Advertisement

Social Dilemma in Knowledge Communication via Shared Databases

  • Ulrike Cress
  • Beatriz Barquero
  • Jürgen Buder
  • Friedrich W. Hesse
Chapter
Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series book series (CULS, volume 5)

Abstract

Knowledge exchange via shared databases creates a social dilemma where people try to benefit from others’ contributions without having any costs. A person’s tendency to withhold information can be interpreted as a kind of free riding. An experimental setting is presented where the dilemma can be quantified. A study with 166 subjects shows that three types of providers exist: pragmatists (47 % of the subjects) contribute almost all important but rarely unimportant information, cooperators (19 %) contribute almost all information regardless of its importance and defectors (34 %) rarely contribute any information. In all groups the contribution rates decline from trial to trial and within each trial. An extensive literature review based on research on social dilemmas presents possible individual and structural dilemma solutions. Their effectiveness for the communication dilemma is discussed.

Keywords

Public Good Contribution Rate Knowledge Exchange Social Dilemma External Representation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barry, B., & Hardin, R. (1982). Rational man and irrational society. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Bonacich, P. (1990). Communication dilemmas in social networks: An experimental study. American Sociological Review, 55, 448–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonacich, P., & Schneider, S. (1992). Communication networks and collective action. In W.B.G. Liebrand, D.M. Messick & H.A.M. Wilke (Eds.), Social dilemmas: Theoretical issues and research findings (pp. 225–245). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brewer, M.B., & Kramer, R.M. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 543–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington: APA.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13, 259–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Connolly, T., & Porter, A.L. (1990). Discretionary databases in forecasting. Journal of Forecasting, 9, 1–12.Google Scholar
  9. Connolly, T., & Thorn, B.K. (1990). Discretionary databases: Theory, data, and implications. In J. Fulk & C.W. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 219–233). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Connolly, T., Thorn, B.K., & Heminger, A. (1992). Discretionary databases as social dilemmas. In W.B.G. Liebrand, D.M. Messick & H.A.M. Wilke (Eds.), Social dilemmas: Theoretical issues and research findings (pp. 199–208). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cress, U. (2003) Strategic, metacognitive, and social aspects in resource-oriented knowledge exchange. In R. Alterman & D. Kirsch (Eds.). Proceedings of the 25 th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. (Available from http://www.ccm.ua.edu/pdfs/71.pdf).Google Scholar
  12. Cress, U., Barquero, B., Buder, J., Schwan, S., & Hesse, F.W. (2003). Wissensaustausch mittels Datenbanken als Öffentliches-Gut-Dilemma. (Knowledge sharing through databases as a public-goods dilemma.) Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 211(2), 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cress, U. & Hesse, F.W. (2004). Knowledge sharing in groups: Experimental findings of how to overcome a social dilemma. In Y. Kafai, W. Sandoval, N. Enydey, A.S. Nixon & F. Herrera: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 150–157). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 169–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dawes, R.M. (2000). Social dilemmas. International Journal of Psychology, 35,111–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fulk, J., Flanagin, A.J., Kalman, M.E., Monge, P.R., & Ryan, T. (1996). Connective and communal public goods in interactive communication systems. Communication Theory, 6(1), 60–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Head, J.G. (1972). Public goods: The polar case. In R.M. Bird & J.G. Head (Eds.), Modern fiscal issues: Essays in honour of Carl S. Shoup (pp. 7–16). Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hollingshead, A.B., Fulk, J., & Monge, P. (2002). Fostering intranet knowledge sharing: An integration of transactive memory and public goods approaches. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 335–355). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Isaac, R., Walker, J., & Thomas, S. (1984). Divergent evidence on free riding: An experimental examination of possible explanations. Public Choice, 43, 113–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Isaak, R. M., McCue, K. & Plott, C. (1985). Public goods provision in an experimental environment. Journal of Public Economcis, 26,_51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Karau, S. J. & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kelly, S., Sung, C, & Farnham, S. (2002). Designing for improved social responsibility, user participation, and content in on-line communities. Proceedings of CHI 2002. Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  23. Kerr, N. L. & Bruun, S. (1981). Ringelmann revisited: Alternative explanations for the social loafing effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7 , 242–231.Google Scholar
