AI & SOCIETY

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 110–122

Informational humidity model: explanation of dual modes of community for social intelligence design

Applications in Online Communities

Abstract

The informational humidity model (IHM) classifies a message into two modes, and describes communication and community in a novel aspect. At first, a flame message, dry information vs. wet information, is introduced. Dry information is the message content itself, whereas wet information is the attributes of the message sender. Second, the characteristics of communities are defined by two factors: the message sender’s personal specifications, and personal identification. These factors affect the humidity of the community, which corresponds to two phases of knowledge creation. In a rather wet community, members easily specify other members. This is effective for managing memberships and changing knowledge from tacit to formal. In a rather dry community, members barely identify with other members at all. This method is suitable for the formal-to-tacit phase of knowledge creation. Finally, it is discussed how social intelligence should be designed and what features are needed to support knowledge-creating communities.

References

  1. Azechi S (2000) Social psychological approach to knowledge-creating community. In: Nishida T (ed) Dynamic knowledge interaction. CRC Press, pp 15–57Google Scholar
  2. Azechi S, Matsumura K (2001) Motivation for showing opinion on public opinion channel: a case study. In: Baba N, Jain LC, Howlett RJ (eds) Knowledge-based intelligent information engineering systems and allied technologies KES2001 69. IOS Press, pp 344–347Google Scholar
  3. Azechi S, Matsumura K (2002) Interpersonal cognition in anonymous community. In: Damiani J, Howlett RJ, Jain LC, Ichalkaranje N (eds) Knowledge-based intelligent information engineering systems and allied technologies KES2002 82. IOS Press, pp 1321–1325Google Scholar
  4. Cacioppo JT, Petty RE (1982) The need for cognition. J Pers Soc Psychol 42:116–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cartwright DP, Zander AF (1968) Group dynamics: research and theory, 3rd edn. Harper and Rowe, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Dumber R (1998) Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of language. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Fujihara N (2001) How to evaluate social intelligence design. In: Terano T, Nishida T, Namatame TA, Tsumoto S, Ohsawa Y, Washio T (eds) New frontiers in artificial intelligence—joint JSAI 2001 workshop post-proceedings. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence LNAI2253. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Fukuhara T, Matsumura K, Azechi S, Fujihara N, Terada K, Yamashita K, Nishida T (2002) Creating city community consanguinity: use of public opinion channel in digital cities. In: Tanabe M, van de Besselaar P, Ishida T (eds) Digital cities II: computational and sociological approaches. Lecture notes in computer science LNCS2362. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 270–282Google Scholar
  9. Fukuhara T, Fujihara N, Azechi S, Kubota H, Nishida T (2003) Public opinion channel: a network-based interactive broadcasting system for supporting a knowledge-creating community. In: Howlett RJ, Ichalkaranje NS, Jain LC, Tonfoni G (eds) Internet-based intelligent information processing systems, chapter 7. World Scientific, pp 227–268Google Scholar
  10. Joinson AN (2001) Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: the role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. Eur J Soc Psychol 31:177–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kiesler S, Siegel J, McGuire T (1984) Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communications. Am Psychol 39:1123–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lea M, O’Shea T, Fung P, Spears R (1994) “Flaming” in computer-mediated communication: observations, explanations, implications. In: Lea M (ed) Contexts of computer-mediated communication. Harvester Wheatsheaf, London, pp 89–112Google Scholar
  13. Newcomb TM (1953) An approach to the study of communicative acts. Psychol Rev 60:393–404Google Scholar
  14. Nishida T, Fujihara N, Azechi S, Sumi K, Hirata T (1999) Public opinion channel for communities in the information age. New Gen Comput 17:417–427Google Scholar
  15. Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Polanyi M (1966) The tacit dimension. Routledge and Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Business AdministrationAsahi UniversityMizuho CityJapan

Personalised recommendations