NONE OF US IS AS LAZY AS ALL OF US

Abstract

In this paper we apply theory and research from sociology and social psychology to the problem of collective information sharing and exchange on the internet. We investigate the relationships between pre-existing dispositions to be cautious towards others, the propensity to exert more or less effort as a function of group affiliation, and contribution towards a collective goal. We find that individuals with average or lower levels of general caution are more likely to contribute to a collective pool of information, providing support for Yamagishi's (2001) argument that less cautious individuals exhibit a type of social intelligence by engaging in risky but potentially rewarding social interactions. Consistent with the literature on social loafing, we find that abstract group affiliations have a negative effect on information sharing behaviour. However, the effect of group affiliation is mediated by one's level of general caution. We argue that pre-dispositions to engage in socially risky situations are a critical element of individuals’ decisions to contribute to online information sharing systems or not.

Keywords:

• sociology
• Web 2.0
• ICTs
• communication studies
• computer-mediated communication

Acknowledgement

This research was funded through a Yahoo! Faculty Research Grant.

Notes

The exclusion rate for the study was 6.6 per cent; two participants were excluded because they did not correctly respond to the manipulation check and six more were excluded due to software and data collection issues.

The point structure of the text transcription tasks creates an n-person prisoners’ dilemma, in which each participant has a rational self-interest to not contribute. The aggregate effect of each individual decision leads to a collectively deficient outcome, where everyone earns less (or nothing at all) if no one contributes.

Experience within the study should not affect post-questionnaire responses because participants were not given any information about the quantity of contributions provided by others. If responses were affected, it would influence all participants equally. We only analyse relative differences between responses in our sample, negating the potential impact of such effects.

We conducted the same analysis by excluding those with average levels of caution to ensure that these individuals were not biasing the results one way or the other. We found the same effects when individuals with average caution were eliminated.