-01-15T17:53:40.726+01:00Sense of community in virtual communities<style type="text/css">P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }A:link { }</style><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Sense of
community (SOC) is a concept in community psychology with far ranging
implications for the management of face-to-face communities. It is
applied to geographical communities (i.e. neighbourhoods, blocks,
colleges) as well as to relational communities of interest where
members are brought together primarily by social interaction and not
by territorial demarcation. If you google for instance „developing
sense of community“ you will see that SOC is a desirable thing
because individuals and institutions devote a lot of energy to its
creation. So, can this concept be made operational for the management
of virtual communities?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><b>1.
Conceptualisation of sense of (virtual) community</b></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">One of
the most prominent conceptualisations of sense of community was
introduced by McMillan and Chavis (1986). It was developed for
face-to-face communities and it includes components such as</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<ul>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">membership
(feelings of emotional safety with a sense of belonging and
identification),</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">influence
(exertion of one's influence on the community with reciprocal
influence of the community on oneself),</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">integration
and fulfillment of needs (beeing supported and giving support,
thereby reinforcing one to behave in a manner acceptable to the
community),</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">shared
emotional connection (positive affect related to community
membership, shared history).</span></div>
</li>
</ul>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">People
asked about their SOC might give answers like these:</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<ul>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Membership:
„It is the diversity of people that makes this neighbourhood so
unique. There are so many different flavors here and it is these
flavors coming together that makes living here so valueable.“</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Influence:
„I have the feeling that it really matters when I say something
and that my opinion is taken seriously.“</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Integration
and fulfillment of needs: „I'm drawn to this neighbourhood because
we are all connected with one another. The size of our community
allows me to see and deal with people that I know. When I need help
doing maintenance work i.e. I can always ask a neighbour for help or
advice.“</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Shared
emotion connection: „I've been living here for more than twenty
years and so do a lot of us in this area. We raised our kids
together!“</span></div>
</li>
</ul>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Researchers
like Blanchard and Marcus (2004) extended the SOC-concept to virtual
communities, calling the result: sense of virtual community (SOVC).
They found similarities, including</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<ul>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">feelings
of membership,</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">integration
of needs, and</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">shared
emotional connections,</span></div>
</li>
</ul>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">as well
as differences:</span>
</div>
<ul>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Members
reported that recognizing others and relationships with specific
other members were important to them.</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">They
did however not report feeling that they exerted influence on/were
influenced by others.</span></div>
</li>
</ul>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><b>2.
What are the benefits of SO(V)C? (cf. Pretty et al., 2007)</b></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">One way
of understanding sense of community is as a process in which
community members interact, draw parts of their identity from this
participation, give as well as receive social support, and by
contributing to the common good foster the development of SOC. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">On the
other hand, sense of community is seen as some type of positive end
state and end in itself. And there are some impressive examples of
how SOC (SOVC) has a significant role in the health, well-being, and
mental health outcomes of populations and sub-groups.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">A third
aspect is to see it as a predictor of other positive or negative -
outcomes. A strong SOC is associated with well functioning
communities that are supportive, even though one may not have
personal relationships with each individual member. Furthermore,
members may continue to have a SOC even though individuals come and
go. Hence, sense of community can be an illusive cognition and affect
which is not necessarily based on experiencing individual- level
transactions.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">This is
particularly important for communities where members are not attached
to one another by personal bonds but where the member is attached to
the community as a whole This refers to the distinction of common
identity vs. common bond: The distiction is based on the member's
attachment either to the group as a whole [common identity] or to
particular members of the community [common bond] (cf. Ren et al.,
200?).</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">But
communities with a strong SOC may also develop a tendency to turn
inward, to exclude members that are different especially in times of
need.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><b>3.
What are the antecedents of SOVC? </b></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Blanchard
reported the results for a model she had tested in two studies in
which</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<ul>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span lang="en-GB">the</span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span lang="en-GB">
</span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span lang="en-ZA">identity</span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">
</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span lang="en-GB">of</span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">
</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span lang="en-GB">other</span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">
members and themselves (-> membership) </span>
</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">observing
exhange of support within the community (->
reinforcement/integration of needs), and </span>
</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">interacting
with other members of the community outside of the virtual community
via email </span>
</div>
</li>
</ul>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">contributed
to the SOVC either directly and/or mediated by group norms. McMillan
& Chavis had already emphasised the importance of shared values
(= norms) for the exchange of support in a community:</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 0.68cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">"When
people who share values come together, they find that they have
similar needs, priorities, and goals, thus fostering the belief that
in joining together they might be better able to satisfy these needs
and obtain the reinforcement they seek. (...) The extent to which
individual values are shared among community members will determine
the ability of a community to organize and prioritize its
need-fulfillment activities. (...) A strong community is able to fit
people together so that people meet others’ needs while they meet
their own."</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><b>4.
