Is a lurker always lurking?

Table of Content

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Background
2.1 Communication in online communities
2.2 Concept of communication
2.3 Is a lurker a lurker in any case?

3. Method

4. Results
4.1 All
4.2 Opinion Leaders
4.3 Lurkers
4.4 Opinion Leaders vs. Lurkers
4.5 Both

5. Conclusion

6. Bibliography

Appendix 1 – All

Appendix 2 – Opinion Leaders

Appendix 3 - Lurkers

Appendix 4 – Both

Abstract

This paper presents a brief case study, that was conducted to determine whether lurking is related to a specific topic or not. It is based on a short online survey which was made available on the internet for a period of 14 days. The results of this study may lead to a better understanding of lurking, why there are so many lurkers and why lurking should not be seen in such a negative way any more.

1. Introduction

Online Communities consist not only of active, i.e. message writing member, but also of so-called lurkers, i.e. non or rarely posting members.^[1] According to previous studies lurkers make up the majority of online groups. In particular a study conducted by Nonnecke and Preece in 2000 showed that lurking levels vary from group to group depending on the topic, traffic volume and other factors. In a follow up study they were even able to determine, to some extent, why lurkers lurk, e.g. to satisfy personal or information needs. They claim that lurking is normal and that everyone lurks at some time (Nonnecke and Preece, 2001). But yet little is know about whether lurking is a fixed personal attribute or a characteristic bound to a specific topic.

The goal of this paper is to determine whether lurking is a specific trait of a person or whether lurking is related to a specific topic. In the next section literature is reviewed, giving an overview on principal forms of communication and the definition of social groups and online communities. Afterwards, the research method is explained in detail and the results are analysed.

2. Background

2.1 Communication in Online Communities

The basic communication process, based on Lasswell, consists of five components: Who (communicator) – says what (communication content) – through which communication channel – to whom – with what effect (communication effect) (in Kroeber-Riel, p.457).

We can differentiate between two main categories of communication: personal communication and mass communication. In general, personal communication can be defined as direct communication between two persons (face-to-face-communication). Mass communication, on the other hand, is roughly defined as transmission of information using technical media. A more concrete definition by Maletzke says that “Mass communication comprises all forms of communication in which statements are transmitted

- publicly
- by means of technical distribution instruments
- indirectly (in respect of time and space)
- in a one-way direction
- and directed to a disperse audience.” (Maletzke, p.9)

Normally communication takes place within social groups. A social group can be defined as a number of people who interact with each other and feature an own identity, i.e. a sense of togetherness. (Kroeber-Riel, p.410). A group has the following characteristics:

- an own identity, i.e. the members understand the group as a social unity
- a social order, that allocates positions to members within the group and regulates their roles
- codes of conduct, that determine and standardise the members behaviour
- values and goals, that are experienced by the individual as mandatory for the group

(Kroeber-Riel, p.412)

Furthermore we can differentiate between primary- and secondary-groups. Primary-groups are small, informal groups in which members interact personally (face-to-face). In many cases the members have a close, emotional contact as well as a distinctive we-feeling. The most important primary-groups are family, friends and small communities. Secondary-groups are big groups, in which members have an aloof and mostly formal relationship. Since those groups are not manageable any more, the members do not know each other or just have a nodding acquaintance. Examples are big cities or nations. (Kroeber-Riel, pp.412-413). Typical for the contact within the secondary group is the indirect communication, i.e. mass communication (Kroeber-Riel, p.574).

To apply those findings to online communities, we have to take a closer look at the definition of an online community. Preece uses this definition:

“An online community consists of:

- Peopl e, who interact socially as they strive to satisfy their own needs or perform
special roles
- A shared purpos e, such as an interest, need, information exchange, or service
that provides a reason for the community
- Policie s, in the form of tacit assumptions, rituals, protocols, rules and laws that
guide people’s interactions
- Computer systems to support and mediate social interaction and facilitate a

sense of togetherness.” (Preece, 2000)

Many, but not all principals of communication and characteristics of a social group can be applied to online communities. At a first glance it can be said that online communities can be categorised as secondary groups since there is no face-to-face communication, as may be necessary for a primary group, and mass communication seems to be preponderate. But when taking a closer look one can realise that a mixture of both, primary and secondary group/communication may be more applicable to online communities. The size of online communities varies, depending on the community. Communication within online communities is not, as in the classical sense of a mass communication medium such as TV, a one-way communication: members can exchange messages and therefore exchange the position of communicator and recipient as well.

2.2 Concept of communication

In the communication process within small groups one can find members, that exert more personal influence than others. Those group members are called opinion leaders. Opinion leading is not a personal trait but a characteristic connected to a specific opinion-matter, e.g. a consumer product category, politics etc. (Kroeber-Riel, p486). Katz and Lazarsfeld created a theory of personal influence of opinion leaders, also called two-step-flow communication : First mass communication affects opinion leaders, who will then, through direct personal communication, affect the remaining audience, that was not affected by mass communication. Therefore opinion leaders function as communication-relays. They expose themselves to a higher amount of information, not only in their area of expertise but also in general, and they are also able to pick up information with a higher level of attention (Kroeber-Riel, pp.576-577).

