图书情报工作

图书情报工作 >

2021 , Vol. 65 >Issue 9: 51 - 61

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2021.09.006

情报研究

反馈信息类型与效价对公众科学志愿者参与表现激励效应的实验研究

  • 汤健 ,
  • 周鑫雪 ,
  • 余美华
展开
  • 1 中央财经大学信息学院 北京 100081;
    2 中国传媒大学政府与公共事务学院 北京 100024
汤健(ORCID:0000-0002-8283-1961),副教授,博士;余美华(ORCID:0000-0002-6955-8286),硕士研究生。

收稿日期: 2020-10-23

  修回日期: 2021-01-13

  网络出版日期: 2021-06-02

基金资助

本文系国家自然科学基金"公众科学项目用户参与行为及价值共创效果研究"（项目编号：71904215）和教育部人文社会科学基金"基于游戏化设计的公众科学用户贡献行为及学习成效研究"（项目编号：18YJCZH160）研究成果之一。

收起

Research on the Motivational Impact of the Type and Valence of Feedback Information on Volunteer Performance in Citizen Science Projects

  • Tang Jian ,
  • Zhou Xinxue ,
  • Yu Meihua
Expand
  • 1 School of Information, Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing 100081;
    2 School of Government and Public Affairs, Communication University of China, Beijing 100024

Received date: 2020-10-23

  Revised date: 2021-01-13

  Online published: 2021-06-02

Fold

摘要

[目的/意义] 提供反馈是一项增强用户动机和参与的重要设计。研究反馈信息对公众科学志愿者参与表现的激励效应，为改进公众科学项目的反馈信息设计及提高志愿者参与表现提供指导和建议。[方法/过程] 基于反馈干预理论框架，结合社会认知理论和沉浸理论，构建反馈类型及反馈效价对公众科学项目志愿者的参与体验及参与表现的影响因素理论模型，并探讨反馈类型与反馈效价的交互作用。实证采用2（反馈类型：描述型vs.评价型）×2（反馈效价：积极vs.消极）组间实验进行模型验证。[结果/结论] 分析结果表明，在公众科学项目中，反馈类型与反馈效价对志愿者参与体验的影响存在差异，即志愿者在评价型反馈中比描述型反馈有更高的自我效能感；在积极反馈中比消极反馈有更高的自我效能感及沉浸体验。反馈类型与反馈效价对自我效能感具有交互效应，在消极反馈中，志愿者在评价型反馈中比描述型反馈有更高的自我效能。志愿者的参与体验对参与表现有正向的影响作用。

关键词： 公众科学; 反馈信息; 参与体验; 参与表现; 反馈干预

本文引用格式

汤健 , 周鑫雪 , 余美华 . 反馈信息类型与效价对公众科学志愿者参与表现激励效应的实验研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2021 , 65(9) : 51 -61 . DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2021.09.006

Abstract

[Purpose/significance] Providing feedback is an important design to motivate volunteers and enhance their participation. This research aims to study the motivational impact of feedback information on volunteers' participation performance, in order to provide guidance and suggestions for designing citizen science project and improving volunteers' performance.[Method/process] By using the feedback intervention theory as an overarching framework, this paper integrated social cognition theory and flow theory and proposed a model to depict the influence of feedback type and feedback valence on volunteers' experience and performance in citizen science projects. This study also discussed the interaction effects between feedback type and feedback valence. A 2 (feedback type:descriptive vs. evaluative)×2 (feedback valence:positive vs. negative) between-subject experiment was conducted to validate the proposed research model.[Result/conclusion] Results showed that feedback type and feedback valence have varying impact on volunteers' experience. Volunteers had higher self-efficacy in evaluative feedback than in descriptive feedback; and they had higher self-efficacy and flow experience in positive feedback than in negative feedback. Moreover, there was a statistically significant interaction between feedback type and feedback valence on self-efficacy. For negative feedback, volunteers had higher self-efficacy in evaluative feedback than in descriptive feedback. Volunteer's participation experience had a positive effect on participation performance.

