User participation has long been recognized as a cornerstone of thriving online communities. Social live-streaming service (SLSS) communities are built on a subscription-based model and rely on viewers’ participation and financial support. Using the collective effort model and heuristics of social influence, this study examines the influence of streamer and viewer behaviors on viewers’ participation and financial commitment on the SLSS, Twitch.tv. Findings from behavioral data collected over 7 weeks show larger audiences diminish individual participation and financial commitment while moderation may encourage more. Female streamers benefit from increased moderation, earning two to three times more in financial commitment compared to men, who streamed more frequently and for longer durations but attracted much smaller audiences. Viewers’ participation and financial commitment did not differ across streams with more content diversity. Our results demonstrate how group factors influence individual participation and financial commitment in newer subscription-based media.
AkaikeH (1973) Maximum likelihood identification of Gaussian autoregressive moving average models. Biometrika60(2): 255–265.
2.
BründlSMattCHessT (2017) Consumer use of social live streaming services: the influence of co-experience and effectance on enjoyment. In: Proceedings of the 25th European conference on information systems (ECIS), Guimarães, Portugal, 5–10 June 2017, pp. 1175–1791. Available at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2017_rp/114
CialdiniRB (2001) The science of persuasion. Scientific American284(2): 76–81.
5.
CialdiniRBGoldsteinNJ (2004) Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology55(1): 591–621.
6.
CosleyDFrankowskiDKieslerS, et al. (2005) How oversight improves member-maintained communities. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Portland, Oregon, USA, 2–7 April 2005, pp. 11–20. New York: ACM. DOI: 10.1145/1054972.1054975
7.
de WitJvan der KraanATheeuwesJ (2020) Live streams on twitch help viewers cope with difficult periods in life. Frontiers in Psychology11: 3162.
8.
DiwanjiVReedAFerchaudA, et al. (2020) Don’t just watch, join in: exploring information behavior and copresence on Twitch. Computers in Human Behavior105: 106221.
9.
DurlachNSlaterM (2000) Presence in shared virtual environments and virtual togetherness. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments9(2): 214–217.
10.
GerberHR (2017) eSports and streaming: twitch literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy Botzakis S (Ed.)61(3): 343–345.
11.
GibsonA (2019) Free speech and safe spaces: how moderation policies shape online discussion spaces. Social Media + Society5(1): 205630511983258.
12.
HamiltonWAGarretsonOKerneA (2014) Streaming on twitch: fostering participatory communities of play within live mixed media. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Toronto, ON, Canada, 26 April 2014, pp. 1315–1324. New York: ACM.
13.
HarpsteadERiosJSSeeringJ, et al. (2019) Toward a twitch research toolkit: a systematic review of approaches to research on game streaming. In. Proceedings of the annual symposium on computer-human interaction in play, Barcelona, Spain, 22–25 October 2019, pp. 111–119. New York: ACM.
14.
Hilvert-BruceZNeillJTSjöblomM, et al. (2018) Social motivations of live-streaming viewer engagement on Twitch. Computers in Human Behavior84: 58–67.
15.
HubermanBARomeroDMWuF (2008) Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope. First Monday14(1–5). DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1313405
16.
JanssenJHIJsselsteijnWAWesterinkJHDM (2014) How affective technologies can influence intimate interactions and improve social connectedness. International Journal of Human-computer Studies72(1): 33–43.
17.
JohnsonMRWoodcockJ (2019) “It’s like the gold rush”: the lives and careers of professional video game streamers on Twitch.tv. Information, Communication & Society22(3): 336–351.
18.
JonesQMoldovanMRabanD, et al. (2008) Empirical evidence of information overload constraining chat channel community interactions. In: Proceedings of the ACM 20 conference on computer supported cooperative work—CSCW’08, ACM.
19.
KarauSJWilliamsKD (1997) The effects of group cohesiveness on social loafing and social compensation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice12(2): 156.
20.
KarauSJWilliamsKD (2001) Understanding individual motivation in groups: The collective effort model. In TurnerME (ed.) Groups at work: theory and research, pp. 113–141. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates.
KaytoueMSilvaA (2012) Watch me playing, I am a professional: a first study on video game live streaming. In: Proceedings of the 21st international conference companion on world wide web—WWW’12 companion, 16 April 2012, pp. 1181–1188. New York: ACM.
23.
KimJWChoiJQuallsW, et al. (2008) It takes a marketplace community to raise brand commitment: the role of online communities. Journal of Marketing Management24(3–4): 409–431.
24.
