skip to main content
research-article

Personalized Motivation-supportive Messages for Increasing Participation in Crowd-civic Systems

Authors Info & Claims
Published:01 November 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

In crowd-civic systems, citizens form groups and work towards shared goals, such as discovering social issues or reforming official policies. Unfortunately, many real-world systems have been unsuccessful in continually motivating large numbers of citizens to participate voluntarily, despite various approaches such as gamification and persuasion techniques. In this paper, we examine the influence of personalized messages designed to support motivation as asserted by the Self-Determination Theory (SDT). We designed a crowd-civic platform for collecting community issues with personalized motivation-supportive messages and conducted two studies: a pair-comparison experiment with 150 participants on Amazon's Mechanical Turk and a live deployment study with 120 university members. Results of the pair-comparison study indicate applicability of SDT's perspective in crowd-civic systems. While applying it in the live system surfaced several challenges, including recruiting participants without interfering with general motivations, the collected data exhibited similar promising trends.

References

  1. Tanja Aitamurto and Hélène Landemore. 2016. Crowdsourced Deliberation: The Case of the Law on Off-Road Traffic in Finland. Policy & Internet , Vol. 8, 2 (2016), 174--196.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Tanja Aitamurto and Jorge Saldivar. 2017. Motivating Participation in Crowdsourced Policymaking: The Interplay of Epistemic and Interactive Aspects. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Kirsten Boehner and Carl DiSalvo. 2016. Data, Design and civics: an exploratory study of civic tech. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2970--2981. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Irma Borst. 2010. Understanding Crowdsourcing: Effects of motivation and rewards on participation and performance in voluntary online activities . Number EPS-2010--221-LIS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Herbert Aron David. 1959. The method of paired comparisons. Fifth Conference on the Design of Experiments in Army Research Development and Testing (1959).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Edward L Deci and Richard M Ryan. 1985. The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of research in personality , Vol. 19, 2 (1985), 109--134.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Menno Deen. 2015. GAME Games Autonomy Motivation & Education: How autonomy-supportive game design may improve motivation to learn . Ph.D. Dissertation. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Eindhoven, NL.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Marylène Gagné and Edward L Deci. 2005. Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational behavior , Vol. 26, 4 (2005), 331--362.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Jennifer Golbeck, Cristina Robles, and Karen Turner. 2011. Predicting personality with social media. In CHI'11 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Lewis R. Goldberg. 1992. The Development of Markers for the Big-Five Factor Structure . Psychological assessment 4 (1992).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Caterina Grano, Fabio Lucidi, Arnaldo Zelli, and Cristiano Violani. 2008. Motives and determinants of volunteering in older adults: An integrated model. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development , Vol. 67, 4 (2008), 305--326.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Marc Hassenzahl and Andrew Monk. 2010. The inference of perceived usability from beauty. Human-Computer Interaction , Vol. 25, 3 (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Reinhold Hatzinger, Regina Dittrich, et almbox. 2012. Prefmod: An R package for modeling preferences based on paired comparisons, rankings, or ratings. Journal of Statistical Software , Vol. 48, 10 (2012), 1--31.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Gary Hsieh and Rafał Kocielnik. 2016. You get who you pay for: The impact of incentives on participation bias. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing . ACM, 823--835. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Yuan Jia, Bin Xu, Yamini Karanam, and Stephen Voida. 2016. Personality-targeted gamification: a survey study on personality traits and motivational affordances. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Eunice Jun, Gary Hsieh, and Katharina Reinecke. 2017. Types of Motivation Affect Study Selection, Attention, and Dropouts in Online Experiments. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Rafal Kocielnik and Gary Hsieh. 2017. Send Me a Different Message: Utilizing Cognitive Space to Create Engaging Message Triggers.. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing . Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Richard Koestner, Gaëtan F Losier, Robert J Vallerand, and Donald Carducci. 1996. Identified and introjected forms of political internalization: Extending self-determination theory. Journal of personality and social psychology , Vol. 70, 5 (1996).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Robert E Kraut, Paul Resnick, Sara Kiesler, Moira Burke, Yan Chen, Niki Kittur, Joseph Konstan, Yuqing Ren, and John Riedl. 2012. Building successful online communities: Evidence-based social design .Mit Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Andrew Mao, Ece Kamar, Yiling Chen, Eric Horvitz, Megan E Schwamb, Chris J Lintott, and Arfon M Smith. 2013. Volunteering versus work for pay: Incentives and tradeoffs in crowdsourcing. In First AAAI conference on human computation and crowdsourcing .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. David Martin, Sheelagh Carpendale, Neha Gupta, Tobias Hoßfeld, Babak Naderi, Judith Redi, Ernestasia Siahaan, and Ina Wechsung. 2017. Understanding the Crowd: Ethical and Practical Matters in the Academic Use of Crowdsourcing. In Evaluation in the Crowd. Crowdsourcing and Human-Centered Experiments. Springer, 27--69.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Brian McInnis, Alissa Centivany, Juho Kim, Marta Pobet, Karen Levy, and Gilly Leshed. 2017. Crowdsourcing Law and Policy: A Design-Thinking Approach to Crowd-Civic Systems. In Companion of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW'17 Companion). 355. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Brian James McInnis, Elizabeth Lindley Murnane, Dmitry Epstein, Dan Cosley, and Gilly Leshed. 2016. One and Done: Factors affecting one-time contributors to ad-hoc online communities. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. ACM, 609--623. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Elisa D Mekler, Florian Brühlmann, Alexandre N Tuch, and Klaus Opwis. 2017. Towards understanding the effects of individual gamification elements on intrinsic motivation and performance. Computers in Human Behavior , Vol. 71 (2017), 525--534. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Giovanna Menardi and Nicola Torelli. 2014. Training and assessing classification rules with imbalanced data. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery , Vol. 28, 1 (2014), 92--122. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Youngme Moon. 2002. Personalization and personality: Some effects of customizing message style based on consumer personality. Journal of Consumer Psychology , Vol. 12, 4 (2002), 313--325.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Gary C Moore and Izak Benbasat. 1991. Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information systems research , Vol. 2, 3 (1991). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. James J Murphy, P Geoffrey Allen, Thomas H Stevens, and Darryl Weatherhead. 2005. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics , Vol. 30, 3 (2005), 313--325.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Babak Naderi. 2018. Motivation of Workers on Microtask Crowdsourcing Platforms .Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Oded Nov and Ofer Arazy. 2013. Personality-targeted design: Theory, experimental procedure, and preliminary results. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM, 977--984. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Anne C Rouse. 2010. A preliminary taxonomy of crowdsourcing. ACIS 2010 Proceedings , Vol. 76 (2010), 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Richard M Ryan and Edward L Deci. 2000. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary educational psychology , Vol. 25, 1 (2000), 54--67.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Saiph Savage, Andres Monroy-Hernandez, and Tobias Höllerer. 2016. Botivist: Calling volunteers to action using online bots. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. ACM, 813--822. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Eran Toch, Yang Wang, and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2012. Personalization and privacy: a survey of privacy risks and remedies in personalization-based systems. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction , Vol. 22, 1--2 (2012). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Joseph Williams, Na Li, Juho Kim, Jacob Whitehill, Samuel Maldonado, Mykola Pechenizkiy, Larry Chu, and Neil Heffernan. 2014. The MOOClet framework: Improving online education through experimentation and personalization of modules. (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Dieter Zinnbauer. 2015. Crowdsourced Corruption Reporting: What Petrified Forests, Street Music, Bath Towels, and the Taxman Can Tell Us About the Prospects for Its Future. Policy & Internet , Vol. 7, 1 (2015), 1--24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Personalized Motivation-supportive Messages for Increasing Participation in Crowd-civic Systems

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
        Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction  Volume 2, Issue CSCW
        November 2018
        4104 pages
        EISSN:2573-0142
        DOI:10.1145/3290265
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2018 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 1 November 2018
        Published in pacmhci Volume 2, Issue CSCW

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader