Cited by 65Mobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingOpen Source Software InnovationsInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Competing or aiming to be average?: normification as a means of engaging digital volunteers

Open access
Preist, Chris, Massung, Elaine, Coyle, David·2014·Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing

Abstract

Engagement, motivation and active contribution by digital volunteers are key requirements for crowdsourcing and citizen science projects. Many systems use competitive elements, for example point scoring and leaderboards, to achieve these ends. However, while competition may motivate some people, it can have a neutral or demotivating effect on others. In this paper we explore theories of personal and social norms and investigate normification as an alternative approach to engagement, to be used alongside or instead of competitive strategies. We provide a systematic review of existing crowdsourcing and citizen science literature and categorise the ways that theories of norms have been incorporated to date. We then present qualitative interview data from a pro-environmental crowdsourcing study, Close the Door, which reveals normalising attitudes in certain participants. We assess how this links with competitive behaviour and participant performance. Based on our findings and analysis of norm theories, we consider the implications for designers wishing to use normification as an engagement strategy in crowdsourcing and citizen science systems.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2531602.2531615

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Basarir, M. & Overend, M. Interim Report on the Energy Appraisal of Retail Units: Assessing the effect of open doors on energy consumption and thermal comfort. 2010, University of Cambridge. CUED/D-STRUCT/TR232.
  2. Kim, S., Mankoff, J., & Paulos, E. Sensr: evaluating a flexible framework for authoring mobile data-collection tools for citizen science. ACM CSCW 2013, 1453-1462.
  3. Kim, S., Robson, C., Zimmerman, T., Pierce, J., & Haber, E.M. Creek watch: pairing usefulness and usability for successful citizen science. ACM CHI 2011, 2125-2134.
  4. Sebastopol, CA. O'Reilly Media.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Preist, C., Massung, E., & Coyle, D.
Affiliations
University of Bristol (GB)
Venue
Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing
Publisher
ACM
Published
2014-02-15
Pages
1222-1233
OpenAlex
W1998235746
Cited by
65
References
57
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3
FWCI
5.50
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) (publishedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • University of Bristol
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/K012509/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
personal norms, social norms, crowdsourcing, citizen science, competition, leaderboards, point scoring, participant engagement, volunteer motivation, participant performance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review