Key words： citizen science; feedback information; participation experience; participation performance; feedback intervention

参考文献

[1] BONNEY R, PHILLIPS T B, BALLARD H L, et al. Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science?[J]. Public understanding of science, 2016, 25(1):2-16.
[2] 金瑛, 张晓林, 胡智慧. 公众科学的发展与挑战[J]. 图书情报工作, 2019, 63(13):28-33.
[3] FRANZONI C, SAUERMANN H. Crowd science:the organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects[J]. Research policy, 2013, 43(1):1-20.
[4] 赵宇翔. 科研众包视角下公众科学项目刍议:概念解析、模式探索及学科机遇[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2017, 43(5):42-56.
[5] PRESTOPNIK N, CROWSTON K, WANG J. Gamers, citizen scientists, and data:exploring participant contributions in two games with a purpose[J]. Computers in human behavior, 2017,68:254-268.
[6] TINATI R, LUCZAK-ROESCH M, SIMPERL E, et al. An investigation of player motivations in eyewire, a gamified citizen science project[J]. Computers in human behavior, 2017,73:527-540.
[7] PREECE J. Citizen science:new research challenges for human-computer interaction[J]. International journal of human-computer interaction, 2016, 32(8):585-612.
[8] ZHANG P. Motivational affordances:reasons for ict design and use[J]. Communications of the ACM, 2008, 51(11):145-147.
[9] JUNG J H, SCHNEIDER C, VALACICH J. Enhancing the motivational affordance of information systems:the effects of real-time performance feedback and goal setting in group collaboration environments[J]. Management science, 2010, 56(4):724-742.
[10] 周鑫雪, 汤健, 王天梅. 任务特征与游戏化设计对公众科学参与意愿影响的实验研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2018, 62(23):97-105.
[11] LAUT J, CAPPA F, NOV O, et al. Increasing citizen science contribution using a virtual peer[J]. Journal of the association for information science and technology, 2017, 68(3):583-593.
[12] 韩文婷, 宋士杰, 赵宇翔,等. 数字人文类众包抄录平台中任务绩效的影响因素研究——基于任务复杂度与领域知识视角[J]. 图书与情报, 2019(3):73-84.
[13] 张轩慧, 赵宇翔, 宋小康. 数字人文类公众科学项目持续发展阶段的公众参与动因探索——基于盛宣怀档案抄录案例的扎根分析[J]. 图书情报知识, 2018(3):4,16-25,77.
[14] 牛毅冲, 赵宇翔, 朱庆华. 基于科研众包模式的公众科学项目运作机制初探——以evolution megalab为例[J]. 图书情报工作, 2017, 61(1):5-13.
[15] SHIRK J L, BALLARD H L, WILDERMAN C C, et al. Public participation in scientific research:a framework for deliberate design[J]. Ecology and society, 2012, 17(2):29-48.
[16] 赵宇翔, 刘周颖, 宋士杰. 行动者网络理论视角下公众科学项目运作机制的实证探索[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2018, 44(6):59-74.
[17] NEWMAN G, WIGGINS A, CRALL A, et al. The future of citizen science:emerging technologies and shifting paradigms[J]. Frontiers in ecology & the environment, 2012, 10(6):298-304.
[18] SCHELIGA K, FRIESIKE S, PUSCHMANN C, et al. Setting up crowd science projects[J]. Public understanding of science, 2018, 27(5):515-534.
[19] BOAKES E H, GLIOZZO G, SEYMOUR V, et al. Patterns of contribution to citizen science biodiversity projects increase understanding of volunteers' recording behaviour[J]. Scientific reports, 2016, 6:1-11.
[20] SPRINKS J, WARDLAW J, HOUGHTON R, et al. Task workflow design and its impact on performance and volunteers' subjective preference in virtual citizen science[J]. International journal of human-computer studies, 2017,104:50-63.
[21] LUKYANENKO R, PARSONS J, WIERSMA Y F, et al. Expecting the unexpected:effects of data collection design choices on the quality of crowdsourced user-generated content[J]. MIS quarterly, 2019, 43(2):623-647.
[22] KLUGER A N, DENISI A. The effects of feedback interventions on performance:a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory[J]. Psychological bulletin, 1996, 119(2):254-284.
[23] SPINK A. Information science:a third feedback framework[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1997, 48(8):728-740.
[24] KULHAVY R W, WAGER W. Feedback in programmed instruction:historical context and implications for practice[M]//Interactive instruction and feedback. USA:Educational Technology Publications, 1993.
[25] PODSAKOFF P M, FARH J-L. Effects of feedback sign and credibility on goal setting and task performance[J]. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 1989, 44(1):45-67.
[26] KOLLÖFFEL B, DE JONG T. Can performance feedback during instruction boost knowledge acquisition? contrasting criterion-based and social comparison feedback[J]. Interactive learning environments, 2016, 24(7):1428-1438.
[27] HUANG N, BURTCH G, GU B, et al. Motivating user-generated content with performance feedback:evidence from randomized field experiments[J]. Management science, 2018, 65(1):327-345.
[28] NEASE A A, MUDGETT B O, QUIÑONES M A. Relationships among feedback sign, self-efficacy, and acceptance of performance feedback[J]. Journal of applied psychology, 1999, 84(5):806-814.
[29] VAN-DIJK D, KLUGER A N. Feedback sign effect on motivation:is it moderated by regulatory focus?[J]. Applied psychology, 2004, 53(1):113-135.
[30] NOV O, LAUT J, PORFIRI M. Using targeted design interventions to encourage extra-role crowdsourcing behavior[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(2):483-489.
[31] BHARATHI A K B G, SINGH A, TUCKER C S, et al. Knowledge discovery of game design features by mining user-generated feedback[J]. Computers in human behavior, 2016, 60:361-371.
[32] ZHOU X, TANG J, ZHAO Y, et al. Effects of feedback design and dispositional goal orientations on volunteer performance in citizen science projects[J]. Computers in human behavior, 2020, 107:1-17.
[33] BANDURA A. Social cognitive theory:an agentic perspective[J]. Annual review of psychology, 2001, 52(1):1-26.
[34] CSIKSZENTMIHALYI M. Flow:the psychology of optimal experience[J]. Design issues, 1991, 8(1):75-77.
[35] FENG Y Y, YE H J, YU Y, et al. Gamification artifacts and crowdsourcing participation:examining the mediating role of intrinsic motivations[J]. Computers in human behavior, 2018, 81:124-136.
[36] SUH A, CHEUNG C M K, AHUJA M, et al. Gamification in the workplace:the central role of the aesthetic experience[J]. Journal of management information systems, 2017, 34(1):268-305.
[37] LIPNEVICH A A, SMITH J K. Effects of differential feedback on students' examination performance[J]. Journal of experimental psychology applied, 2009, 15(4):319-333.
[38] ZHOU J. Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation:interactive effects on creative performance[J]. Journal of applied psychology, 1998, 83(2):261-276.
[39] JOHNSON D A. A component analysis of the impact of evaluative and objective feedback on performance[J]. Journal of organizational behavior management, 2013, 33(2):89-103.
[40] BURGERS C, EDEN A, ENGELENBURG M D V, et al. How feedback boosts motivation and play in a brain-training game[J]. Computers in human behavior, 2015, 48:94-103.
[41] ASHFORD S J, BLATT R, VANDEWALLE D. Reflections on the looking glass:a review of research on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations[J]. Journal of management, 2003, 29(6):773-799.
[42] CIANCI A M, KLEIN H J, SEIJTS G H. The effect of negative feedback on tension and subsequent performance:the main and interactive effects of goal content and conscientiousness[J]. Journal of applied psychology, 2010, 95(4):618.
[43] DE MUYNCK G-J, VANSTEENKISTE M, DELRUE J, et al. The effects of feedback valence and style on need satisfaction, self-talk, and perseverance among tennis players:an experimental study[J]. Journal of sport and exercise psychology, 2017, 39(1):67-80.
[44] SAUERMANN H, COHEN W M. What makes them tick? employee motives and firm innovation[J]. Management science, 2010, 56(12):2134-2153.
[45] 王楠, 张士凯, 赵雨柔, 等. 在线社区中领先用户特征对知识共享水平的影响研究——社会资本的中介作用[J]. 管理评论, 2019, 31(2):82-93.
[46] XU B, LI D. An empirical study of the motivations for content contribution and community participation in wikipedia[J]. Information & management, 2015, 52(3):275-286.
[47] 张鼐, 唐亚欧. 大数据背景下用户生成行为影响因素的实证研究[J]. 图书馆学研究, 2015(3):36-42,15.
[48] CAMACHO N, NAM H, KANNAN P K, et al. Tournaments to crowdsource innovation:the role of moderator feedback and participation intensity[J]. Journal of marketing, 2019, 83(2):138-157.
[49] RYAN R M, DECI E L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being[J]. American psychologist, 2000, 55(1):68-78.
[50] URDAN T, SCHOENFELDER E. Classroom effects on student motivation:goal structures, social relationships, and competence beliefs[J]. Journal of school psychology, 2006, 44(5):331-349.
[51] VANCOUVER J B, TISCHNER E C. The effect of feedback sign on task performance depends on self-concept discrepancies[J]. Journal of applied psychology, 2004, 89(6):1092-1098.
[52] SANTHANAM R, LIU D, SHEN W-C M. Research note-gamification of technology-mediated training:not all competitions are the same[J]. Information systems research, 2016, 27(2):453-465.
[53] FORNELL C, LARCKER D F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error[J]. Journal of marketing research, 1981, 18(1):39-50.
Options
文章导航

/

〈 〉