Motivation

ex. Intrinsic feelings

Facebook (login, signup page).jpg

In groups of 3-4, evaluate Facebook in light of intrinsic feelings (Table 2.2 p. 41)

Intrinsic 1

ex. Flow (DC17)

Flappy Bird logo.jpg.

In groups of 3-4, evaluate a popular game (Flappy Birds, Angry Birds) relative to flow criteria (Table 2.3 p. 45)

Intrinsic 2

Extrinsic

Perverse incentives

Trade-offs between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

Enhancing Expectancy-Value of Group Outcomes

People will be more willing to contribute in an online group:

Questions?

Revenge rating

 

  1. It’s hard to quantify the qualitative: there was much experimentation with rating and ranking systems.
  2. Quantitative mechanisms beget their manipulation: people “mate” rated friends, “revenge” rated enemies, and inflated their own standing.
  3. “Fixes” to manipulation have their own, often unintended, consequences and are also susceptible to manipulation: non-anonymous ratings led to rating inflation.
  4. Quantification (and the how one implements it) privileges some things over others: nudes were highly rated, more so when measured by number of comments, not so with photos of flowers.
  5. Any “fixes” often take the form of more elaborate, automated, and meta quantification : such as making some users “curators” or labeling them as “helpful.”
  6. Digital works can be “tweak critiqued”: photos are not only rated and commented upon, but demonstratively altered (e.g., cropping).

Conclusion