Within the two-step communication a rather passive role is allocated to the audience. But considerations of Bauer and Cox suggest that the audience can, as a result of a need for information, also be active and this need can be satisfied by means of mass communication as well as trough personal communication. So one has to differentiate between a person having a need for information, who will actively seek information using mass communication and/or personal communication, and a person not having a need for information, who will passively be influenced by mass communication and/or personal communication (Kroeber-Riel, pp.577-578).

Resulting from these thoughts, a concept of a variety of communication was developed, i.e. we have a complementary use of mass communication and personal communication as well as their linkage to a two-step communication.

2.3 Is a lurker a lurker in any case?

How can these concepts help determining whether lurking is a trait or a characteristic connected to a specific topic? The way communication in online communities works, as described above, suggests that a variety of communication forms takes place. Online communities function as a tool for mass communication as well as for personal communication. They consist of active, i.e. posting members as well as passive, i.e. non- or rarely posting members. Those passive members are also called lurkers.

Nonnecke and Preece found that one important reason for lurking is to satisfy information needs: “Satisfying information needs was important to the participants. In some cases, information was more important than interaction. In addition to messages, having information in the form of archives was useful to several users, especially if it was readily searchable.” (Nonnekce and Preece, 2001). Lurkers deliberately expose themselves to information, which actually is a characteristic that occurs with opinion leaders. So the question arises whether a lurker is a lurker in any case or whether a lurker might be active in another field of interest. Therefore this research was conducted to determine whether this is true or not.

3. Method

This research was conducted using an online questionnaire consisting of nine questions, which were aimed at identifying lurkers and opinion leaders and also focused on determining whether lurking and opinion leading are bound to a specific topic. Personal characteristics like age or gender were deliberately abandoned to gain a higher response rate due to the increased anonymity. The respondents were asked to rate the questions on a scale from 1 to 5, 1 being “fully applies”, 5 being “does not apply at all”. The research was conducted during a period of 14 days resulting in a return of 61 questionnaires.

As a preceding explanation, it has to be said, that, in many questions, participants were deliberately asked about important buying decisions since a person is more likely to seek personal communication with another person and ask for advice if the buying risk, i.e. possible consequences that might occur when buying a product, is higher (Kroeber-Riel, p.481). To interpret this in connection with online communities, we have to assume that for lurkers reading postings in an online community is a way get information as well as personal contact to others. Unlike in other mass media, in online communities, communication takes place on a more personal level, after all the messages, just like letters, have been written by other individuals. It is up to the participant to chose, whether he/she wants to write publicly in a forum, answer a message privately via e-mail or whether he/she prefers to read only.

In the next section the questions will be given and explained:

1. Ich hole bei wichtigen Kaufentscheidungen oft Rat von anderen ein. (I frequently seek others advice when making important buying decisions.)

Determines whether a participant is a lurker or not.

2. Ich nutze Online Communities, um über interessante Themen zu diskutieren. (I use online communities to talk about interesting topics.)

Since opinion leaders are generally more interested in media and are also known to be more extroverted, we can assume that they will also be interested in being available to others. This publicity and the appreciation by others is a gratification for their opinion leading.

3. Ich lese regelmäßig Fachzeitschriften, um mich über ein Thema, das mich interessiert zu informieren. (I read expert magazines regularly to get information about an interesting topic.)

Correlates with the characteristic of opinion leaders to expose themselves to information.

4. Ich schreibe häufig Beiträge für Online Communities. (I frequently write messages for online communities.)

Determines whether a participant is active or passive.

5. Ich werde oft von anderen bei wichtigen Kaufentscheidungen um Rat gefragt. (I am often asked for advice concerning important buying decisions.)

Determines whether a respondent is an opinion leader or not. Opposite to Q.1

6. Ich kaufe regelmäßig im Internet ein. (I regularly buy something using the internet.)

A fake question, which is used to fade to the topic of product reviews. The answers are not taken into account.

7. Ich schreibe bei dooyoo.de, Amazon o.ä. Produktreviews, um anderen bei der Produktwahl zu helfen. (I write product reviews on dooyoo.de, Amazon or similar online communities to help others in choosing a product.)

Determines whether an opinion leader is also actively opinion leading on the net.

8. Ich nutze Online Communities, um mich vor wichtigen Kaufentscheidungen zu informieren. (I use online communities to get information before making an important buying decision.)

Determines whether a lurker, as determined in Q.1 is lurking in online communities.

9. Produktreviews, wie z. B. bei Amazon oder dooyoo.de, helfen mir, mich für oder gegen ein bestimmtes Produkt zu entscheiden. (I find product reviews, like those on Amazon or dooyoo.de, helpful for choosing a specific product.)

Determines whether a lurker is actively seeking information on the net.

[...]

^[1] Definition of ‘lurker‘ from the online Jargon Dictionary: “One of the ‘silent majority’ in a electronic forum; one who posts occasionally or not at all but is known to read the group's postings regularly.”