IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2017 - 50

motivations is hard to ignore [1]. According to Benkler,
peer production is characterized by modularity of tasks
(they can be divided into many modules), their varied
granularity (requiring very little effort in most cases),
and quality control and module integration that is performed in a cheap, centralized way or in an iterative
process that is also peer produced [5]. We argue that
the diverse motivations drawing individuals to peer production projects can be actually value-based motivations in which value is understood as a personal value,
not monetary worth in the economic sense.

Values drive human behavior.

Value sensitive design research traditionally analyzes arbitrarily selected values, stemming from the
ethics or philosophy literature [6]. In contrast, for the
purpose of this paper we will refer to Schwartz's theory of basic human values, which shows that the multiplicity of values can be reduced to ten basic personal
values, defining motivational domains: self-direction,
stimulation, hedonism, achievement, power, security,
conformity, tradition, benevolence, and universalism
[4], [7]. Values form a circular structure, in which each
value has close neighbors, i.e., compatible values,
and far neighbors on the opposite side of the circle,
i.e., conflicting values. It enables structuring the
values along bipolar dimensions: 1) "openness to
change" - "conservation," and 2) "self-enhancement" -
"self-transcendence."
"Openness to change" can be characterized by such
sets of values as: self-direction (oriented towards selfimprovement, mastery, independence, and autonomy
of individual), stimulation (originating from the need for
variety and novelty that enable an optimal level of activation), and hedonism (which refers to the need for
pleasure). "Conservation" on the opposite side is composed of conformity values (which emphasize selfrestraint in interaction with others through obedience
or politeness in order to sustain smooth group functioning), tradition (symbolizing the group's solidarity
and thus contributing to its survival), and security
(which serves the interests of safety, harmony, or
national security). Therefore, the dimension "openness
to change" - "conservation" displays the conflict between
values which refer to freedom, independence of thought,
and inner need of change, and values that emphasize
social order, preservation of social norms, and resistance to change.

The second dimension, "self-enhancement" - "selftranscendence," reflects the conflict between caring
for individual and collective welfare. The "self-enhancement" pole captures more individualistic values like
achievement, power, and hedonism (which is also a
component of the "openness to change" pole of the
first dimension). Achievement values emphasize demonstrating competence and achieving socially acknowledged success, while power values emphasize the
attainment of a dominant position within a social system. On the other side of the dimension is "self-transcendence" which is composed of universalism values
(which emphasize the need for tolerance, social justice, equality, and protection of welfare of all people
and nature), and benevolence values (realizing the
need to preserve the welfare of close ones). Benevolence values include values such as being helpful, honest, loyal, and responsible.
Values that are important for a given individual form
an interrelated value system: they are ordered by importance relative to one another [3], [8]. They are relatively stable throughout the course of life but nevertheless
might evolve if the individual's reference group changes. How do specific values appear in communities
then? Why does one social group value social order and
security rather than openness and freedom? As we
describe below, there are at least four ways in which
any community can be regulated to, inculcate, among
other things, certain values.

Architecture
In a thorough account Lessig [2] proposes that behaviors are driven by four systems of regulation, each of
which may have values embedded within: law, market,
social norms, and architectures. The fourth regulatory
mechanism - architectures - is the focus of our
paper. Due to the fact that architecture alters the spaces inhabited by social systems, it is arguably the regulation that has the most instinctive feel to it - it is
hardly recognized as regulation at all. Therefore, its
role might be often overlooked but is nevertheless just
as important. Understanding architecture becomes
even more crucial in the virtual context because the
substance on which it operates - code - is far more
amenable to change than physical properties are in
the real world. This opens novel possibilities to shape
social systems and the values they pursue - both for
desirable social outcomes, as well as for malicious
intents and exploitation [9].
The shape of peer production communities - as
any other ICT mediated social systems - is defined by
the underlying technology that has allowed them to
appear. The functions and affordances of the platform - whether a simple discussion forum, a wiki

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

∕

SEPTEMBER 2017

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2017