Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T02:54:30.124Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do open online projects create social norms?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2017

GODEFROY DANG NGUYEN ,
SYLVAIN DEJEAN Open the ORCID record for SYLVAIN DEJEAN [Opens in a new window]  and
NICOLAS JULLIEN
GODEFROY DANG NGUYEN
Affiliation:
IMT Atlantique-UBL, LEGO-M@rsouin, Brest, France
SYLVAIN DEJEAN*
Affiliation:
University of La Rochelle, CEREGE, La Rochelle, France
NICOLAS JULLIEN
Affiliation:
IMT Atlantique-UBL, LEGO-M@rsouin, Brest, France
*
*Email: sylvain.dejean@univ-lr.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While most scholars emphasize the role of prosocial motivations of contributors in building open online communities, we show that mere users also adhere to their norms of behaviour to some extent. To this end we designed an original experimentation protocol. With the help of the French Wikimédia Foundation, we questioned a large sample (n = 13,000) of Wikipedia users (whether contributors or not). They were invited, after having expressing their feelings about Wikipédia, to play a Dictator Game. A large proportion of respondents, including those who were merely users, chose an equal split (66% of the sample). This surprising result suggests that they have adhered to a social norm of sharing. Investigating the determinants of this result, we prove that an involvement measured by usage (intensity and variety), as well as by attachment to, and time spent, on Wikipedia, is correlated with the choice of the 50/50 split in the dictator game (DG). Furthermore, the method of instrumental variables gives an indication that adherence to the social norm of sharing may be endogenously determined by involvement in the open online community. Our result highlights the importance of interactions with the institutional and technical frameworks of the community.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , February 2018 , pp. 45 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © Millennium Economics Ltd 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akerlof, G. A. and Kranton, R. E. (2000), ‘Economics and identity’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115 (3), 715–53.Google Scholar
Algan, Y., Benkler, Y., Morell, M. F. and Hergueux, J. (2013), ‘Cooperation in a peer production economy: experimental evidence from Wikipedia’, in Workshop on Information Systems and Economics, Milan, Italy, December, pp. 1–31.Google Scholar
Andreoni, J. and Bernheim, B. D. (2009), ‘Social image and the 50–50 norm: a theoretical and experimental analysis of audience effects’, Econometrica, 77 (5), 1607–36.Google Scholar
Bardsley, N. (2008), ‘Dictator game giving: altruism or artefact?’ Experimental Economics, 11 (2), 122–33.Google Scholar
Battigalli, P. and Dufwenberg, M. (2007), ‘Guilt in games’, American Economic Review, 97 (2), 170–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bicchieri, C. (2002), ‘Covenants without swords: group identity, norms, and communication in social dilemmas’, Rationality and Society, 14 (2), 192–228.Google Scholar
Bound, J., Jaeger, D. A. and Baker, R. M. (1995), ‘Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variable is weak’, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90 (430), 443–50.Google Scholar
Butler, B., Sproull, L., Kiesler, S. and Kraut, R. (2007), ‘Community effort in online groups: who does the work and why?’ in: Weisband, S. (ed.), Leadership at a Distance: Research in Technologically Supported Work, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
Carpenter, J. and Myers, C. K. (2010), ‘Why volunteer? Evidence on the role of altruism, image, and incentives’, Journal of Public Economics, 94 (11), 911–20.Google Scholar
Commons, J. R. (1931), ‘Institutional economics’, American Economic Review, 21 (3), 648–57.Google Scholar
Dejean, S. and Jullien, N. (2015), ‘Big from the beginning: assessing online contributors’ behaviour by their first contribution’, Research Policy, 44 (6), 1226–39.Google Scholar
Eckel, C., Grossman, P. J., Johnson, C. A., de Oliveira, A. C., Rojas, C. and Wilson, R. (2011), ‘Social norms of sharing in high school: teen giving in the dictator game’, Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization, 80 (3), 603–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, C. C. and Grossman, P. J. (1996), ‘Altruism in anonymous dictator games’, Games and Economic Behaviour, 16 (2), 181–91.Google Scholar
Elster, J. (1989), The Cement of Society, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Engel, C. (2011), ‘Dictator games: a meta study’, Experimental Economics, 14 (4), 583–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ensminger, J. (2004), ‘Market integration and fairness: evidence from ultimatum, dictator, and public goods experiments in East Africa’, Foundations of human sociality: economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from 15 small-scale societies, pp. 356–81.Google Scholar
Gächter, S. (2014), ‘Human prosocial motivation and the maintenance of social order’, The Oxford Handbook of Behavioral Economics and the Law, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 28.Google Scholar
Gintis, H., Bowles, S., Boyd, R. and Fehr, E. (2003), ‘Explaining altruistic behavior in humans’, Evolution and Human Behavior, 24 (3), 153–72.Google Scholar
Greenstein, S., Gu, Y. and Zhu, F. (2016), ‘Ideological segregation among online collaborators: evidence from Wikipedians’, working paper no. 22744, National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
Henrich, J., Ensminger, J., McElreath, R., Barr, A., Barrett, C., Bolyanatz, A., Cardenas, J. C., Gurven, M., Gwako, E., Henrich, N. and others (2010), ‘Markets, religion, community size, and the evolution of fairness and punishment’, Science, 327 (5972), 1480–4.Google Scholar
Hess, C. and Ostrom, E. (2006), ‘Introduction: an overview of the knowledge commons’, in: Hess, C. and Ostrom, E. (eds), Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 3–26.Google Scholar
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K. and Smith, V. L. (1996), ‘Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games’, American Economic Review, 86 (3), 653–60.Google Scholar
Krupka, E. L. and Weber, R. A. (2013), ‘Identifying social norms using coordination games: why does dictator game sharing vary?’ Journal of the European Economic Association, 11 (3), 495–524.Google Scholar
List, J. A. (2007), ‘On the interpretation of giving in dictator games’, Journal of Political Economy, 115 (3), 482–93.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1975), ‘Cognitive reference points’, Cognitive Psychology, 7 (4), 532–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safner, R. (2016), ‘Institutional entrepreneurship, Wikipedia, and the opportunity of the commons’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 43 (1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Schelling, T. C. (1980), The Strategy of Conflict. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Seabright, P. (2012), The Company of Strangers: A Natural History of Economic Life, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sugden, R. (1995), ‘The coexistence of conventions’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 28 (2), 241–56.Google Scholar
Tisserand, J., Cochard, F. and le Gallo, J. (2015), ‘Altruistic or strategic considerations: A meta-analysis on the ultimatum and dictator games’, in: Annual Meeting of the French Economic Association, Rennes, France.Google Scholar
Young, H. P. (1998), ‘Social norms and economic welfare’, European Economic Review (3), 821–30.Google Scholar
Young, H. P. (2015), ‘The evolution of social norms’, Annual Review of Economics, 7, 359–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, X. and Zhu, F. (2011), ‘Group size and incentives to contribute: a natural experiment at Chinese Wikipedia’, American Economic Review, 101 (4), 1601–15.Google Scholar
Zhou, T. (2011), ‘Understanding online community user participation: a social influence perspective’, Internet Research, 21 (1), 67–81.Google Scholar