How can I assess the SO(V)C of my community?</b></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">A
measure of sense of community is the Sense of Community Index (SCI:
Perkins, Florin, Rich, Wandersman & Chavis, 1990; Long &
Perkins, 2003). Several other questionnaires have been developed
mostly for residential community research (e.g. Sense of Community
Index 2). Blanchard developed a questionnaire for assessing the SOVC.
An alternative approach was taken by using the reparatory grid
technique, a quantitative, phenomenological approach originally
developed by Kelly (1955). This involves communities selecting their
own constructs for analysis, and residents’ ratings being based on
these elements.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">So in
principle, you could take Blanchard's questionnaire, use a 5 or 7
point likert-type scale and ask your community. Let us suppose for a
moment you've done that and the mean value is 2.2. What does it tell
you? Not much, unless one knows the mean value of similar communities
or unless you have repeated the survey in your community several
times which will give you at least an information on the trend. To my
knowledge and unfortunately there is no reference database yet.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><b>5.
How can I improve the SOVC of my community?</b></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Possible
measures for the improvement of SOC can be categorised in line with
its determinants although there isn't always an exclusive 1:1
attribution. Please read Richard Millington's blogpost „How to use
transferable elements to develop a strong sense of community.“
(</span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://www.feverbee.com/2011/10/senseofcommunity.html"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">http://www.feverbee.com/2011/10/senseofcommunity.html</span></a></u></span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">).</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">___________________________________</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">References:</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Blanchard,
Anita L. (2007) "Developing a sense of virtual community
measure. "</span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">CyberPsychology
& Behavior </span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">10.6:
827-830.</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Blanchard,
Anita L. (2008). Testing a model of sense of virtual
community. </span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Computers
in Human Behavior 24: 2107–2123. S</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">ee
also :
</span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://the-virtual-community-blog.blogspot.de/2013/03/the-sources-of-sense-of-virtual.html"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">http://the-virtual-community-blog.blogspot.de/2013/03/the-sources-of-sense-of-virtual.html</span></span></a></u></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Blanchard,
Anita L. and Markus, M. Lynne (2004). The Experienced "Sense"
of a Virtual Community: Characteristics and Processes. </span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Database
for Advances in Information Systems</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">;
Winter 2004; ABI/INFORM Global p. 65. See also:
</span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://the-virtual-community-blog.blogspot.de/2013/01/sense-of-virtual-community-antecedents.html"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">http://the-virtual-community-blog.blogspot.de/2013/01/sense-of-virtual-community-antecedents.html</span></span></a></u></span></span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">McMillan,
David W. and Chavis David M. (1986). Sense of Community: A Definition
and Theory. </span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Journal
of Community Psychology Volume 14, 6-23</span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><b>.</b></i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Ren,
Y., Kraut, R. , Kiesler, S. (200?). </span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Identity
and bond theories to understand design decisions for online
communities.See also:
</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://the-virtual-community-blog.blogspot.de/2013/03/the-effect-of-community-type-on-member.html"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">http://the-virtual-community-blog.blogspot.de/2013/03/the-effect-of-community-type-on-member.html</span></span></a></u></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Pretty,
Grace, et al. (2007) "Psychological sense of community and its
relevance to well-being and everyday life in Australia." </span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
Australian Community Psychologist </span></i></span></span></span><span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">19.2:
6-25.</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Sense
of Community Index 2 (SCI-2):
</span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: navy;"><span lang="zxx"><u><a href="http://www.communityscience.com/pdfs/Sense%20of%20Community%20Index-2(SCI-2).pdf"><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">http://www.communityscience.com/pdfs/Sense%20of%20Community%20Index-2(SCI-2).pdf</span></span></span></span></a></u></span></span></div>
Jürgen Derlathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13180222385475786385noreply@blogger.com0