  24. Kerr, N. L. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: A social dilemma analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 819–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kerr, N.L. (1992). Efficacy as a causal and moderating variable in social dilemmas. In W.B.G. Liebrand, D.M. Messick & H.A.M. Wilke (Eds.), Social dilemmas: Theoretical issues and research findings (pp. 59–80). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kerr, N. L., & Kaufman-Gilliland, CM. (1994). Communication, commitment, and cooperation in social dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 513–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kim, O., & Walker, M. (1984). The free-rider problem: Experimental evidence. Public Choice, 43 , 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Komorita, S. S., & Barth, J. M. (1985). Components of reward in social dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(2), 364–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Komorita, S. S., Chan, D. K.-S., & Parks, C. (1993). The effects of reward structure and reciprocity in social dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 252–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Komorita, S. S., Parks, C. D., & Hulbert, L.G. (1992). Reciprocity and the induction of cooperation in social dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(4), 607–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kramer, R. M., & Brewer, M. B. (1984). Effects of group identity on resource use in a simulated commons dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 (5), 1044–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Latané, B., Williams, K & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: the causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 , 823–832.Google Scholar
  33. Ledyard, J.O. (1995). Public goods: A survey of experimental research. In J.H. Kagel & A.E. Roth (Eds), The handbook of experimental economics (pp. 111–181). Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Markus, M. L. (1990). Towards a “critical mass” theory of interactive media. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication (pp. 194–218): Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Markus, M. L., & Connolly, T. (1990). Why CSCW applications fail: Problems in the adoption of interdependent work tools. CSCW’ 90 Proceedings.Google Scholar
  36. Marwell, G. & Ames, R. (1979). Experiments on the provision of public goods I: Resources, interest, group size, and the free-rider problem. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 1335–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Messick, D.M., & Brewer, M.B. (1983). Solving social dilemmas. A review. Review of personality and social psychology, 4, 11–44.Google Scholar
  38. Parks, CD. (2000). Testing various types of cooperation rewards in social dilemmas. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 3(4), 339–350.Google Scholar
  39. Rafaeli, S. & LaRose, R. J. (1993). Electronic bulletin boards and “public goods” explanations of collaborative mass media. Communication Research, 20 , 277–297.Google Scholar
  40. Rapoport, A. & Suleiman, R. (1993). Incremental contribution in step-level public goods games with asymmetric payers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,55, 171–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reid, F., Malinek, V., Scott, C. & Evans, J. (1996). The messaging threshold in computer-mediated communication. Ergonomics, 39, 1017–1037.Google Scholar
  42. Saijo, T. & Hideki, N. (1995). The “spite” dilemma in voluntary contribution mechanism experiments. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 39(3), 535–560.Google Scholar
  43. Schegloff, E. A. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shepperd, J. A. (1993). Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sonnemans, J., van Dijk, F., & van Winden, F. (2001). On the dynamic of social ties structures in groups. Unpublished working paper available at the URL: http://wwwl.fee.uva.nl/creed/pdffiles/group8.pdfGoogle Scholar
  46. Thorn, B. K. & Connolly, T. (1987). Discretionary data bases: A theory and some experimental findings. Communication Research, 14(5), 512–528.Google Scholar
  47. Van Lange, P.A.M., Liebrand, W.B.G., Messick, D.M., & Wilke, H.A.M. (1992). Social dilemmas: The state of the art. In W.B.G. Liebrand, D.M. Messick & H.A.M. Wilke (Eds.), Social dilemmas: Theoretical issues and research findings (pp. 3–28). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  48. Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Williams, K. D., Jackson, M. & Karau, S. J. (1995). Collective hedonism: A social loafing analysis of social dilemmas. In D. P. Schroeder (Ed.), Social dilemmas: Perspectives on individuals and groups (pp. 117–142). Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulrike Cress
  • Beatriz Barquero
  • Jürgen Buder
  • Friedrich W. Hesse

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations