Take One for the Team: Social-emotional Interactions and Outcomes on Social Question and Answers Sites

Sei-Ching Joanna Sin, Xinran Chen
{"title":"Take One for the Team: Social-emotional Interactions and Outcomes on Social Question and Answers Sites","authors":"Sei-Ching Joanna Sin, Xinran Chen","doi":"10.1145/3295750.3298955","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With a process- and interaction-focus, this study posited that the nature and flow of users' interactions on a social question & answer (SQA) thread can impact their collaborative information seeking outcomes. Interaction Process Analysis (IPA) was applied to investigate the types and outcomes of users' social-emotional interactions. Over 1,000 Stack Overflow postings were manually coded; Chi-square tests and logistic regressions were used for analysis. The study found that over half of the sample included IPA social-emotional acts. Interestingly, Disagrees , an act in IPA's negative social-emotional area, was the most frequently found category. Disagrees exhibited a significant negative relationship with the post-level outcome, post score, but a significant positive main effect and an interaction effect with a thread-level outcome, view count. The study identified two tension points: (1) potential benefits for the group of collaborative information seekers, at the slight expense of the individual who performed the negative social-emotional act; and (2) strains between the instrumental vs. social aspects of SQA. Research and practical implications of the findings were discussed.","PeriodicalId":187771,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3295750.3298955","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

With a process- and interaction-focus, this study posited that the nature and flow of users' interactions on a social question & answer (SQA) thread can impact their collaborative information seeking outcomes. Interaction Process Analysis (IPA) was applied to investigate the types and outcomes of users' social-emotional interactions. Over 1,000 Stack Overflow postings were manually coded; Chi-square tests and logistic regressions were used for analysis. The study found that over half of the sample included IPA social-emotional acts. Interestingly, Disagrees , an act in IPA's negative social-emotional area, was the most frequently found category. Disagrees exhibited a significant negative relationship with the post-level outcome, post score, but a significant positive main effect and an interaction effect with a thread-level outcome, view count. The study identified two tension points: (1) potential benefits for the group of collaborative information seekers, at the slight expense of the individual who performed the negative social-emotional act; and (2) strains between the instrumental vs. social aspects of SQA. Research and practical implications of the findings were discussed.
为团队做一件事:社会问答网站上的社会情感互动和结果
本研究以过程和交互为中心,假设用户在社交问答(SQA)线程上的交互的性质和流程会影响他们的协作信息寻求结果。应用交互过程分析(IPA)对用户社会情感交互的类型和结果进行了研究。超过1000个Stack Overflow帖子是手工编码的;采用卡方检验和logistic回归进行分析。研究发现,超过一半的样本包括IPA社会情感行为。有趣的是,不同意,在IPA的负面社会情绪领域的行为,是最常见的类别。不同意与后层次结果、后层次得分呈显著负相关,但与线程层次结果、浏览量呈显著正相关和交互作用。研究发现了两个紧张点:(1)协作信息寻求者群体的潜在利益,而执行消极社会情绪行为的个体则会受到轻微的损失;(2) SQA的工具性和社会性之间的差异。讨论了研究结果的研究和实际意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信