Abstract Increasing participation in online communities A framework for human–computer int

ComputersinHumanBehavior23(2007)1881–1893

Increasingparticipationinonlinecommunities:Aframeworkforhuman–computerinteraction

JonathanBishop

*UniversityofGlamorgan,SchoolofHumanities,LawandSocialSciences,LlantwitRoad,

Pontypridd,WalesCF371DL,UK

Availableonline19January2006

Abstract

OnlinecommunitiesarebecominganacceptedpartofthelivesofInternetusers,althoughpar-ticipationinthesecommunitiesisdependentonthetypesofpeoplethatformthem.Someoftheonlinecommunity’smembersdonotparticipate,peoplereferredtoaslurkers,whereasotherswhohavebeeninthecommunityforalongtime,referredtoaselders,participateregularlyandsup-portothers.Understandingwhatdrivestheseindividualsandhowtheychosewhetherornottopar-ticipatewillleadtoonlinecommunitiesthatthrive.Thispaperproposesaconceptualframeworktodescribewhatdrivessuchindividualstocarryoutactionssuchaspostingmessagesandaddingcon-tent(level1),thecognitionstheyusetodeterminewhetherornottotakesuchactions(level2)andthemeansbywhichtheygoaboutcarryingouttheactionintheenvironment(level3).Finally,theframeworkisappliedtotheproblemofencouragingmemberstoparticipatebydiscussingthemeth-odsbywhichpeoplecanbepersuadedtoparticipatebychangingthewaytheyinterprettheirdesiresandtheirenvironment.

Ó2005ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.

Keywords:Onlinecommunity;Lurkers;Behavior;Persuasion;Cognitivedissonance;Ecologicalcognition

1.Introduction

OnlinecommunitiesareincreasinglybecominganacceptedpartofthelivesofInternetusers,servingtofulfiltheirdesirestointeractwithandhelpothers.Thesecommunitiescan

*Tel.:+447092107212;fax:+4470921072123.

E-mailaddresses:jonathan@jonathanbishop.com,jonathan@jonathanbishop.co.uk.

0747-5632/$-seefrontmatterÓ2005ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.doi:10.1016/j.chb.2005.11.004

1882J.Bishop/ComputersinHumanBehavior23(2007)1881–1893

takemanyforms,fromwebsitesthatprovidefacilitiestodiscussparticularsubjectsorintereststogroupsofpeoplecommunicatingusinginstantmessagingtools(Bishop,2003a).Theexistenceofsuchcommunitiesisoftenbroughtaboutbypeoplewhosharesimilargoals,beliefsorvalues,withsuchcommonalityformingthebasisofanagreementtoformandsustainavirtualexistence(Figallo,1998).Throughbeingbasedonsuchweakties,manyofthesefunctionalsystemsfindtheirexistencetobeunsustainable,withthegoalstokeepthecommunitygoingwithoutbeingabandonedbyitsmembers.Actions,suchaspostingamessagetoabulletinboardorjoiningasub-communityrequireadrivethatappearstobeabsentinthememberswhochosenottoparticipateinonlinecommu-nities.Researchintomemberswhohavenevertakenaparticipatoryaction,whoarereferredtoas‘lurkers’hasrevealedtherearemanyreasonswhythisisthecase.AstudybyPreece,Nonnecke,andAndrews(2004)foundthemainreasonsastowhylurkersdidnotparticipatewasbecausetheyfelttheydidnotneedtopost,theyneededtofindoutmoreaboutthegroup,theythoughttheywerebeinghelpful,theycouldnotmakethesoft-wareworkandinsomecasesbecausetheydidnotlikethegroup.OntheotherextremeisagroupofcommunitymembersthatKim(2000)describesas‘elders’,whoareactivemem-bersofthecommunity,regularlypostingtosharetheirknowledgeandthecultureofthecommunity.Sofar,littleresearchhasbeendoneintowhatdrivestheseoutstandingindi-vidualstocontributetoonlinecommunities,withmuchfocusbeingonwhylessinvolvedmemberssuchaslurkersdonotparticipate.

2.Understandingwhypeopleparticipateinonlinecommunities

Someinvestigationsintoidentifyingpracticalmethodsofdesigningonlinecommunitieshavesuggestedhierarchicalneedstheory(Maslow,1943)asanappropriatemethodofunderstandingandsupportingusersofonlinecommunities.Kim(2000)suggeststhatthetheorycanbehelpfulindesigningeffectiveonlinecommunities.ThiswassupportedinastudybyGrosso(2001),whichsuggestedthatitisusefultorefertothetheoryasindi-vidualsmayfulfilsomeoftheirso-calledneedsinonlinecommunities,aswellasinastudybyBishop(2002),whichrecommendedthatsuchcommunitiesshouldprovidethebasic‘deficitneeds’ofuserssothattheirhigher‘beingneeds’canbealsobemet.ThetheorywasfurthersuggestedasameanstounderstandonlinecommunitiesbyShneiderman(2002),whoindicatedthatitappealedtohimbecauseitis‘orderly’.Hierarchicalneedstheoryseemstosuggestthatthereasonlurkersdonotparticipateisthattheirphysiolog-icalorsecurityneedsarenotbeingmetandthereasoneldersparticipateisthattheyaremeetingtheirsocialandesteemneeds.However,whilstonthefaceofthingsthismayseemplausible,thesuppositionthatcommunitymembersareparticipatinginordertosatisfyneedsisunsatisfactory.Furthermore,theideathatthereisahierarchytoanindividualsat-isfyingso-calledneedsisalsoquestionable,particularlyasitispossibleforanindividualtobesociableandbecreativeatthesametimeanditmightnotbenecessaryforthemtobecomesecurebeforetheyactoutsocialdesires.Indeed,Mook(1987)foundthatwhenindividualswerenotfulfillingwhatMaslow(1943)describedassecurityneeds,theystillwantedtobesociablewiththoseinasimilarsituationtothemselves,withsomeexhibitingaltruisticbehaviours.Thissuggeststhatitisnotnecessaryforactorsthatuseonlinecom-munitiestofeelsafeorphysiologicallysatisfiedinordertointeractwiththesystem.Therehavebeennumerouscasesofactorsgoingwithoutsleepandfoodinordertoactoutsocialdesiresinvirtualenvironments,whichhavebeenreportedinthemedia(e.g.Griffiths,

J.Bishop/ComputersinHumanBehavior23(2007)1881–18931883

2005).Someresearchsuggeststhatactorsthatusehuman-computersystemsaregoal-dri-venasopposedtoneeds-drivenandwillseekoutopportunitiestomeetthesegoals.Niel-senandNorman(2003)arguethatiftheattentionofauserisfocussedonmeetingtheirgoalstheywillignoredistractions,suchasadvertisementsthatinterferewiththem.Manto-vani(1996a)supportsthisinhismodelofsocialcontextinwhichheindicatesthatauser,whichhereferstoasanactor,willconstructasituationbasedontheirgoalsandcompe-tencies.Frameworkssuggestingthatactionsarelinkedtogoalsseemmoreappropriateforonlinecommunitiesasneeds-basedtheoriesdonotexplainwhycommunitymemberssuchaslurkersdonotparticipateiftheir‘deficitneeds’arebeingmet.March(1991)indicatesthatoneoftheprimarywaysinwhichindividualsdevelopgoalsisbyinterpretingtheactionstheytakeanddevelopingnewbeliefsbasedonthem.Itispossiblethatalurkermaybelievethattheircontributionmaynotbewelcomed,particularlyiftheyhavepostedinacommunitybeforeandreceivedanunfavourableresponse.Thesebeliefswillhaveadirectinfluenceontheirgoalsmeaningtheymaynothavethesamewillingnesstopartic-ipateasanelderforexample,whomayholdmorepositivebeliefsaboutwhattheiractionswillachieve.Whilstgoalsplayanimportantpartindeterminingwhetheranindividualparticipatesinanonlinecommunity,itdoesnotseemplausiblethattheyarethedrivingforcebehindtheactionsindividualstake.3.Theecologicalcognitionframework

Theauthorproposesa3-levelframeworkforunderstandingwhymembersofonlinecommunitieseitherparticipateordonotparticipate(Fig.1).Theframeworkacceptsmany

Level 1 ordersocialexistentialvengeancecreativegoalsplansinterestsLevel 2 valuesbeliefsauditoryvisualhapticLevel 3 olfactorygustatoryactorsartefactsEnvironmentstructuresetc.Fig.1.Theecologicalcognitionframework.1884J.Bishop/ComputersinHumanBehavior23(2007)1881–1893

oftheprinciplesofactionputforwardbyMantovani(1996b),includingthatactorscon-structinterpretationsoftheirenvironmentbasedontheirgoals,whicharereferredtoassituations.Mantovani’smetaphorofusersofvirtualenvironmentsasactorsseemsappro-priateforusersofonlinecommunities.Theecologicalcognitionframeworkindicatesthattheseactorswillexperienceadesiretocarryoutanaction,suchassolvingaproblemofanotheractor(level1),interpretwhethertakingthisactionisconsistentwiththeirgoals,plans,values,beliefsandinterests(level2)andusetheirabilitiestocarryouttheactionandperceivetheenvironmenttheyarepartof(level3).

Level1oftheframeworkismadeupofanactor’sdesires.TheseareSocial,whichincludesthedesiretobecomepartofthecommunitythroughsocializingandcommunicat-ing;Order,whichincludesthedesiretoarrangeandsortartefactsandotherexternalrep-resentationsaswellasthedesiretotakecontrolofsituations;Existential,whichincludesthedesiretoeatfoodanddrinkwater;Vengeance,whichincludesthedesiretoretaliatetosomeone,suchasthroughpostingnegativecommentsorthrough‘flaming’,andCreative,whichincludesthedesiretocreatecontentinawikiforexample.Themaindifferencebetweenthisframeworkandneeds-basedtheoriesistheconceptthatindividualsarenotneedsdriven,butdrivenbytheirdesirestocarryoutactions.

Thefivecategoriesofdesirespresentedinthisframeworkarethedesiresthatleadtotheactionsthataremostlikelytooccurinonlinecommunities.The‘social’categoryisincludedbecauseonlinecommunitiesareinherentlysocialspaces,andnearlyalluserswillparticipatethroughpostingmessagesortakingpartinchatsessions.Indeed,Rhiengold(2000)describes‘thesocialWeb’inwhichpeoplelikehimparticipateasaresultofbeingdrivenbytheirlongingstoparticipate.The‘order’categorywasincludedbecauseInternetuserscarryoutactionssuchasorganisingbookmarks,rearrangingpagesandspecificmemberssuchasleadersmaydesiretotakecontrolofasituation,suchaswhenmembersareflamingeachotherinachatsession.Leadersmayalsoexperienceanorderdesireifabulletinboardgoesoff-topicandwillcarryoutactionstobringitbacktotheoriginaltopic,despitethefactthatallowingbulletinboardtogooff-topiccanincreasesociabilityinthecommunity(Bishop,2002).The‘existential’categorywasincludedbecausedespitetheenvironmentbeingcomputer-mediated,onlinecommunitymemberswillstillexperi-encedesirestocarryoutactionssuchaseatinganddrinking,whichwillhaveaneffectontheirinteractionsintheseenvironments.The‘vengeance’categorywasincludedbecauseonlinecommunitymembersareknowntobemoreaggressivethanthosefromtra-ditionalcommunities(Kiesler&Sproull,1992;Wallace,2001),carryingoutactionssuchasflaming,andpostingnegativefeedbackonothercommunitymembersforpurposesofrevenge.Indeed,Smith(2001)describeshowsomeonlinecommunitymembersthathavebeenbannedfromthecommunitywillreturnwithnewidentitiestoharassotherindivid-uals,disruptthecommunityandchallengetheauthorityofleaders.The‘creative’categorywasincludedbecausemanyactionsinonlinecommunitiesarecarriedouttosolveprob-lemsorcreatecontent.

Level2ofthemodelismadeupofanactor’scognitions–theirgoals,plans,values,beliefsandinterests.Researchhasalreadyestablishedthatindividualswillseektoachieveconsonanceoftheirbeliefs(O’Keefe,1990).Theecologicalcognitionframeworkextendsthisbysuggestingthatindividualswilltrytomaketheirbeliefsconsonantwiththeirgoals,plans,valuesandinterestsaswell.Plansareconceivedasaresultofexperiencingdesiresandarestoredinmemoryasaresultofreflectingonaplanthathasbeenactedout.Goalscanbeshort-termobjectivesormorelong-termideasortargetstoachieve.Beliefsare

J.Bishop/ComputersinHumanBehavior23(2007)1881–18931885

assertionsthatanactorbelievestobetrue,forexample,alurkermaybelievethatbypost-ingamessagetheyarebeingunhelpful.Beliefscanbechangedfairlyeasilybyexperienceandresolvingdissonance.Valuesarelesseasilychangedthanbeliefs,astheyareclearlydefinedprinciplesthattheactorhasacceptedthroughinteractionswiththeirenvironment.Interestsareconnectionswithsomethingorsomebodythattheactorattemptstomaintain.Anactorisunlikelytochangetheirbeliefsaboutanotheractorforexampleiftheyhaveaninterestinthatactor.

Level3ofthemodelismadeupofanactor’smeanstointerpretandinteractwiththeirenvironment.Itismadeupofhapticabilities,suchasthesenseoftouch,andcapacitytointeractthroughtouch;auditoryabilities,suchasthesenseofhearingandabilitytointer-actthroughspeaking;visual,suchasthesenseofsightandcapacitytoimaginevisualimages;olfactory,suchasthesenseofsmell,andgustatory,suchasthesenseoftaste.Theenvironmentismadeupofotheractors,artefacts,andstructuresamongotherthings.Intermsofhuman-computersystems,artefactstaketheformoftextorgraphicsthatofferperceivedaffordances,suchastheperceivedaffordanceofclickability(Bishop,2005)andstructurestaketheformofapplicationsandsoftware,suchasWebbrowsersandplug-ins.

3.1.Principle1–anactorisdriventoactbytheirdesires

Thefirstprincipleoftheecologicalcognitionframeworkisthatactorsaredrivenbytheirdesirestoperformanactionasopposedtosatisfyaninternalentity,suchasaneed.Thisdepartsfromtraditionaltheoriesthatindividualsareneeds-driven,aconceptthatisnotappropriateforonlinecommunities.Unlikeitiscommonlythought,desiresarenotresponsestoemotions,astheyarenotsufficientlyconnectedwithfeelings(Kenny,1963).Recentresearchhasacknowledgedtheexistenceofdesires(Reiss,2004),buttheseregarddesirestobemuchlikewhatMaslow(1943)describesasneedsinthattheyneedtobe‘satisfied’asopposedtoactedout.Inthecontextoftheauthor’smodel,desiresarethoughtsorrequestsforactionthatanactorexperiencesasopposedtoarequirementorwant.Itisacknowledgedthatoneofthereasonsonlinecommunitymemberspartici-pateisthattheyaredrivenbytheirdesirestoparticipate(Rhiengold,2000)andtheethosbehindtheecologicalcognitionframeworkisthatonlinecommunitymembersarepartofthecommunitytogiveintheformofactingouttheirdesires,asopposedtotakefromthemashierarchicalneedstheorysuggests.

Underthisframework,anelder,whoregularlyrepliestopostsinanonlinecommunity,canbeseenasactingoutseveraldesires.Theeldercouldbeactingouttheircreativedesires,bysolvingtheproblemsofotheractors,ortheycouldbeactingouttheirsocialdesires,bycommunicatingwithotherstosharetheircommunity’svaluesandbeliefs.Kim(2000)identifiesthreeothercategoriesofonlinecommunitymemberswhoareneitherlurkersnorelders.Theyarenovices,whowereoncelurkers,buthavebecomenewmem-berswhoneedtolearnaboutthecommunityanditsvalues;regulars,whowereoncenov-ices,butnowareestablishedinthecommunityandcomfortablyparticipatingincommunitylifeandleaders,whoarevolunteersandstaffwhokeepthecommunityrunningandgoontobecomeelders.Likeelders,noviceswillhavedesirestobesocial,butlikelurkerstheymaynotparticipatefully,butfordifferentreasons.Regularsactouttheirdesirestobesocialandcreative,andasWallace(2001)pointsout,theyaresometimesknowntoactouttheirlessconstructivedesiresifanotherregularpostsamessagetoanov-

1886J.Bishop/ComputersinHumanBehavior23(2007)1881–1893

icethatiscontrarytotheirbeliefs.Leadersmayactouttheirorderdesires,byensuringthatbulletinboardsdonotgoofftopic,orbyensuringthateveryoneisabletoparticipate.3.2.Principle2–anactor’sdesiretoactislimitedbytheirgoals,plans,values,beliefsandinterests

Thesecondprincipleoftheecologicalcognitionframeworkisthatanactorwilltakeintoaccounttheirexistinggoals,plans,values,beliefsandinterestsbeforetakingactionbasedontheirdesires,whichmayhavemadesuchcognitionsdissonant.

Theframeworksuggeststhatonceanactorhasadesire,theywilldevelopaplantoactoutthatdesire,muchinthesamewaythatwhentheyperceiveanaffordanceintheenvi-ronmenttheydevelopplanstointeractwiththeartefactthatofferedit.Theactormaythenfindthatthisplanisdissonantwiththeirbeliefs.Forexample,alurkermaydesiretobesocialanddevelopaplantocommunicatewithanotheractor,butbelievetheywillnotbebeinghelpfulbydoingso,sotheydonotactouttheirdesire,thusexperiencingtemper-ance.Eveniftheactordidnothaveanybeliefsthatpreventedthemfromactingouttheirdesire,iftheplantoactoutthedesirewasinconsistentwiththeirexistingplans,theirval-ues,theirgoalsortheirinterests,thentheywillexperiencetemperanceandnotactouttheplan.

Thisisasignificantlydifferentconcepttothosemodelsthatproposethatactorsaregoal-driven.Accordingtothisframework,actorsarenotdrivenbygoals,butusetheirgoalstovalidatetheplansthatdevelopfromtheirdesires.Intheironlinecommunityframework(OCF),DeSouzaandPreece(2004)appeartosupportthisconceptbyindicat-ingthatanactorwillsharegoalswithothercommunitymembersandhavetheiractionsinfluencedbythem.TheOCFalsoindicatesthatactorswilladoptthenormsandrulesofthecommunityandsuchbeliefswillalsoinfluencetheiractions.

Animportantaspectofthissecondprincipleisthatanactor’scognitionsareregularlydissonantandtheactorisalwaystryingtomakethemconsonantinordertoachievecon-sonanceandexperienceintemperancethroughtakingactionsthatreflecttheirdesires.Forexample,anactormayhaveadesiretohelpsomeoneinanonlinecommunityandplantogotothecommunitytoseekoutanopportunitytohelpsomeone,butwhentheyfindthatopportunitytheymayhaveabeliefthattheywillnotbehelpfulbyposting.Theyhavetoresolvethisdissonancebyeitherchangingtheirbelieforchangingtheirplan.Todothistheycouldusetheirvalues,whichcouldincludeavaluetoalwayshelpsomeoneinneed,ortheirgoals,whichcouldincludeagoaltobeavaluedmemberofthecommunity.Inmostindividuals,changingplanswouldbefairlystraightforward,butasFrith(1991)andBishop(2003b)pointout,inindividualswithautisticspectrumdisorder(ASD)anychangeinplansmaybeunacceptabletothem.Forexample,anindividualwithASDmayhaveplannedtowatchaparticulartelevisionprogrammeatacertaintime,meaningeveniftheyhadadesiretobesociablewithanotheractor,theymaybreakoffanyconver-sationtheyarehaving,especiallyiftheyhavenotdevelopedbeliefstothecontrary.How-ever,theseindividualsmaybewillingtochangesuchaplaniftheyhaveadesiretobecreative,astheyaregenerallyknowntobesystemisers(Baron-Cohen,Richler,Bisarya,Gurunathan,&Wheelwright,2003).Unlikehierarchicalneedstheory,theecologicalcog-nitionframeworkdoesnotsuggestthereisahierarchytoanactor’sdesires.Theprepo-tencyofadesireisnotdeterminedatLevel1byaninbuiltstructure,itisdeterminedatLevel2bythewayinwhichanactorhasmadetheircognitionsconsonant.Forexample,

J.Bishop/ComputersinHumanBehavior23(2007)1881–18931887

anactorusinganinstantmessagingtoolmayhaveanexistentialdesiretoeat,buttheymayalsohaveasocialdesiretocontinuewiththeconversation.Thedesirethatisprepo-tentwillbedeterminedbywhethertheactorbelievesitismoreimportanttohavefoodorbesociable.

However,stronganactor’sdesirestocontributetoanonlinecommunity,iftheyareunabletomaketheircognitionsconsonant,theyaremorelikelytoexperiencetemperancethanintemperance.

3.3.Principle3–anactorwillactbasedonhowtheyperceivetheirenvironment

Thethirdprincipleoftheecologicalcognitionframeworkisthatanactorwillcarryoutanactionbasedonhowtheyperceivetheirenvironment.Mantovani(1996a)hasalreadydemonstratedthatanactorwilltakeintoaccounttheirgoalswheninteractingwitharte-factsandotheractors,buttheecologicalcognitionframeworkindicatesthattheywilltakeintoaccounttheirplans,valuesandbeliefsaswell.Ifanactorhasthedesiretodosome-thingthatresultsinaplan,thisplanisconsonantwiththeircognitions,andtheyhavetheabilitytoactoutthedesire,thenextstageistointeractwiththeenvironment.Theenvi-ronmentismadeupofamongotherthings,actorsandartefacts,withtheactorlimitingtheirattentionfocustothoseaspectsofthefunctionalsystemtheyarewithinthatprovidesthemwiththeopportunitytoactouttheirdesires.Indeed,theregionofthebrainassoci-atedwithcodingtheaffordanceofartefacts(theleftinferiorparietallobule)isthesameregionassociatedwithselectiveattention(Frederikse,Lu,Aylward,Barta,&Pearlson,

´zes&Decety,2002).Furthermore,thisregionofthebrainisalsoassociatedwith1999;Gre

motorplanning(Winstein,Grafton,&Pohl,1997),suggestingthatwhenanactorper-ceivesanaffordancetheyareinfluencingtheirplanstoactouttheirdesires.

