User:Juliakamin(cs)/research guide/retaining newcomers

I start by using Kraut and Resnick's book "Building Successful Online Communities" which already organizes and summarizes much of the relevant research up to its 2011 publishing. Because one of CivilServant's immediate interests is in welcoming newcomers, I pull first from their chapters most relevant to retaining newcomers and building member commitment (their Chapters 3 and 5).

Evidence of low retention rates

• Arguello et al, 2006. Talk to me.
• Duchenaut, 2005. Socialization in an Open Source Software Community. (Usenet groups)
• Panciera et al, 2009. Wikipedians are born, not made. (Wikipedia)
• Williams et al, 2006. From treehouse to barracks. (World of Warcraft)

The usefulness of entry barriers and initiation rituals

• Festinger, 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance.
• Aronson & Mills, 1959. The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group.
• Gerard & Mathewson, 1966. The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group; A replication.
• Krogh et al, 2003. Community, joining, and specialization in open source software innovation: A case study.
• Drenner et al, 2008. Crafting the initial user experience to achieve community goals. (Finding: initiation barriers result in reducing number of newcomers while increasing commitment of retained newcomers.)

Interacting with newcomers leading to retention

• Arguello et al, 2006. Talk to me. (Finding: newcomers more likely to return if receive replies; more so if repliers are active and old-timers, if replies use welcoming and inclusive language, emoticons, "we" language.)
• Burke and Settles, 2011. Plugged in to the community. (Finding: receiving comments from other users associated with greater productivity, more so if used "we" language.)
• Burke et al, 2009. Feed me. (Finding: contributors to FB more likely to post more photos if receive comments.)
• Lampe & Johnston, 2005. Follow the (slash) dot. (Finding: users more likely to comment again if first comment rated, positively or negatively.)

Obstacles to retaining newcomers

• Halfaker et al, 2011. Don't bite the newbies. (Wikipedia. Finding: reversions dissuade newcomers)
• Zhang & Zhu, 2006. Intrinsic motivation of open content contributions. (Wikipedia. Finding: reversions dissuade newcomers)

Self-disclosure

• Collins & Miller, 1994. Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. (Finding: people like those who self-disclose as well as those they self-disclose to)

Newcomer socialization

• Van Maanen & Schein, 1979. Toward a theory of organizational socialization. (Identifies 6 dimensions of socialization techniques used by organizations.)
• Jones, 1986. Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers' adjustments to organizations. (Self-report scale of Maanen & Schein dimensions.)
• Lave & Wenger, 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. (Theoretical work based on practice of apprenticeships.)
• Ducheneaut, 2005. Socialization in and open source software community: A socio-technical analysis.
• Krogh et al, 2003. Community, joining, and specialization in open source software innovation: A case study.
• Bauer et al, 2007. Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization. (Meta-analysis)
• Saks et al, 2007. Socialization tactics and newcomer adjustment. (Meta-analysis)

Commitment and productivity

• Blanchard & Markus, 2004. The experienced "sense" of a virtual community: Characteristics and processes.
• Fisher et al, 2006. You are who you talk to: Detecting roles in Usenet newsgroups.
• Rodgers & Chen, 2005. Internet community group participation: Psychological benefits for women with breast cancer.
• Mockus et al, 2002. Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and Mozilla.
• Kittur et al, 2007. He says, she says: Conflict and coordination in Wikipedia.

Commitment & community building

• Smith et al, 1997. Conduct control on Usenet.(Norm enforcement)
• Butler et al, 2007. Community effort in online groups: Who does the work and why?

Foundational work in group theory and commitment

• Lewin, 1951. Field theory in social science.
• Yuqing Ren, Robert Kraut, Sara Kiesler, and Paul Resnick. 2012. Encouraging commitment in online communities. Building successful online communities: Evidence-based social design (2012), 77–124.

• Distinguishing affective, normative and need-based commitment to organizations
  • Allen & Meyer, 1990. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization.
  • Allen & Meyer, 1996. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity.
  • Meyer & Allen, 1991. A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment.
  • Meyer et al, 2002. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences.

• Distinguishing identity-based and individual-bond affective commitment
  • Festinger et al, 1950. Social pressures in informal groups. (Identifies two types of / routes to group commitment: group / identity based & bond / individual based.)
  • Prentice et al, 1994. Asymmetries in attachments to groups and to their members: Distinguishing between common-identity and common-bond groups.
  • Ren, Kraut & Kiesler, 2007. Applying common identity and bond theory to the design of online communities.
  • Postmes et al, 2000. The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication.
  • Sassenberg & Postmes, 2002. Cognitive and strategic processes in small groups: Effects of anonymity of the self and anonymity of the group on social influence.
  • Utz, 2003. Social identification and interpersonal attraction in MUDs.
  • Utz & Sassenberg, 2002. Distributive justice in common-bond and common-identity groups.

Identity-based affective group commitment

Foundational work in social psychology

• Hogg & Abrams, 1988. Social identification: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes.
• Tajfel et al, 1971. Social categorization and intergroup behavior.
• Turner, 1985. Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group.
• Abrams et al, 1998. Psychological attachment to the group: Cross-cultural differences in organizational identification and subjective norms as predictors of workers' turnover intentions. (Identity based commitment less vulnerable to group turnover.)

Leading to norm enforcement

• Postmes et al, 2002. Intergroup differentiation in computer-mediated communication: Effects of depersonalization. (Common identity associated with shared attitudes)
• Sassenberg, 2002. Common bond and common identity groups on the internet: Attachment and normative behavior in on-topic and off-topic chats. (Common identity associated with group norm compliance)

Associated with similarity (perceived or induced)

• William & O'Reily, 1998. Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. (People dislike heterogeneous groups.)
• Cartwright & Zander, 1968. Group dynamics: Research and theory. ("Relevant" similarity leads to stronger identity.)
• Harper et al, 2007. Supporting social recommendations with activity-balanced clustering. (Creating similar subgroups.)
• Amichai-Hamburger, 2005. Internet minimal group paradigm. (Fictional personality traits.)
• Dabbish and Kraut, 2008. Awareness displays and social motivation for coordinated communication. (Team uniforms)
• Worchel et al, 1998. Social identity and individual productivity within groups. (Team uniforms)
• Michinov et al, 2004. Social identity, group processes, and performance in synchronous computer-mediated communication.(Arbitrary group names.)

Easier with smaller sub-groups

• Zaccaro & Dobbins, 1989. Contrasting group and organizational commitment: Evidence for differences among multilevel attachments.
• Kittur & Kraut, 2008. Harnessing the wisdom of crowds in Wikipedia: Quality through coordination.

Shared goals

• Beenen et al, 2004. Using social psychology to motivate contributions to online communities.
• Bryant et al, 2005. Becoming a Wikipedian: Transformation of participation in a collaborative online encyclopedia.
• Gaertner et al, 2000. Reducing intergroup conflict: From superordinate goals to decategorization, recategorization, and mutual differentiation.

Competition with outgroup

• Hogg & Terry, 2000. Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts.
• Postmes et al, 2002. Intergroup differentiation in computer-mediated communication.
• Rogers & Lea, 2005. Social presence in distributed group environments: The role of social identity.
• Worchel et al, 1998. Social identity and individual productivity within groups.
• Utz, 2003. Social identification and interpersonal attraction in MUDs.

Threat

• Hutchinson et al, 2006. Protecting threatened identity: Sticking with the group by emphasizing ingroup heterogeneity.
• Lott & Lott, 1965. Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction.
• Ouwerkerk et al, 2000. When the going gets tough, the tough get going: Social identification and individual effort in intergroup competition.
• Ethier & Deaux, 1994. Negotiating social identity when contexts change: Maintaining identification and responding to threat.

Success

• Hinds et al, 2000. Choosing work group members: Balancing similarity, competence, and familiarity.

Individual bond based affective group commitment

• Lott & Lott, 1965. Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables.
• Krackhardt & Porter, 1986. The snowball effect: Turnover embedded in communication networks. (Fragility of bond-based groups)

Build by recruiting existing friends

• Backstrom et al, 2006. Group formation in large social networks: Membership, growth, and evolution.
• Leskovec et al, 2010. Signed networks in social media.

Balance theory: Encouraging friends of friends to connect

• Curry & Emerson, 1970. Balance theory: A theory of interpersonal attraction?
• Heider, 1958. The psychology of interpersonal relations.
• Leskovec et al, 2010. Signed networks in social media.

Breed familiarity

• Milgram, 1977. The familiar stranger: An aspect of urban anonymity.
• Walthier et al, 2001. Is a picture worth a thousand words? Photographic images in long-term computer-mediated communication.
• Yee et al, 2007. A meta-analysis of the impact of the inclusion and realism of human-like faces on user experiences in interfaces.

Promoting social interaction

• Homans, 1958 Social behavior as exchange. (Interaction leads to liking)
• Festinger et al, 1950. Social pressures in informal groups. (Interaction leads to liking)
• Newcomb, 1961 The acquaintance process. (Interaction leads to liking)
• Lott & Lott, 1965. Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables. (Interaction leads to liking)
• McKenna et al, 2002. Relationship formation on the Internet. (Interaction and relationships online)
• Utz, 2003. (Contact and bonding)
• Slater et al, 2000. Small group behavior in a virtual and real environment. (Virtual co-presence)

Creating virtual "neighborhoods"

• Resnick et al, 2005. Beyond threaded conversation.

Promote self-disclosure

• Collins & Miller, 1994. Self-disclosure and liking.
• Postmes et al, 2002. Intergroup differentiation in computer-mediated communication.
• Sassenberg & Postmes, 2002. Cognitive and strategic processes in small groups.
• Newman et al, 2011. It's not that I don't have problems. (Pseudonyms increase self-disclosure.)
• Resnick et al, 2010.

Highlight similarity

• Newcomb, 1961 The acquaintance process.
• Byrne, 1997. An overview (and underview) of research and theory within the attraction paradigm.
• Hogg & Turner, 1985. When liking begets solidarity.
• Postmes et al, 2001. Social influence in computer-mediated communication.

Smaller more homogenous groups

• Dunbar, 1993. Coevolution of neocortex size, group size, and language in Humans.
• Raban et al, 2010. (Large groups make it unlikely dyads will repeatedly interact)
• Butler, 2001. (Large groups make it unlikely dyads will repeatedly interact)
• Williams & O'Reilly, 1998. Demography and diversity in organizations.
• Jeffries et al, 2000. Systers: Contradictions in community.
• Spertus et al, 2001 Scaling online communities with Javamlm.

Off-topic conversations

• Harper et al, 2009. Facts or friends? Distinguishing informational and conversational questions in social Q&A sites

Normative commitment

• Stewart & Gosain, 2006. (Shared values)
• Nowak & Sigmund, 2005. (Reciprocity)
• Yamagishi & Kiyonari, 2000. (Reciprocity)
• Fehr & Gachter, 2000. (Indirect reciprocity and groups)
• Pichon et al, 2007. (Priming norms of reciprocity)
• Chen et al, 2010. (Awareness of benefit from community)

Needs-based commitment

Members stay committed as long as they see the community as instrumental to their personal goals. Yet, as discussed in many of hte papers below those goals can be social, thus overlap with affective commitment.

• Ridings & Gefen, 2004.
• Duchenenaut & Moore.
• Duchenanaut et al, 2006ab.
• Butler et al, 2007.