A Market In Your Social Network: The Effect of Extrinsic Rewards on Friendsourcing and Relationships

A Market in Your Social Network: The Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Friendsourcing and Relationships

Haiyi Zhu [email protected]

Sauvik Das [email protected]

Yiqun Cao [email protected]

Shuang Yu [email protected]

Aniket Kittur [email protected]

Robert Kraut [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


http://cmu.edu

http://cmu.edu



#friendsourcing

I source you!

Seeking answers to tough questions

Asking for opinions

Enlisting collaborators

#trendingFriendsourcing is useful and free.

No surprise, then, that friendsourcing and tools to support friendsourcing are on the rise.

Over 50% of SNS users asked friends questions online.- Morris, Teevan, Panovic, 2010

Friendsourcing has been used to create social systems.e.g., Bernstein et al. 2010, Brady et al. 2013

But #couldbebetterFriendsourcing requests often fall on deaf ears.- Paul, Hong and Chi, 2011

Perceived social capital costs can be prohibitively high.- Rzeszotarski and Morris, 2014

How can we increase response rates to friendsourcing requests?

Money, Cash, SkrillaCurrently, friendsourcing responses are largely altruistic. But what if they weren’t?

Research QuestionsDoes adding extrinsic rewards affect response rates to friendsourcing requests?

Does adding extrinsic rewards change a requester’s perceived relationship strength with friends who respond versus those who do not?

Does the size and nature of the reward affect response rates and perceived relationship strength?

Methodology

1 2

4

3

Mobilyzr: A platform to create and attach extrinsic rewards to friendsourcing requests.

Reward ConditionsSmall ($1) Large ($5)

Monetary

Non-monetary

Control

RequestsTwo types of tasks: survey and document revision.

Each participant posted two requests. First was preset Second was self-defined and posted three days afterwards.

Participants shared each task on Facebook with a short pitch.

Also tagged six different friends on each task.

Pre/post lab sessionsTwo lab sessions: the first before participants posted their first request, and the second a week later.

First session: Logistics, relationship strength scale questionnaire for each friend they would tag.

Second session: Relationship strength scale questionnaire for each friend they had tagged. Exit interview.

MeasuresResponses: Responses from tagged and untagged friends. Integer value from 0.

Relationship strength: Pre/post change in relationship strength. Range: -100 to 100.

Interview and comment thread data to better understand rationales for response rates and relationship strength ratings.

Hypotheses

Control Monetary Non-monetary

Small reward Large reward

H1: Market Response


H2: Crowd-out Response

Hypotheses > Response Rate



H1: Market Response






H1: Market Response






H1: Market Response






H3: Hostile Economy


H4: Fair Pay

Hypotheses > Relationship Strength



H3: Hostile Economy


H4: Fair Pay




H3: Hostile Economy


H4: Fair Pay




H3: Hostile Economy


H4: Fair Pay


SummaryH1 Market model: Extrinsic rewards will provide more incentive and, thus, increase responses. Should also reduce social capital costs.

vs.

H2 Crowd-out model: Extrinsic rewards might undermine the natural social motives to assist friends and, thus, decrease responses.

H3 Hostile economy model: Extrinsic rewards are harmful to social relationships by introducing market-forces into the relationship.

vs.

H4 Fair pay model: Extrinsic rewards can strengthen social relationships by enhancing fairness.

Response Rate

Relationship Strength

Results

Descriptive Stats60 participants posted 105 friendsourcing requests and solicited 630 friends to respond to their requests.

Small ($1) Large ($5) Total

Monetary 17 23 40

Non-monetary 11 19 30

Control 35 35

105

Response Rate of Tagged FriendsRe

spon

se R

ate

0

15

30

45

60


Small Large

11 111


spon

se R

ate

0

15

30

45

60


Small Large

11 11

30


spon

se R

ate

0

15

30

45

60


Small Large

11

37

3130


spon

se R

ate

0

15

30

45

60


Small Large

5147

37

3130

For you, not for the candyLarge rewards attracted more responses, but responders wanted requesters to attribute their response to the relationship, not the reward.

Direct attribution: “I’m doing this just for you!”

Indirect attribution: “Seriously? 1 dollar can hardly compensate my apartment rent for the revision work. just treat me well”

Rewards on ResponsePartial support for two market model hypothesis (H1):

•small rewards yield no greater response

• large rewards yield significantly greater response

•same pattern for both monetary and non-monetary

Summary: People attracted by larger rewards but attribute their response to their relationship with a requester, not the presence of the reward.

Change in Relationship Strength between Requesters and Tagged Friends

-6

-4.5

-3

-1.5

0

1.5

3

4.5

6


Small Large


-6

-4.5

-3

-1.5

0

1.5

3

4.5

6


Small Large


-6

-4.5

-3

-1.5

0

1.5

3

4.5

6


Small Large


Chan

ge in

Rel

atio

nshi

p St

reng

th

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

Response No Response


Chan

ge in

Rel

atio

nshi

p St

reng

th

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4


Reward


Chan

ge in

Rel

atio

nshi

p St

reng

th

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4


Control Reward


Chan

ge in

Rel

atio

nshi

p St

reng

th

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4


Control Reward

p=0.4

p<0.01

Externalizing non-responseExtrinsic rewards preserves perceived relationship strength by providing requester with an external factor on which to attribute non-response.

I was surprised that there is no replies. Because I thought they might feel a little bit better about me. Those people they kinda of let me down by not sending me a reply. I got nothing. I am hurt by it…

Control condition

“None of them seriously want the candies. They probably just (think) this is dumb.”

“They like the big dollars. They don’t play around with the little dollar”

Reward conditions

Rewards on RelationshipsSupport for fair pay hypothesis (H4):

•presence of rewards increases perceived relationship strength in presence of response.

•presence of rewards resists lowering perceived relationship strength in absence of response.

Summary: Extrinsic rewards have a beneficial and/or protective effect on perceived relationship strength.

Conclusion

OverviewFriendsourcing is powerful and increasingly utilized, but often requests go unanswered.

Introducing extrinsic rewards could help, but could hurt relationship strength between requesters and friends, in turn.

To that end, we tested the effects of introducing extrinsic rewards to friendsourcing requests on: response rates and perceived relationship strength.



Response Rates


Relationship Strength

A Market in Your Social Network: The Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Friendsourcing and Relationships

Sauvik Das [email protected]

@scyrusk

Presenter:

Haiyi Zhu, Sauvik Das, Yiqun Cao, Shuang Yu, Aniket Kittur and Robert Kraut

Takeaways: 1. Extrinsic rewards, if large enough, can motivate

more response to friendsourcing requests.

2. Extrinsic rewards have a beneficial or protective effect on perceived relationship strength between requesters and friends.

Limitations• Self-selected tagged friends biases potential

responders to stronger-than-average friends.

• Could not measure perceived relationship strength from the perspective of the responder.

• Only tested some kinds of requests. Effects could potentially vary across different kinds of requests.

• Better personalized pitches?

Date post:	17-Feb-2017
Category:	Science
Upload:	sauvik-das
View:	252 times
Download:	0 times

A Market In Your Social Network: The Effect of Extrinsic Rewards on Friendsourcing and Relationships

Science