Mantovani’sframework(1996a)indicatesthatactorswillseekoutopportunitiesintheirenvironmenttomeettheirgoalsthroughlimitingtheirattentionfocustothosearte-factswithintheircompetencies.Theecologicalcognitionframeworkpartiallysupportsthisbyindicatingthatanactorwillseekoutopportunitiestomeettheirdesiresandhowtheyactoutthesedesireswilldependonthesituationtheyhaveconstructedbasedonhowtheyhaveperceivedtheirenvironment.Anactorwilltakeintoaccounttheirgoals,plans,values,beliefsandinterestswhenperceivingtheirenvironment.Ifforexample,aregularhadadesiretobesocial,theymayseekoutactorswithwhomtobesocialwith.Theywouldtakeintoaccounttheirbeliefsabouttheseactorswhendecidingwhethertoactouttheirdesireswiththemandalsowhethercommunicatingwiththeseparticularactorsisconsistentwiththeirexistingplans,goalsandvalues.4.Persuadingactorstoparticipateinonlinecommunities

Encouragingparticipationisoneofthegreatestchallengesforanyonlinecommunityprovider.Thereisalargeamountofliteraturedemonstratingwaysinwhichonlinecom-munitiescanbeeffectivelybuilt(Figallo,1998;Kim,2000;Preece,2000;Young,2000).However,anonlinecommunitycanhavetherighttools,therightchatplatformandtherightethos,butifcommunitymembersarenotparticipatingthecommunitywillnotflourish.Encouragingmemberstochangefromlurkersintonovicesisprovingtobeachallengeforcommunityprovidersandwhilstthereisalotofresearchintowhylurkersdonotparticipate(Nonnecke&Preece,2000;Preeceetal.,2004;Takahashi,Fujimoto,

1888J.Bishop/ComputersinHumanBehavior23(2007)1881–1893

&Yamasaki,2002)therearefewsuggestionsabouthowtochangetheirbehaviour.Tra-ditionalmethodsofbehaviourmodificationareunsuitableforvirtualenvironments.Methodologies,suchasoperantconditioning(Skinner,1938)wouldsuggestthatthewaytoturnlurkersintoeldersistorewardthemfortakingparticipatoryactions.Eveniftheconceptthatparticipatoryactions,suchaspostingmessageswillberepeatediftheyarerewardedwasaccepted,thismethodwouldstillrequirealurkertotaketheinitialstepandpostamessage.Theecologicalcognitionframeworkproposesthatinorderforactorstocarryoutaparticipatoryaction,suchaspostingamessage,thereneedstobeadesiretodoso,thedesireneedstobeconsistentwiththeactor’sgoals,plans,values,beliefsandinterestsandtheyneedtohaveabilitiesandtoolstodoso.Someactorssuchaslurkers,mayhavethedesireandthecapabilities,butholdbeliefsthatpreventthemfrommakingparticipatoryactionsinonlinecommunities.Inorderforthemtodoso,theyneedtohavethedesiretodosoandtheirbeliefsneedtobechanged.Traditionalmethods,suchasoper-antconditioningmaybeabletochangethebeliefofalurkerthattheyarenotbeinghelp-fulbypostingamessage,butitisunlikelythattheywillbeeffectiveatchangingotherbeliefs,suchasthebelieftheydonotneedtopost.Inordertochangebeliefsitisnecessarytomakeanactor’sbeliefsdissonant,somethingthatcouldbeuncomfortablefortheactor.IndeedBishop(2004)pointsoutthatactorswillbelesswillingtobepersuadedifthepre-sentedargumentsconflictwiththebeliefs,plansandvaluestheyhavealreadydeveloped.However,theuseofpersuasivetext,whichisanymessagedevisedtocounterthebeliefsofanactorandprovidethemwithnewinformation(Chambliss&Garner,1996;Hovland,Janis,&Kelley,1954)canbeonewayofchangingthebeliefsoflurkers,althoughsomestudieshavequestionedtheeffectivenessofpersuasivetextinhuman-computersystems(Murphy,Long,Holleran,&Esterly,2003).

Whenpresentedwithapieceofpersuasivetextthatisdissonantwiththeirexistingbeliefs,anactorwilltakeintoaccountfactorsincludingthecredibilityofthesourcebeforechangingtheirbeliefs,aswellastheirothercognitions,suchastheirgoals.Thissuggeststhatalurkermaybepersuadedtochangetheirbeliefsthatleadthemtoexperiencetem-peranceiftheyconsiderthecommunitymemberssuggestingtheyparticipatecrediblyandchangingthebeliefwouldbeconsistentwiththegoalsthattheyhold.Bishop(2002)inves-tigatedusingaratingsystem,wherebycommunitymembersindicatedwhethertheyfoundaparticularmembertrustworthyornot.Inthesystem,whichworkedsimilartotheratingsystemusedbyeBay.co.uk,individualsweregivenonepointbyeachmemberwhothoughttheyweretrustworthyandlostonepointbyeachmemberwhothoughttheywereuntrust-worthy.Thissystemwouldindicatetolurkerswhichmembersaremostcredible,meaningtheymaybemorelikelytobepersuadedbythemtochangetheirbeliefsandparticipate.However,despitethepotentialofusingpersuasivetexttochangethebeliefsoflurkers,itmaybedifficultinanonlinecommunityforeldersandleaderstoidentifythebeliefsthatcausealurkertoexperiencetemperancepreventingthemfrombecominganovice,soothermethodsarerequired.

Perhapsoneofthemosteffectivemeanstochangethebeliefsoflurkerssothattheybecomenovicesisforregulars,leadersandelderstonurturenovicesinthecommunitysothatlurkerscanseethatthosewhoarenewtoacommunityaretreatedwell.Oftenlurk-erswillbeactorsthathavepostedinotheronlinecommunitiesandnotreceivedareplyandwillholdabeliefthattheywillbeignorediftheycontribute.Theselurkerscanbeper-suadedtochangesuchabeliefiftheyseethatnoviceshavetheirpostsrespondedtoinaconstructiveway.

J.Bishop/ComputersinHumanBehavior23(2007)1881–18931889

Whilstchangingthebeliefsofalurkerwillmeantheyaremorelikelytoexperienceintemperanceandactoutadesiretoparticipate,communitiesalsoneedfacilitatetheactorindevelopingdesirestoparticipate.Onewayofdoingthisisthroughusingmediatingarte-factsthatofferperceivedaffordances,assuggestedbyBishop(2005).Mediatingartefactssuchashyperlinkscanoffertheperceivedaffordanceofclickability,inthattheyleadtheactortodevelopaplantoclickthem.Ifsuchaplanisconsistentwithanactorsgoalsanddoesnotconflictwiththeirbeliefstheyarelikelytoexperienceintemperanceandactouttheplan,whichcouldbetoparticipate.Anactorthatimmediatelyactsouttheplansthatcomefrommediatingartefactscouldbeengagedinastateofflow,inthattheywillexpe-riencedeference,whichisanotherwayofencouraginglurkerstocontributetoanonlinecommunity.

