IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2604.03209.html

Help Converts Newcomers, Not Veterans: Generalized Reciprocity and Platform Engagement on Stack Overflow

Author

Listed:
  • Lenard Strahringer
  • Sven Eric Pru{ss}
  • Kai Riemer

Abstract

Generalized reciprocity -- the tendency to help others after receiving help oneself -- is widely theorized as a mechanism sustaining cooperation on online knowledge-sharing platforms. Yet robust empirical evidence from field settings remains surprisingly scarce. Prior studies relying on survey self-reports struggle to distinguish reciprocity from other prosocial motives, while observational designs confound reciprocity with baseline user activity, producing upward-biased estimates. We address these empirical challenges by developing a matched difference-in-differences survival analysis that leverages the temporal structure of help-seeking and help-giving on Stack Overflow. Using Cox proportional hazards models on over 21 million questions, we find that receiving an answer significantly increases a user's propensity to help others, but this effect is concentrated among newcomers and declines with platform experience. This pattern suggests that reciprocity functions primarily as a contributor-recruitment mechanism, operating before platform-specific incentives such as reputation and status displace the general moral impulse to reciprocate. Response time moderates the effect, but non-linearly: reciprocity peaks for answers arriving within a re-engagement window of roughly thirty to sixty minutes. These findings contribute to the theory of generalized reciprocity and have implications for platform design.

Suggested Citation

  • Lenard Strahringer & Sven Eric Pru{ss} & Kai Riemer, 2026. "Help Converts Newcomers, Not Veterans: Generalized Reciprocity and Platform Engagement on Stack Overflow," Papers 2604.03209, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2604.03209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.03209
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Redzo Mujcic & Andreas Leibbrandt, 2018. "Indirect Reciprocity and Prosocial Behaviour: Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(611), pages 1683-1699, June.
    2. Greiner, Ben & Vittoria Levati, M., 2005. "Indirect reciprocity in cyclical networks: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 711-731, October.
    3. Stanca, Luca, 2009. "Measuring indirect reciprocity: Whose back do we scratch?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 190-202, April.
    4. Wayne E. Baker & Nathaniel Bulkley, 2014. "Paying It Forward vs. Rewarding Reputation: Mechanisms of Generalized Reciprocity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 1493-1510, October.
    5. Callaway, Brantly & Sant’Anna, Pedro H.C., 2021. "Difference-in-Differences with multiple time periods," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 225(2), pages 200-230.
    6. Lakhani, Karim R. & von Hippel, Eric, 2003. "How open source software works: "free" user-to-user assistance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 923-943, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Avalos-Trujillo, Luis, 2025. "Upstream reciprocity in the battle of good vs evil," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 371-395.
    2. David A. Steinberg & Yeling Tan, 2023. "Public responses to foreign protectionism: Evidence from the US-China trade war," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 145-167, January.
    3. Biljana Meiske, 2022. "Queen Bee Immigrant: The effects of status perceptions on immigration attitudes," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2022-12, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
    4. Tatsuya Sasaki & Satoshi Uchida & Isamu Okada & Hitoshi Yamamoto, 2024. "The Evolution of Cooperation and Diversity under Integrated Indirect Reciprocity," Games, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-16, April.
    5. Milena Tsvetkova & Michael W Macy, 2014. "The Social Contagion of Generosity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-9, February.
    6. David Hugh-Jones & Martin A. Leroch, 2015. "Intergroup revenge: a laboratory experiment on the causes," Working Papers 1510, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    7. Fischer, Sven & Güth, Werner, 2012. "Effects of exclusion on acceptance in ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1100-1114.
    8. Luca Stanca & Luigino Bruni & Marco Mantovani, 2011. "The effect of motivations on social indirect reciprocity: an experimental analysis," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(17), pages 1709-1711.
    9. Yuan Yuan & Tracy Liu & Chenhao Tan & Qian Chen & Alex Pentland & Jie Tang, 2019. "Gift Contagion in Online Groups: Evidence From Virtual Red Packets," Papers 1906.09698, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2023.
    10. Cassandra R. Chambers & Wayne E. Baker, 2020. "Robust Systems of Cooperation in the Presence of Rankings: How Displaying Prosocial Contributions Can Offset the Disruptive Effects of Performance Rankings," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 287-307, March.
    11. Herne, Kaisa & Lappalainen, Olli & Kestilä-Kekkonen, Elina, 2013. "Experimental comparison of direct, general, and indirect reciprocity," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 38-46.
    12. Hanyeong Kim & Yun Shin Lee & Kun Soo Park, 2018. "The Psychology of Queuing for Self-Service: Reciprocity and Social Pressure," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-15, November.
    13. Ma, Han & Velasco, Franklin & Janakiraman, Narayan & Yang, Zhiyong, 2024. "A meta-analytic investigation into the pay-it-forward phenomenon: The roles of individualism-collectivism and social distance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    14. Yutaka Horita, 2020. "Greater effects of mutual cooperation and defection on subsequent cooperation in direct reciprocity games than generalized reciprocity games: Behavioral experiments and analysis using multilevel models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-18, November.
    15. Schnedler, Wendelin, 2022. "The broken chain: evidence against emotionally driven upstream indirect reciprocity," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 136, pages 542-558.
    16. Warut Khern-am-nuai & Karthik Kannan & Hossein Ghasemkhani, 2018. "Extrinsic versus Intrinsic Rewards for Contributing Reviews in an Online Platform," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 871-892, December.
    17. Georg Kanitsar, 2021. "Self-Governance in Generalized Exchange. A Laboratory Experiment on the Structural Embeddedness of Peer Punishment," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, June.
    18. Brian T. McCann & George A. Shinkle, 2017. "Attention to Fairness versus Profits: The Determinants of Satisficing Pricing," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(5), pages 583-612, July.
    19. Lilia Zhurakhovska, 2014. "Strategic Trustworthiness via Unstrategic Third-party Reward – An Experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2014_06, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics, revised Jan 2017.
    20. Sabrina Jeworrek & Joschka Waibel, 2021. "Unethical employee behavior against coworkers following unkind management treatment: An experimental analysis," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(5), pages 1220-1234, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2604.03209. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.