Fostering cooperation on the Internet: social exchange processes in ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

goals, communal relationships and rules and meaning of exchange agreed upon within thecommunity determine the extent of contribution and how to cooperate.Virtual communities have been said to gather around a common interest and shared passion(Kozinets, 1999). However, in a task-centered community common interest contends more thanjust shared personal interests. Group goals rather have an inter-individual character and reflect acommon striving that transcends individual motivations. Kuwabara (2000), for instance, arguedthat individuals primarily cooperate because of group-efficacy rather than self-efficacy reasons.In simple terms this means that people cooperate because group goals and possible groupoutcomes exceed an individual's abilities whereas his/her own contributions, in concert withothers, lead to the achievement of a much more attractive group goal, such as the "improvementof the software in the world" (contributor). By means of collaborating and experiencing groupefficacyindividuals get a sense of contributing to a worthwhile cause.“I wanted to be part of the movement. The entire idea of <strong>cooperation</strong> and synergy (god helpme, I used the s-word) is amazing. 1+1+1=4.” (contributor)“There is also a bit of a feeling that I am making a contribution to something worthwhile, thatI am “making a difference”, even if its small.” (contributor)Mutually beneficial exchange relationships that are considered being worthwhile very muchdepend on the 'assets' a community is able to give away. As already pointed out, on-linecommunities develop an enormous knowledge pool in the area of interest. The global expertknowledge base is highly attractive, especially for enthusiastic programmers and earlycontributors. Intelligence and creativity are highly valued and respected and constitute importantattractors for enthusiasts who want to become part of the community. This is not surprisingconsidering the fact that in online communities people can only be valued for what they cancommunicate online – their digital products, expertise, thoughts and emotions.20
“Frequently the developers on open source are the crème de la crème: they’re the ones whoare so good at what they do that they have extra time and energy to devote to open source.They also tend to be more highly motivated, so they tend to have come farther and be moretalented and interesting than the average engineer.” (main contributor)“The user community surrounding it is also an intelligent and whimsical bunch, working onall sorts of interesting applications, so it’s fun to hang out with them, even if it’s onlyvirtually.” (contributor)It is also the social interaction, the friendship offered and given, that fosters individualcooperative behavior. Core members and experts are not (solely) admired, but equally involved inday-to-day interaction and tasks. It is the ‘content’ rather than a person or a name that counts in avirtual environment. And it is not the kind but the quality of a contribution that is valued,although contributing high quality code probably enhances self-esteem the most.“A lot of necessary and unglamorous work keeps it going-…… People who do this sort ofthing well get a lot of respect, because everybody knows these jobs are huge time sinks andnot as much fun as playing with code. Doing them shows dedication.” (Raymond, 1999,p.244)According to the theoretical discussion whether contributors primarily apply a direct orgeneralized reciprocal ‘model’ of exchange, or if <strong>cooperation</strong> may best be explained by altruisticbehavior, respondents statements have been carefully investigated for the norms and rulesimplied. Responses were categorized as expected reciprocity, moral obligation, equity (‘givingback’) or altruism (‘helping behavior’). Expectations of reciprocations were moderate in terms ofnumber of responses and exclusively found in the contributor group.“I’ve observed to a large extent, “what goes around comes around”, and if I contribute,people are willing to help me in return.” (contributor)Moral obligation as a reason for returning something back to the community occurredvery rarely. When reported, feelings of indebtedness were always related to the amount or21
Page 1 and 2: Fostering
Page 3 and 4: Fostering
Page 5 and 6: Finally, the typical exchange proce
Page 7 and 8: communities’ (e.g.: the Linux-com
Page 9 and 10: the actual contribution of individu
Page 11 and 12: elationship. A perfect gift is unco
Page 13 and 14: and symbolic value attached to thin
Page 15 and 16: hoarding them, exchange may neverth
Page 17 and 18: interviewer bias and its ‘natural
Page 19: motivational preconditions for volu
Page 23 and 24: implement it for their use. It’s
Page 25 and 26: questions are answered in FAQ’s w
Page 27 and 28: The processes described function as
Page 29 and 30: ack and reactions from users all ov
Page 31 and 32: Ekeh, Peter P. (1974). Social Excha
Page 33: Rheingold, Howard (2000). The Virtu

Fostering cooperation on the Internet: social exchange processes in ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?