Csikszentmihalyi(1990)indicatesthatwhenanactorisengagedinastateofflow,theconcentrationissointensethatthereisnoattentionleftovermeaningthattheworriesaboutproblemsdisappear.Thissuggeststhatwheninastateofflow,anactorwillbeact-ingupontheirdesiresandexperiencedeference.Itislikelythatwheninastateofflowanactor’splansarebaseddirectlyonactingouttheirdesires.Itseemsclearthatiftheactorisinastateofflow,theyaremorelikelytotakeaparticipatoryaction.Achievingastateofflowthatresultsindeferenceispotentiallydifficultinonlinecommunities,asmanyoftheactionstakenbyactorswillbeastheresultofresolvingdissonanceinordertoexperiencetemperanceorintemperance.However,therehavebeenstudiesthathavedeterminedwaysinwhichflowcanbeachieved,evenintheseenvironments.AnempiricalinvestigationbyNovakandHoffman(1998)identified13factorsofflow;arousal,challenge,control,exploratorybehaviour,focusedattention,interactivity,involvement,optimumlevelstim-ulation,playfulness,positiveeffect,skill,telepresence,andtimedistortion.Thestudydem-onstratesthatflowcanbeachievedwhenanactorhasareducedattentionfocus,losestrackoftimeandbecomesimmersedintheenvironmentatthesametime.AsMantovani(1996a)indicates,anactorwillreducetheirattentionfocustothoseaspectsofanenviron-mentthatarewithintheircapabilities,andtheauthorfurtherarguesthatanactorwillreducetheirattentionfocustothoseaspectsoftheenvironmentthatareconsonantwiththeircognitions.Thissuggeststhatifanonlinecommunityhasartefactsandactorsthatdonotcreatedissonancewithanactor’scognitionsthentheactorismorelikelytobecomeengagedinastateofflowandactouttheirdesires.However,whilstengaginganactorinastateofflowmightmeanthattheyaremorelikelytoactouttheirdesirestobesocial,thereisalsothepossibilitythattheywillactouttheirvengeancedesiresaswell.Indeed,somestudieshaveindicatedthatinhuman-computersystemswhereactorsarelikelyto

´,Zornozaexperiencedeferencetheyarealsomorelikelytoflameothers(OrengoCastella

´Silla,2000).ThissuggeststhatanyattempttoincreasetheAbad,PrietoAlonso,&Peiro

flowexperienceofanactorshouldbedonewithcaution.5.Discussion

OnlinecommunitiesarebecominganacceptedpartofthelivesofInternetusers,whowillcometogetherandinteractwitheachotheriftheysharesimilargoals,plans,valuesandbeliefs.Aproblemforprovidersofonlinecommunitiesisthatsomeoftheirmembersdonotparticipate.Thesemembersdonotparticipateforanumberofreasons,includingthattheybelievetheydidnotneedtopostandthattheybelievetheyarebeinghelpfulbynotdoingso.Othercommunitymembersthathavebeenparticipatingforalongtime,

1890J.Bishop/ComputersinHumanBehavior23(2007)1881–1893

knownaselders,regularlyparticipatebecausetheybelievethattheiractionswillhavepositiveoutcomes.Previousattemptstounderstandwhycommunitymembersparticipateordonotparticipatehassuggestedthatindividualsareneeds-drivenorgoaldriven.Hier-archicalneedstheoryhassuggestedthatthereasonlurkersdonotparticipateisthat‘lowerneeds’arenotbeingmet,or‘higherneeds’arebeingmetelsewhereandthatthereasoneldersdoparticipateisthattheyaremeetingtheir‘higherneeds’.Theoriesthatsuggestthatindividualsareneeds-drivenandso-calledneedsaremetintheorderofahierarchyarenotsuitableforonlinecommunities.Itisquitelikelythatcommunitymemberswilldesiretodotwothingsatthesametime,somethingthatneeds-basedtheoriesdonottakeintoaccount.Theoriesthatsuggestthatindividualsaregoal-drivenaremoreappropriateforonlinecommunitiesasuserswilldevelopandchangegoalsbasedontheirinteractionsinanonlinecommunity.However,thesetheoriesarenotentirelyappropriateforexplain-ingwhysomeindividualsdesiretoparticipateinanonlinecommunity,butdonotactuallydoso.Theauthorproposesanalternativeframeworkforunderstandingsuchbehaviours,whichisbasedontheprinciplesthatindividualsaredriventoactionbydesires,thesedesiresleadtoplansthatneedtobeconsonantwiththeirexistingplansaswellastheirgoals,valuesandbeliefs,andhowtheycarryoutanactionwilldependontheirinterpre-tationoftheirenvironment.Someonlinecommunitymembers,suchaslurkers,believethattheydonotneedtopostmessagestoonlinecommunitiesorbelievethattheyarebeinghelpfulbynotposting.Suchbeliefspreventtheseindividualsfromcarryingouttheirdesirestobesocialandparticipateinthecommunity.Onlinecommunityprovidersshouldattempttochangethesebeliefs,evenifitcreatesadegreeofdissonancewiththeindivid-ual’scognitions.Theuseofpersuasivetextisthemainmeansbywhichanindividual’sbeliefscanbechallenged,thoughprovidingalternativeinformationtothebeliefsthattheindividualholdswhilstnotbeingconsonantwithanactor’sgoals.Challengingthesebeliefsmayleadtotheindividualincreasingtheirparticipationinonlinecommunitiesthroughallowingthemtoactouttheirdesires.Developingsystemsthatofferperceivedaffordancesisanotherwayofencouragingparticipationinonlinecommunities,asisengaginganactorinastateofflow,wherebytheywillexperienceintemperanceorevendeference.However,thismaymeanthatindividualswillactoutlesspositivedesires,suchasvengeance,andflameothercommunitymembersthatoffendthem.6.Limitationsanddirectionsforfutureresearch

Thispaperhasgonesomewaytoexplainingwhysomeindividualsparticipateinonlinecommunitiesandothersdonot.Ithassuggestedwaysinwhichthisbehaviourcanbechangedthroughinfluencinganindividual’scognitionssothattheirdesirestoparticipatearerealised.Bychangingfromaneeds-basedunderstandingofwhypeopleparticipateinonlinecommunitiestoadesire-basedframework,researchersandcommunityproviderswillbeabletofocusmoreonwhatindividualscangivetotheonlinecommunitiestheyarepartofasopposedtowhattheycantakefromthem.Throughstudyingthecharacter-isticsofspecifictypesofonlinecommunitymembers,theframeworkshouldbedurableenoughtoapplytoexistingandfutureonlinecommunities.Theremaybesomecriticismsthattheframeworkhasnotbeenempiricallytested,acriticismthathasalsobeenleviedagainstMaslow’sHierarchyofNeeds(Wahba&Bridwell,1976).However,someoftheframeworkissupportedbyempiricalstudies,suchasthoseusingpositronemissiontomog-raphy(PET),whichdemonstrateaneurologicalrelationshipbetweenanactor’splansand

J.Bishop/ComputersinHumanBehavior23(2007)1881–18931891

´zes&Decety,2002;Winsteinetal.,theirperceptionofaffordancesintheenvironment(Gre

1997)andotherstudiessuggestastrongrelationshipbetweenbeliefsanddesiresindeci-sionmaking(Gallese&Goldman,1998).Futurestudiescouldinvestigatetherelationshipbetweenperceivingtheenvironmentanddevelopingbeliefsaswellasplans.

Anotherpossiblelimitationisthatthefivecategoriesofdesiresidentifiedmightnotcoverallthedesiresanindividualhas.Reiss(2004)identified16desiresthathebelieveddriveshumanbehaviour,thosebeingpower,independence,curiosity,acceptance,order,saving,honour,idealism,socialcontact,family,status,vengeance,romance,eating,phys-icalexerciseandtranquillity.Manyoftheseareincludedinthefivedesiresidentifiedbytheauthor.Forexample,eatingandphysicalexerciseareexistentialdesires;romanceasReissdescribesitisalsoanexistentialdesireandsocialcontactisasocialdesire.WhatReisscallspower,acceptanceandtranquillityareactuallysimilartowhatMaslow(1943)describedasneedssoarenotappropriateforadesire-basedmodel.Additionally,thereisnoneedtohaveaseparate‘curiosity’desirecategoryasbothsocialandcreativedesirescouldresultinactionsofcuriosity.

Whilstsomestudiesintobehaviourhaveinvestigatedanimals,somesickhumansandothersextraordinarypeople,theauthorhasfocussedonthefivemaintypesofonlinecom-munitymembersidentifiedbyKim(2000)andPreeceetal.(2004),thosebeinglurkers,novices,regulars,leadersandelders.Thispaperhasdescribedwhatdrivestheseindividu-alstoparticipateandtheprocessesbywhichtheydecidewhetherornottoparticipate.Futureresearchcouldidentifythedifferenceinthecognitionsoftheseindividualsandwhethersomeofthemexperiencedesiresmorefrequentlythanothers.Acknowledgements

Theauthoracknowledgeallthosereviewerswhoprovidedfeedbackonearlierdraftsofthispaper.Inparticular,theauthorthankDr.MikeReddyoftheUniversityofGlamor-ganandtherefereesforprovidingtheirmostusefulinsightsandcriticisms.Anearlierver-sionofthispaperwaspresentedtothe1stInternationalCongressonPost-CognitivistPsychology,UniversityofStrathclyde,Glasgow,4–6July2005.References

Baron-Cohen,S.,Richler,J.,Bisarya,D.,Gurunathan,N.,&Wheelwright,S.(2003).Thesystemisingquotient(SQ):aninvestigationofadultswithAspergersyndromeorhighfunctioningautismandnormalsexdifferences.PhilosophicalTransactionsoftheRoyalSociety,358(2003),361–374.

Bishop,J.(2002).Developmentandevaluationofavirtualcommunity.Unpublisheddissertation.Availablefromhttp://www.jonathanbishop.com/publications/display.aspx?Item=1.

Bishop,J.(2003a).Factorsshapingtheformofandparticipationinonlinecommunities.DigitalMatrixMagazine(July),2003.

Bishop,J.(2003b).TheInternetforeducatingindividualswithsocialimpairments.JournalofComputerAssistedLearning,19(2003),546–556.

Bishop,J.(2004).Thepotentialofpersuasivetechnologyineducatingheterogeneoususergroups.Unpublishedthesis.Availablefromhttp://www.jonathanbishop.com/publications/display.aspx?Item=14.

Bishop,J.(2005).Theroleofmediatingartefactsinthedesignofpersuasivee-learningsystems.InProceedingsoftheinternettechnology&applications2005conference.Wrexham:NorthEastWalesInstituteofHigherEducation.

Chambliss,M.J.,&Garner,R.(1996).Doadultschangetheirmindsafterreadingpersuasivetext?.WrittenCommunication13,291–313.

1892J.Bishop/ComputersinHumanBehavior23(2007)1881–1893

Csikszentmihalyi,M.(1990).Flow:Thepsychologyofoptimalexperience.NewYork:Harper&Row.

