Online lurking is a common behavior but defining it and understanding its motivations is complex. Various definitions and measurements for online lurking have been employed but have often suggested “lurking” to be conflated with other behaviors. This study developed and tested a scale to measure consistent online lurking (COOL), addressing the need for a clear conceptualization and measurement of this behavior. Exploratory factor analysis explicated two dimensions of online lurking – online invisibility and preference for content consumption, and confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the two-factor structure. The resulting scale demonstrated good reliability across two samples. The study differentiates consistent lurking from information-seeking and contextual factors, focusing on individuals who tend to lurk across platforms. This conceptualization provides a theoretical contribution by illuminating a subset of online users who are often underrepresented in research but are integral to online communities despite their invisibility.
Amichai-HamburgerYGazitTBar-IlanJ, et al. (2016) Psychological factors behind the lack of participation in online discussions. Computers in Human Behavior5: 268–277.
2.
BatesMJ (2016) Toward an integrated model of information seeking and searching. In: BatesMJ (ed.) Information Users and Information System Design: Selected Works of Marcia J. Bates (Volume III). Berkely, CA: Ketchikan Press, pp. 3–18.
3.
BuhrmesterMKwangTGoslingSD (2011) Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science6(1): 3–5.
4.
ChenXLiXYaoD, et al. (2019) Seeking the support of the silent majority: are lurking users valuable to UGC platforms?Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science47(6): 986–1004.
5.
ChengHChenC (2014) A study of lurking behavior: the desire perspective international. Journal of Computer and Information Engineering8(4): 938–941.
6.
EdelmannN (2013) Reviewing the definitions of “lurkers” and some implications for online research. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networks16(9): 645–649.
7.
EllisonNBTriệuPSchoenebeckS, et al. (2020) Why we don’t click: interrogating the relationship between viewing and clicking in social media contexts by exploring the “non-click.”Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication25(6): 402–426.
FinchWH (2020b) Methods for determining the number of factors to retain in exploratory factor analysis. In: FinchWH (ed.) Exploratory Factor Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
FullwoodCChadwickDKeepM, et al. (2019) Lurking towards empowerment: explaining propensity to engage with online health support groups and its association with positive outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior90: 131–140.
11.
HanJKimJHYoonHJ, et al. (2012) Social and psychological determinants of levels of engagement with an online breast cancer support group: posters, lurkers, and nonusers. Journal of Health Communication17(3): 356–371.
12.
HolbertRLGrillC (2015) Clarifying and expanding the use of confirmatory factor analysis in journalism and mass communication research. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly92: 292–319.
13.
HongYHuJZhaoY (2023) Would you go invisible on social media? An empirical study on the antecedents of users’ lurking behavior. Technological Forecasting & Social Change187: 122237.
14.
HsuMHJuTLYenCH, et al. (2007) Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communities: the relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. Journal of Human-Computer Studies65: 153–169.
15.
HungSYLaiHMChouYC (2015) Knowledge-sharing intention in professional virtual communities: a comparison between posters and lurkers. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology66(12): 2494–2510.
16.
HuntDAtkinDKrishnanA (2012) The influence of computer-mediated communication apprehension on motives for Facebook use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media56(2): 187–202.
17.
KeesJBerryCBurtonS, et al. (2017) An analysis of data quality: professional panels, student subject pools, and Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Journal of Advertising46(1): 141–155.
18.
KlineRB (2024) How to evaluate local fit (residuals) in large structural equation models. International Journal of Psychology59(6): 1293–1306.
19.
LaiHMChenTT (2014) Knowledge sharing in interest online communities: a comparison of posters and lurkers. Computers in Human Behavior35: 295–306.
20.
LiaoSChouE (2012) Intention to adopt knowledge through virtual communities: posters vs lurkers. Online Information Review36(3): 442–461.
21.
MazuroARaoN (2011) Online discussion forums in higher education: is “lurking” working?International Journal for Cross-disciplinary Subjects in Education2(2): 364–371.
22.
NguyenTM (2021) Four-dimensional model: a literature review on reasons behind lurking behavior: very Informal Newsletter on Library Automation. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems51(2): 302–317.
23.
NonneckeBPreeceJ (1999) Shedding light on lurkers in online communities. In: Ethnographic Studies in Real and Virtual Environments: Inhabited Information Spaces and Connected Communities (ed BucknerK), Edinburgh, 24–26January1999.
24.
NonneckeBPreeceJ (2000) Persistence and lurkers in discussion lists: a pilot study. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, 4–7 January.
25.
NonneckeBPreeceJ (2001) Why lurkers lurk. In: Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston, MA, 3–5 August.
26.
NonneckeBAndrewsDPreeceJ (2006) Non-public and public online community participation: needs, attitudes and behavior. Electronic Commerce Research6(1): 7–20.
27.
PreeceJNonneckeBAndrewsD (2004) The top five reasons for lurking: improving community experiences for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior20(2): 201–223.
28.
RauPLPGaoQDingYN (2008) Relationship between the level of intimacy and lurking in online social network services. Computers in Human Behavior24(6): 2757–2770.
29.
RosseelY (2012) Lavaan: an R Package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software48(2): 1–36.
30.
SheehanKB (2018) Crowdsourcing research: data collection with Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Communication Monographs85(1): 140–156.
31.
SipleyG (2024a) Lurking as literacy practice: a uses and gratifications study in neighborhood Facebook groups. New Media & Society26(7): 4277–4296.
32.
SipleyG (2024b) Just Here for the Comments: Lurking as Digital Literacy Practice. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
33.
SunNRauPPLMaL (2014) Understanding lurkers in online communities: a literature review. Computers in Human Behavior38: 110–117.
34.
TagarelliAInterdonatoR (2014) Understanding lurking behaviors in social networks across time. In: IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM, 2014), Beijing, China, 17–20 August.
35.
Van Uden-KraanCDrossaertCHTaalE, et al. (2008) Self-reported differences in empowerment between lurkers and posters in online patient support groups. Journal of Medical Internet Research10(2): e18.
36.
XiongZXiaHNiJ, et al. (2025) Basic assumptions, core connotations, and path methods of model modification – using confirmatory factor analysis as an example. Frontiers in Education10: 1506415.
37.
ZhaoJAbrahamsonKAndersonJG, et al. (2013) Trust, empathy, social identity, and contribution of knowledge within patient online communities. Behaviour & Information Technology32(10): 1041–1048.
