Evaluating compliance-without-pressure techniques for increasing participation in online communities

Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 2915-2924

  Masli, Mikhil ^a   Terveen, Loren ^a  

^a University of Minnesota   (United States)

Author keywords

Compliance; Foot in the door; Increasing participation; Low ball; Online communities; Social production

Indexed keywords

COMPLIANCE; FOOT-IN-THE-DOOR; INCREASING PARTICIPATION; LOW-BALL; ONLINE COMMUNITIES;

HUMAN ENGINEERING; ONLINE SYSTEMS;

WEBSITES;

EID: 84862069822     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2207676.2208698     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (33)

1. Bem, D. Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological review 74, 3 (1967), 183-200.
2. Benkler, Y. The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. Yale Univ Pr, 2006.
3. Burger, J. Increasing compliance by improving the deal: The that's-not-all technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 2 (1986), 277.
4. Burger, J. The foot-in-the-door compliance procedure: A multiple-process analysis and review. Personality and Social Psychology Review 3, 4 (1999), 303.
5. Burger, J., and Cornelius, T. Raising the Price of Agreement: Public Commitment and the Lowball Compliance Procedure. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 33, 5 (2003), 923-934.
6. Burger, J., and Petty, R. The low-ball compliance technique: Task or person commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40, 3 (1981), 492-500.
7. Cialdini, R., et al. Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31, 2 (1975), 206.
8. Cialdini, R., et al. Low-ball procedure for producing compliance: Commitment then cost. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36, 5 (1978), 463-476.
9. Cosley, D., et al. Is seeing believing?: How recommender system interfaces affect users' opinions. In Proc. CHI, ACM (2003), 585-592.
10. Cosley, D., et al. Using intelligent task routing and contribution review to help communities build artifacts of lasting value. In Proc. CHI (2006).
11. Festinger, L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press, 1957.
12. Freedman, J., and Fraser, S. Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4, 2 (1966), 195-202.
13. Friedman, E., and Resnick, P. The social cost of cheap pseudonyms. Ann Arbor 1001 (1999), 48109-1092.
14. Gilbert, E., and Karahalios, K. Using social visualization to motivate social production. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 11, 3 (2009), 413.
15. Guadagno, R., et al. When saying yes leads to saying no: Preference for consistency and the reverse foot-in-the-door effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27, 7 (2001), 859.
16. Guéguen, N. Foot-in-the-door technique and computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior 18, 1 (2002), 11-15.
17. Guéguen, N., and Jacob, C. Fund-raising on the web: the effect of an electronic foot-in-the-door on donation. CyberPsychology & Behavior 4, 6 (2001), 705-709.
18. Hackman, J. The design of work teams. Handbook of organizational behavior 315 (1987), 342.
19. Harari, H., et al. Faculty Helpfulness to Students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 6, 3 (1980), 373.
20. Harper, F., et al. Social comparisons to motivate contributions to an online community. Persuasive Technology (2007), 148-159.
21. Hornik, J., et al. Comparison of three inducement techniques to improve compliance in a health survey conducted by telephone. Public Health Reports 105, 5 (1990), 524.
22. Joule, R. Tabacco deprivation: The foot-in-the-door technique versus the low-ball technique. European Journal of Social Psychology 17, 3 (1987), 361-365.
23. Karau, S., andWilliams, K. Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of personality and social psychology 65, 4 (1993), 681.
24. Kraut, R. Applying social psychological theory to the problems of group work. HCI models, theories and frameworks: Toward a multidisciplinary science (2003), 325-356.
25. Ling, K., et al. Using social psychology to motivate contributions to online communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10, 4 (2005), 00-00.
26. Masli, M., et al. Task specialization in social production communities: The case of geographic volunteer work. In Proc. ICWSM (2011).
27. Panciera, K., et al. Lurking? cyclopaths? A quantitative lifecycle analysis of user behavior in a geowiki. In Proc. CHI, ACM (2010), 1917-1926.
28. Preece, J. Online communities.Wiley & Sons, 2001.
29. Priedhorsky, R., et al. Eliciting and focusing geographic volunteer work. In Proc. CSCW, ACM (2010), 61-70.
30. Priedhorsky, R., and Terveen, L. Wiki Grows Up: Arbitrary Data Models, Access Control, and Beyond. In Proc. WikiSym, ACM (2011).
31. Roy, M., et al. Underestimating the duration of future events: Memory incorrectly used or memory bias?. Psychological Bulletin 131, 5 (2005), 738.
32. Tedeschi, J., et al. Cognitive dissonance: Private ratiocination or public spectacle?. American Psychologist 26, 8 (1971), 685.
33. Torre, F., et al. bumpy, caution with merging: an exploration of tagging in a geowiki. In Proc. GROUP 2010, ACM (2010), 155-164.