DeSouza,C.S.,&Preece,J.(2004).Aframeworkforanalyzingandunderstandingonlinecommunities.InteractingwithComputers,16(2004),579–610.

Figallo,C.(1998).Hostingwebcommunities:Buildingrelationships,increasingcustomerloyaltyandmaintainingacompetitiveedge.Chichester:JohnWiley&Sons.

Frederikse,M.E.,Lu,A.,Aylward,E.,Barta,P.,&Pearlson,G.(1999).Sexdifferencesintheinferiorparietallobule.CerebralCortex,9(8),896–901.

Frith,U.(1991).Aspergerandhissyndrome.InU.Frith(Ed.),Autismandaspergersyndrome(pp.3–24).London:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Gallese,V.,&Goldman,A.(1998).Mirrorneuronsandthesimulationtheoryofmind-reading.TrendsinCognitiveSciences,2(12),493–501.

´zes,J.,&Decety,J.(2002).Doesvisualperceptionofobjectaffordaction.EvidencefromaneuroimagingGre

study.Neuropsychologia,40(2002),212–222.

Griffiths,D.(2005).TreatingChina’sonlineaddicts.Unpublishedarticle.Availablefromhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4327258.stm.

Grosso,M.D.(2001).Designandimplementationofonlinecommunities.Unpublishedthesis.Availablefromhttp://www.movesinstitute.org/darken/alumni/DelGrosso/delgrosso.pdf.

Hovland,C.I.,Janis,I.L.,&Kelley,H.H.(1954).Communicationandpersuasion:Psychologicalstudiesofopinionchange.London:YaleUniversityPress.

Kenny,A.(1963).Action,emotionandwill(p.100).London:Routledge&KeeganPaul.

Kiesler,S.,&Sproull,L.(1992).Groupdecisionmakingandcommunicationtechnology.OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses,52,96–123.

Kim,A.J.(2000).Communitybuildingontheweb:secretstrategiesforsuccessfulonlinecommunities.Berkeley:PeachpitPress.

Mantovani,G.(1996a).Newcommunicationenvironments:Fromeverydaytovirtual(pp.7–13).London:Taylor&FrancesLtd.

Mantovani,G.(1996b).Socialcontextinhci:Anewframeworkformentalmodels,cooperation,andcommunication.CognitiveScience,20(1996),237–269.

March,J.G.(1991).Howdecisionshappeninorganizations.Human–ComputerInteraction,6(2),95–117.Maslow,A.H.(1943).Atheoryofhumanmotivation.PsychologicalReview,50,370–396.

Mook,D.G.(1987).Motivation:Theorganizationofaction.London:W.W.Norton&CompanyLtd.

Murphy,P.K.,Long,J.F.,Holleran,T.A.,&Esterly,E.(2003).Persuasiononlineoronpaper:anewtakeonanoldissue.LearningandInstruction,13(2003),511–532.

Nielsen,J.,Norman,D.(2003).Makingwebadvertisementswork.Unpublishedarticle.Availablefromhttp://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030505.html.

Nonnecke,B.,&Preece,J.(2000).Lurkerdemographics:countingthesilent.CHI2000,2(1),73–80.

Novak,T.P.,&Hoffman,D.L.(1998).Measuringtheflowconstructinonlineenvironments:astructuralmodelingapproach.VanderbiltUniversity.L.L.ThurstonePsychometricLaboratory.

O’Keefe,D.J.(1990).Persuasion:theoryandresearch(pp.61–78).London:SagePublications.

´,V.,ZornozaAbad,A.M.,PrietoAlonso,F.,&Peiro´Silla,J.M.(2000).TheinfluenceofOrengoCastella

familiarityamonggroupmembers,groupatmosphereandassertivenessonuninhibitedbehaviorthroughthreedifferentcommunicationmedia.ComputersinHumanBehavior,16(2000),141–159.

Preece,J.(2000).Onlinecommunities:designingusability,supportingsociability.Chichester:JohnWiley&Sons.Preece,J.,Nonnecke,B.,&Andrews,D.(2004).Thetopfivereasonsforlurking:improvingcommunityexperiencesforeveryone.ComputersinHumanBehavior,20(2004),201–223.

Reiss,S.(2004).Multifacetednatureofintrinsicmotivation:thetheoryof16basicdesires.ReviewofGeneralPsychology,8(3),179–193.

Rhiengold,H.(2000).Thevirtualcommunity:Homesteadingontheelectronicfrontier(pp.334–345).London:TheMITPress.

Shneiderman,B.(2002).Leonardo’slaptop:Humanneedsandthenewcomputingtechnologies(pp.78–80).London:TheMITPress.

Skinner,B.F.(1938).Thebehavioroforganisms:Anexperimentalanalysis.NewYork:Appleton-Century-Crofts.Smith,A.D.(2001).Problemsofconflictmanagementinvirtualcommunities.InM.A.Smith&P.Kollock(Eds.),Communitiesincyberspace(pp.134–163).London:Routledge.

Takahashi,M.,Fujimoto,M.,&Yamasaki,N.(2002).Theactivelurker:anewviewpointforevaluatingtheinfluenceofanin-house.OnlineCommunitySIGGROUPBulletinDecember2002,23(3),29–33.

J.Bishop/ComputersinHumanBehavior23(2007)1881–18931893

Wahba,M.A.,&Bridwell,L.G.(1976).Maslowreconsidered:areviewofresearchontheneedhierarchytheory.OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanPerformance,15,212–240.

Wallace,P.(2001).Thepsychologyoftheinternet(pp.110–132).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Winstein,C.J.,Grafton,S.T.,&Pohl,P.S.(1997).Motortaskdifficultyandbrainactivity:investigationofgoal-directedreciprocalaimingusingpositronemissiontomography.Neurophysiology,77,1581–1594.

Young,M.L.(2000).Poorrichard’sbuildingonlinecommunities:Createawebcommunityforyourbusiness,club,associationorfamily.TopFloorPublishing.