KrautRELevineJMMartinez EscobarM, et al. (2020) What makes people feel close to online groups? The roles of group attributes and group types. In: Proceedings of the 14th International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM 2020), Atlanta, Georgia, 8–11 June 2020, pp. 382–392. Available at: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/7308
25.
KrautREResnickP (2012) Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-based Social Design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
26.
KuznekoffJHRoseLM (2013) Communication in multiplayer gaming: Examining player responses to gender cues. New Media & Society15(4): 541–556.
27.
KuznetsovaABrockhoffPBChristensenRHB (2017) lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software82(13): 1–26. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v082.i13.
28.
LingKBeenenGLudfordP, et al. (2005) Using social psychology to motivate contributions to online communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication10(4): 212–221. DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00273.x.
LongQTefertillerAC (2020) China’s new mania for live streaming: gender differences in motives and uses of social live streaming services. International Journal of Human–computer Interaction36(14): 1314–1324.
31.
LuZXiaHHeoS, et al. (2018) You watch, you give, and you engage: a study of live streaming practices in China. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computer systems, Montréal, Canada, 21 April 2018, pp. 1–13. New York: ACM.
32.
MalinenS (2015) Understanding user participation in online communities: a systemic literature review of empirical studies. Computers in Human Behavior46: 228–238. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.004.
33.
MaMAgarwalR (2007) Through a glass darkly: information technology design, identity verification, and knowledge contribution in online communities. Information Systems Research18(1): 42–67.
34.
NakandalaSCiampagliaGSuN, et al. (2017) Gendered conversation in a social game-streaming platform. In: Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media, Montréal, Québec, Canada, 15–18 May 2017, pp. 162–171. Available at: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICSWM/article/view/14885
35.
PelliconeAJAhnJ (2017) The game of performing play: understanding streaming as cultural production. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2 May 2017, pp. 4863–4874. New York: ACM.
36.
RashidAMLingKTassoneRD, et al. (2006) Motivating participation by displaying the value of contribution. In: Proceedings of the 2006 conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI 2006, Montréal, Québec, Canada, 22–27 April 2006, p. 955. New York: ACM.
37.
RheingoldH (2000) The Virtual Community, Revised Edition: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/7105.001.0001.
38.
RubergBCullenABrewsterK (2019) Nothing but a “titty streamer”: Legitimacy, labor, and the debate over women’s breasts in video game live streaming. Critical Studies in Media Communication36(5): 466–481. DOI: 10.1080/15295036.2019.1658886
39.
SeeringJKrautRDabbishL (2017) Shaping pro and anti-social behavior on twitch through moderation and example-setting. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing, 25 February 2017, pp. 111–125. New York: ACM.
40.
SeeringJWangTYoonJ, et al. (2019) Moderator engagement and community development in the age of algorithms. New Media & Society21(7): 1417–1443.
41.
SjöblomMTörhönenMHamariJ, et al. (2019) The ingredients of Twitch streaming: Affordances of game streams. Computers in Human Behavior92: 20–28.
42.
SpilkerHSAskKHansenM (2018) The new practices and infrastructures of participation: how the popularity of Twitch.tv challenges old and new ideas about television viewing. Information, Communication & Society23: 605–620.
43.
SulerJ (2004) The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior7(3): 321–326.
WangY-CKrautR (2012) Twitter and the development of an audience: those who stay on topic thrive! In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Austin, TX, 5–10 May 2012, pp. 1515–1518. New York: ACM. DOI: 10.1145/2207676.2208614.
47.
WohnDYFreemanGMcLaughlinC (2018) Explaining viewers’ emotional, instrumental, and financial support provision for live streamers. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montréal, Canada, 21–26 April 2018, pp. 1–13. New York: ACM.
48.
YangDKrautRLevineJM (2017) Commitment of newcomers and old-timers to online health support communities. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, 6–11 May 2017, pp. 6363–6375. New York: ACM.
49.
ZhangJHamiltonWLDanescu-Niculescu-MizilC, et al. (2017) Community Identity and User Engagement in a Multi-Community Landscape. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international AAAI conference on web and social media ICWSM 2017 (ICWSM 2017), Montréal, Québec, Canada, 15–18 May 2017, pp. 377–386.
50.
ZimmerFScheibeK (2019) What drives streamers? Users’ characteristics and motivations on social live streaming services. In: Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International conference on system science, Grand Wailea, Maui, 8–11 January 2019, pp. 2538–2547. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10125.59692
51.
ZimmerFScheibeKStockWG (2018) A model of information behavior research on social live streaming services (SLSSs). In: International Conference on Social Computing and Social Media, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 15–20 July 2018, pp. 429–448. Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-91485-5_33.
