Electronic Commerce Research

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 7–20

Non-public and public online community participation: Needs, attitudes and behavior

Article

Abstract

Nonpublic participation within an online community, often called lurking, occurs when an individual joins a community, but does not post. This study examines the nature of lurking, why people lurk and the differences in attitudes between lurkers and posters. The results indicate significant differences between people who lurk and those who post in an online community.

We conclude that when people lurk they are observing, which in no way is a negative behavior. This introverted or passive behavior affects lurkers' attitudes about the benefits of the community, their expectations, and opinions of themselves and others who lurk. In general lurkers are less optimistic and less positive than those who post.

Keywords

Lurking Nonpublic participation Posting Online community Survey Bulletin board 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Nonnecke, B. (2000). Lurking in email-based discussion lists. Unpublished Ph.D., South Bank University, London.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2000). Lurker demographics: Counting the silent. Paper presented at the ACM CHI 2000 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, The Hague.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability, supporting sociability. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Mason, B., & Dicks, B. (1999). The digital ethnographer. Retrieved March 15, 2004, from http://www.socio.demon.co.uk/magazine/6/dicksmason.html
  5. [5]
    Andrews, D., Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2004). Electronic survey methodology: A case study in reaching hard-to-involve Internet users. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 16(2).Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2000). Persistence and lurkers: A pilot study. Paper presented at the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2001). Why lurkers lurk. Paper presented at the Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Rafaeli, S., Ravid, G., & Soroka, V. (2004). De-lurking in virtual communities: A social communication network approach to measuring the effects of social and cultural capital. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Science–2004, Big Island, Hawai‘i.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Millen, D.R. (2000). Audience maps: Visualizing listeners (lurkers) in a shared conversation space. Paper presented at the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Takahashi, M., Fujimoto, M., & Yamasaki, N. (2003). The active lurker: Influence of an in-house online community on its outside environment. Paper presented at the Group 2003 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work, Sanibel Island, Florida.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Kollock, P., & Smith, M. (1996). Managing the virtual commons: Cooperation and conflict in computer communities. In S. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 109–128). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Maloney-Krichmar, D., & Preece, J. (2004). A multilevel analysis of sociability, usability and community dynamics in an online health community. Accepted by Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction (TOCHI).Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Abras, C. (2003). Determining success in online education and health communities. Unpublished Ph.D., University of Baltimore County Maryland, Baltimore, MD 21250.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Preece, J., Abras, C., & Maloney-Krichmar, D. (2004). Designing and evaluating online communities: Research speaks to emerging practice. International Journal of Web-based Communities, 1(1), 2–18.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Katz, J. (1998). Luring the Lurkers. Retrieved March 15, 2004, from http://slashdot.org/features/98/12/28/1745252.shtml
  16. [16]
    Dillman, D.A. (2000). Mail and web-based survey: The tailored design method. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Pew. (2002). PewTrack2000Codebook.doc. Retrieved March 14, 2004, from http://www.pewinternet.org/datasets/dataset.asp?id=10
  18. [18]
    Parks, R.M., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1(4).Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Turner, J.W., Grube, J.A., & Meyers, J. (2001). Developing an optimal match within online communities: An exploration of CMC support communities and traditional support. Journal of Communications, 231–251.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (1999). Shedding light on lurkers in online communities. Paper presented at the Ethnographic Studies in Real and Virtual Environments: Inhabited Information Spaces and Connected Communities, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., & Andrews, D. (2004). The top 5 reasons for lurking: Improving community experiences for everyone. Special Issue of Computers in Human Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, 20(2).Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Pew. (2003). The ever-shifting internet population: A new look at Internet access and the digital divide. Retrieved October 8, 2004 from http://207.21.232.103/pdfs/PIP_Shifting_Net_Pop_Report.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computing & Information ScienceUniversity of GuelphGuelph
  2. 2.Enterprise Learning SolutionsRWD TechnologiesBaltimore
  3. 3.College of Information StudiesUniversity of MarylandCollege Park

Personalised recommendations