- How to People
- Posts
- Mental Models in community
It’s Wednesday, June 21st, and today I’m talking about three mental models that have deep implications when it comes to building a community.
First time reading? Sign up here.
Got some praise or feedback? We’re ready: [email protected]
Recent posts:
The Case for Community: Don’t Build Fans. Build a Movement.
Meh to Free Communities: Paying to Get in the Room
When Engagement Flops: We heard you. We just don’t care.
The Big Idea
Most of us are familiar with the usefulness of mental models such as Parkinson's Law or the Pareto Principle. There are hundreds of them across all categories from biology to economics.
I love mental models. Just using the term makes me feel cooler 😎
However, I don't often see them applied through a community lens, which is a shame because they challenge a lot of assumptions that may keep us from building something extraordinary. These three, in particular, have been on my mind as of late.
Mere Exposure Effect
What it is: The mere exposure effect is a psychological phenomenon that suggests that people tend to develop a preference or positive attitude towards things or people they are repeatedly exposed to. In simpler terms, the more familiar something becomes, the more we tend to like it.
Imagine you're part of an online community dedicated to cognitive self-experiments. When new members join, they may initially feel like outsiders, unsure of how to participate or where they fit in. This is where the power of the mere exposure effect comes into play.
As existing members regularly engage in discussions, share their experiences, and showcase their expertise, their presence becomes more familiar to the newbies. They start recognizing names, avatars, or profile pictures that consistently show up in conversations. Even though they haven't interacted directly, mere exposure to these active members creates a sense of connection and trust.
Over time, the new members become more comfortable with the community and start feeling like they're part of the gang. They begin to recognize the regular contributors, find common interests, and feel encouraged to join in the discussions. The mere exposure effect helps break down barriers and fosters a sense of belonging, which is crucial for virtual community building.
There is an inherent danger here, which is that communities that don't intentionally integrate strategic diversity will create an echo chamber of similar perspectives.
In the realm of virtual communities, familiarity is key. The more people are exposed to one another through meaningful interactions, the more likely they are to feel invested in the community, the less they churn.
The Takeaway
There are two obvious takeaways:
The imperative to diversify your community culture
The importance of active members in building rapport
But there is also a nuanced takeaway worth calling out: many clients I've worked with will have a magic number for their community launch. They want to start with 50, 100, 500 members to reach "critical mass".
This is misleading. What they want is engagement, and the idea is that if enough people are in the community, at least a handful will start regularly engaging, giving implicit permission for the rest to follow suit.
I'm not convinced this is true. New communities are intimate and exciting, but they're quiet in the beginning as everyone is deciding who to trust and whether they belong. I don't know that you can hack this through sheer volume. Instead, focus your efforts on getting to know your members. Have the 1:1 calls. Show up on those DM's. Be their anchor point.
The Map is Not the Territory
What it is: The Map is Not the Territory emphasizes the distinction between our subjective understanding of reality (the map) and the actual objective reality itself (the territory).
In the context of community building, the concept of "the map is not the territory" reminds us that our perceptions and understanding of a community may not always align with the actual reality. Just like a map represents a simplified version of the real world, our mental models and assumptions about a community are also abstractions.
Maps are helpful because they simplify reality, but they also have limitations. If you have a map of a city, it may help you understand where things are and how to get around, but the map is not exactly like the real city. It's a simplified version that leaves out some details. It can't tell you that a tree blew down on this road, or a house on the next street is now abandoned.
When we try to build or improve a community, it's important to recognize that our understanding may be limited or flawed. We may rely on stereotypes, assumptions, or outdated information that doesn't accurately reflect the community's diversity, needs, or changing dynamics. This can lead to ineffective strategies or solutions, particularly because most of your members aren't regularly talking to you.
The issue is often compounded by another sneaky little phenomenon known as first conclusion bias. Also known as anchoring bias, this is when people rely too much on the first piece of information they come across, even if it's not very reliable or important. Our brains get stuck on the first thing we hear or see and then we base our judgments or decisions on that initial piece of info.
Let's consider a scenario where a community is discussing potential solutions to address a recurring littering problem in a local park. During the discussion, the first person to speak suggests installing security cameras in the park to deter littering. This idea becomes the initial anchor for the discussion.
Due to first conclusion bias, community members may fixate on the camera idea as the primary solution without fully exploring or considering alternative approaches. Even if there are more effective or inclusive solutions available, such as organizing regular community clean-up events, implementing educational programs, or placing additional trash bins strategically, these options may receive less attention and consideration.
As a result, the community may hastily decide to invest in security cameras without thoroughly evaluating the potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. The focus on the initial suggestion can limit creative problem-solving and overlook opportunities for community engagement and empowerment.
Years ago, I was a "Sprint Master", which is a hella cool way of saying I used to facilitate Google Venture Design Sprints. One of the pieces that made GVDS both effective and surprisingly fun was how the exercises were designed to remove this bias, relying instead on democratizing ideas through creativity, "writestorming", instinct, and silent voting.
The Takeaway
Community design is not "set it and forget it". It's a process that requires a vigilant approach to listening and iterating. When people get married to their map, they very easily miss the slow disinvestment or gentrification happening right under their noses.
Also, consider the ways we evaluate what's working. Communities often use surveys, CSAT, and NPS, but how useful are these data points? Often, the people most likely to speak up are those that are already active in the community, reinforcing the loudest voices.
If we want to get a more accurate perspective of what's working, we're going to need to reach out directly to the less familiar names, who often have a world of useful feedback to share.
Second Order Effects
What it is: In general, second-order effects refer to the indirect consequences or outcomes that occur as a result of the initial or first-order effects. They are the ripple effects that happen as a chain reaction, triggered by the initial action.
Second-order effects play a significant role in community building, as they help us understand the broader and long-term consequences of our actions within a community. Here's how they might apply:
Ripple Effect of Engagement: When community members actively engage, it not only strengthens the immediate connections within the community but also inspires others to participate and get involved.
Trust and Collaboration: When community members consistently act in trustworthy and supportive ways, it creates a collaborative environment where people feel comfortable sharing ideas and collaborating on projects.
Diversity and Inclusion: When diverse perspectives, backgrounds, and experiences are welcomed and valued, it enriches the community's overall dynamics. Different ideas are shared, innovative solutions emerge, and a more inclusive culture develops. This, in turn, attracts a broader range of people and expands the community's reach and impact.
Sustainable Growth: Instead of solely seeking immediate growth in membership numbers, sustainable community building prioritizes quality engagement and conversations. By nurturing relationships and fostering a supportive environment, the community experiences organic growth over time, with members who are genuinely invested in its mission and values.
Ripple Effect of Community Initiatives: For example, a community-driven charity campaign can not only benefit the intended recipients but also inspire others to contribute to similar causes or ignite a broader movement. The positive impact of community initiatives can spread beyond the community itself, influencing and inspiring others in unexpected ways.
But it can also go terribly wrong.
A community I work with recently explored the option of monitoring who asked for help in the group and tagging them all in a weekly post, asking them to share about the help they received. While I understand the temptation to do this (it sounds like it would create more engagement and reinforce value), I've now seen two communities attempt this incorrectly and heard the feedback from members, who complained that:
It felt like they were being given a chore to do: Members who are paying to be in your group with their money or attention do not want to be assigned a task, however well-intended. People are often resistant to prescriptive directives.
They didn't always get help: Often, they received some interesting responses but didn't solve the issue directly. It was awkward to feel that they needed to comment and say "uhh...actually I didn't get this resolved here".
Communication types weren't honored: Not everyone likes being called out publicly. There are members who rarely post for a variety of reasons. When they finally do ask for input, turning it into more required communication can be a huge turn off.
It felt disingenuous: As one member complained "Don't use me to hack your engagement numbers". Ouch. But it’s true; this can often feel like a cheap way to squeeze more juice out of community interactions.
The Takeaway:
It's worth developing long-term thinking around scenario planning. One specific place I see this go awry is in behavioral incentives. For example, I've noticed communities will measure something like the number of posts or comments received. This is only incentivizing volume, which has nothing to do with quality or business outcomes and can result in some pretty lame engagement hacking.
Marinade
A few things I’ve read this week that are worth soaking in:
This solopreneur focused on a single niche community, resulting in a $54M exit.
A new kind of narrative: I was enthralled by this audio story of rhythms and grooves. If you’re a music lover, click immediately.
Value-packed video about why 10x goals are easier than 2x goals.
Onward,
April
Want to build an outstanding community? I can help in three ways:
Check out the CommunityOS Masterclass, a pithy, low-cost course covering all of the basics of community strategy 👉🏼 Get it here
Need support on strategy, launch, and/ or execution? Book a call with our agency. 👉🏼 Schedule here
Just need some custom guidance? 👉🏼 Book 1 :1 consult